Politics US Edition Volume II

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Yes they can influence corporate profitability but political policies are not  suppose to be about the direct influence of share price of any listed companies 

If you have any evidence of that at any listed company you need to take that evidence to the police or legal authorities that deal with financial crimes like the SEC in the USA. I can guarantee they will prosecute if the evidence is accurate because in most  countries  the authorities  love throwing the book at private sector companies and making  a good show about it 

Or alternatively you can spare the tax payer money and instead of trying to prove whether said politician used his inside knowledge for his personal gain, just declare that politicians are not allowed to trade stocks.

[BruceVC]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/russia-hasnt-just-hacked-our-computer-systems-its-hacked-our-minds/2020/12/17/7ddd72a8-40a7-11eb-8bc0-ae155bee4aff_story.html

Guys here is highly recommended read around the greater optics of the Russian hack and what it also represents 

[Guard Dog]

12 hours ago, Achilles said:

Is it reasonable to have a rule which states that people who are in a position to influence markets are not able to personally benefit from doing so? Especially if they voluntarily put themselves in that positions under the guise of serving others and not themselves?

Once upon a time, it was legal to purchase another person with your own money. Was the government wrong to make that illegal?

Not even the same thing is it? Stocks and securities are not living humans. When the president and vice president get elected to office all of their assets are placed in a blind trust and managed by someone else. I suppose you could try to do something like that for a congressman or senator. But passing a law for bidding them to manage their own assets without some alternative is a non starter. Besides some of these old birds spent 30 years in politics. Stock and securities are a vital part of retirement planning for pretty much everybody now.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Not even the same thing is it? Stocks and securities are not living humans. When the president and vice president get elected to office all of their assets are placed in a blind trust and managed by someone else. I suppose you could try to do something like that for a congressman or senator. But passing a law for bidding them to manage their own assets without some alternative is a non starter. Besides some of these old birds spent 30 years in politics. Stock and securities are a vital part of retirement planning for pretty much everybody now.

 

1) Except Trump, right?

2) Not sure you answered the question

[Guard Dog]

18 minutes ago, Achilles said:

1) Except Trump, right?

2) Not sure you answered the question

Which? if it was reasonable to keep people from profiting from their positions of influence? Well it’s already illegal to do that. It’s called insider trading and people do go to jail for that. Heck you can get dismissed from Congress for even the suspicion. The ethics committee takes that pretty seriously. Unless you’re a member of the majority party. Or the question was it OK for the government to make slavery illegal? If you ask me that should’ve been settled before the constitution was even ratified. The folks in 1788 did the country no favors by not eliminating slavery before the constitution was even ratified. I realize there was a chance they would lose Georgia and South Carolina over that. If that was the price it should have been paid. They could not have lasted on their own economically. A Civil War and generations of suffering might have been avoided.

but on the other hand there are a lot of people living happy and productive lives in the United States today, particularly people of color, who would never have been born. So even in terrible things there’s usually an upside. 
 

anyway back on the topic at hand. If you want to set up some kind of a blind trust for Congress members the way the president and vice president have that would be one way to go. But you cannot tell one American they may not do some legal activity another American can do. Surely you see the legal problem with that idea right?

Edited December 20, 2020 by Guard Dog

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Surely you see the legal problem with that idea right?

Actually I don't. You're arguing it as a legal question and I'm proposing that it's an ethics question.

It's not uncommon for managers within an organization to be subject to "blackout" dates, during which they cannot make certain types of trades - usually their own company stock, but in some cases with stocks related to their industry. It's accepted as a normal part of the role and a safeguard against any claims of impropriety. Is there a good reason why this is wisdom in the business sector but not in congress?

Lastly, I guess I'm just trying to square the "they're all corrupt" talk against the "it's only corruption if they cross this very specific line, otherwise they are private citizens and any move to curb that is government overreach" talk. Do you see how these might seem like contradictory viewpoints?

P.S.

Quote

a blind trust for Congress members the way the president and vice president have

Except Trump, right?

[ShadySands]

I don't see what the big deal is. There are already jobs that have prohibitions on otherwise legal actions. Just the price of having the job.

[Gromnir]

members o' congress are not a suspect class, and as we keep trying to tell @Guard Dog, money is not a fundamental right. as such, there only need be a rational basis for a law which would preclude members o' Congress, or other politicians, from benefiting from sales o' stock or other identifiable investments. the government need pay you if they take your property, but prevent you from making stock trades if you want to be a Congressman is gonna need overcome an exceeding low bar to pass legal muster.

politicians, by the nature o' their jobs, is privy to information not available to the public. public trust in legislators or politicians is arguable diminished when stories 'bout folks such as loeffler and perdue arise in the press. a law which prevents such skeevy transactions from being possible would arguable diminish public distrust in the motives o' elected officials by eliminating an incentive to exploit information unavailable to the public. "arguable" is enough. is nothing in the constitution which precludes such limits... is no right to free trade o' stocks, which is precise why insider trading is legal prohibited.  

however, if one were to pass such legislation, is likely it would only affect elected officials up for reelection current or in future. apply retroactive would be problematic 'cause voting for Congressmen is a right in the Constitution. lindsey graham were recent reelected to the senate. didn't give him or his voters a chance to decide regarding the stock trade prohibition when he were elected. so, six years? yup.

is a similar issue with term limits btw. can create term limits, but for incumbents is only gonna apply following the current term in office.

as for consulate closing, am amused by the suggestion this were on the to-do list for the trump administration and they is just getting 'round to it now a couple years after the fact... or the more silly suggestion o' this being a preemptive action. sure, the announced explanation were that the closings were related to staffing parity issues resulting from previous closings which occurred in freaking 2017. been so busy with other things like deregulating shower heads and toilets that it just slipped the mind o' administration officials until the month before a new President is set to take office? alternative: US punched selves in the face so russia can't get satisfaction o' doing so? neener neener?  HA! lord knows trump ain't proactive eliminating a future headache for biden by addressing this little administrative oversight.  

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 23, 2020 by Gromnir

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I dunno, it seems kinda cussed that the folks rulingrepresenting us can potentially profit from say a plague that has seen a lot of people driven to destitution and 300000 corpses with information the lowly peasants ain't privy to. Looking it up congresscritters are already getting over twice the median income so I don't really have much sympathy for investment woes of some rich folks when people I know barely can afford rent and are on the gofundme healthcare plan.

[rjshae]

How disturbing is it to have John Bolton be the voice of rationality in this government? Come on Jan. 20th.

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, rjshae said:

How disturbing is it to have John Bolton be the voice of rationality in this government? Come on Jan. 20th.

his plain speaking rationality woulda' been much appreciated before the hour o' his book's publication, including those days and weeks preceding the impeachment of donald j. trump.  in the later months of 2019, one might have thought mr. bolton had perhaps converted to buddhism and adopted a vow o' silence so taciturn were he at the time. 

"another day at the office"? if so, and calls for martial law recent reported is analogous to the day-to-day excesses o' the President as bolton observe for many months, then am thinking it were moral bankrupt o' him to have kept such information held so close to his chest like miser's ill-gotten silver as posed to exercising his newfound rationality and glibness. 

he were complicit. now he is not?

am doubtful bolton finding his courage in 2019 woulda' made any difference insofar as impeachment, but sharing truths when doing so might have had the chance o' benefiting his country could have had no result other than an increase in our respect today for the man and his rationality... even if such divisive edification woulda' hurt the eventual sales o' his book.

and speaking of martial law and the military seizure of voting machines...

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 21, 2020 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

double, but not related to previous post. apologies.

Trump campaign takes fight over Penn. election, ballot laws to Supreme Court

article isn't worth reading but the comments coming after the article is...

am not gonna describe 'cause is a bit like describing a horrific car accident or drug house gang battle; our efforts would be gratuitous.

as to the trump campaign's newest attempts to have SCOTUS take up cases the Justices has heretofore been ignoring or rejecting in part or whole, am thinking a visual illustration o' legal efforts headed by rudy giuliani and jenna ellis on behalf o' trump co may prove more succinct.

if there were something new or different in these filings, we would share. isn't such. taking aim at the same trees.

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

On 12/20/2020 at 1:49 PM, Achilles said:

Actually I don't. You're arguing it as a legal question and I'm proposing that it's an ethics question.

It's not uncommon for managers within an organization to be subject to "blackout" dates, during which they cannot make certain types of trades - usually their own company stock, but in some cases with stocks related to their industry. It's accepted as a normal part of the role and a safeguard against any claims of impropriety. Is there a good reason why this is wisdom in the business sector but not in congress?

Lastly, I guess I'm just trying to square the "they're all corrupt" talk against the "it's only corruption if they cross this very specific line, otherwise they are private citizens and any move to curb that is government overreach" talk. Do you see how these might seem like contradictory viewpoints?

P.S.

Except Trump, right?

Trump did not have control of his assets while in office. I’m not sure who did. The presidents finances are managed in a blind trust while they serve. When it comes to corruption in Congress there are many, many forms it can take. Insider trading is probably the least and easiest to detect. I’ll be honest I don’t really have a strong opinion on this one way or the other. But it seems like a pretty hard sell because you’re going to have to get the Congress critters to agree to do that to themselves.

[Elerond]

34 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Trump did not have control of his assets while in office. I’m not sure who did. The presidents finances are managed in a blind trust while they serve. When it comes to corruption in Congress there are many, many forms it can take. Insider trading is probably the least and easiest to detect. I’ll be honest I don’t really have a strong opinion on this one way or the other. But it seems like a pretty hard sell because you’re going to have to get the Congress critters to agree to do that to themselves.

Trump assets were controlled by his sons 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

Trump assets were controlled by his sons 

Yup :(

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Trump did not have control of his assets while in office. I’m not sure who did. The presidents finances are managed in a blind trust while they serve. When it comes to corruption in Congress there are many, many forms it can take. Insider trading is probably the least and easiest to detect. I’ll be honest I don’t really have a strong opinion on this one way or the other. But it seems like a pretty hard sell because you’re going to have to get the Congress critters to agree to do that to themselves.

Again, I'm just trying to square this against other things I hear you say.

Or to put it another way, I can tell that you care deeply about corruption in government. What I'm hearing is that, when framed as a values question, if put in a position where we had to weigh rooting out corruption against supporting individual freedoms, individual freedoms comes first. In which case, it would seem that we should just accept that a certain amount of corruption is inevitable. When framed as a legal question, we should just trust that norms will be respected and that "bright lines" will be identified when crossed. When framed as a logistics question, what "should be" is maybe less important that what can practically be accomplished. Interestingly, it seems to me that this last one should afford you some insight into the minds of those who consider third party votes as "wasted".

[Guard Dog]

29 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Yup

Again, I'm just trying to square this against other things I hear you say.

Or to put it another way, I can tell that you care deeply about corruption in government. What I'm hearing is that, when framed as a values question, if put in a position where we had to weigh rooting out corruption against supporting individual freedoms, individual freedoms comes first. In which case, it would seem that we should just accept that a certain amount of corruption is inevitable. When framed as a legal question, we should just trust that norms will be respected and that "bright lines" will be identified when crossed. When framed as a logistics question, what "should be" is maybe less important that what can practically be accomplished. Interestingly, it seems to me that this last one should afford you some insight into the minds of those who consider third party votes as "wasted".

I don’t see is how we have to choose between the two. That’s the kind of “transactional thinking” Gromnir was warning against. In most respects Donald Trump was a better candidate to protect individual liberty than Hillary Clinton ever could’ve been. I didn’t vote for Donald Trump. It’s quite possible he would even have been a better candidate for individual liberty than Joe Biden. I still didn’t vote for Donald Trump. It would be a cold day in hell before I supported a man like that. If a political figure is corrupt and I really don’t give a damn where he sits on the political spectrum. He’s not worthy of the office he sits in. If you were asking me if I would rather see an honest authoritarian or a corrupt libertarian my answer would be neither. I reject the notion that it’s a choice of two. There is always a third option even if it’s only “none of the above“. Like I said your vote is your name. No candidate is owed that just because they mostly agree with you or they presume you have to pick some lesser evil. You don’t.
 

now the great legal barbarian of the west takes that a one step further than I do. Trump is a terrible president, a corrupt authoritarian and the Republicans supported him. Therefore the Republicans deserve to lose. Can’t fault his thinking on that. But I would rather see the Republicans retain control of some of the government so the Democrats do not have total power. I’m pulling very hard for one or both of the republican candidates in Georgia to win their respective races and deny the Democrats complete control of Washington. But for what it’s worth if everything were reversed and the Democrats were trying to prevent complete Republican control of Washington I would be pulling for the Democrats in that instance. Politically united government is a thing to be feared and avoided. Just my opinion. In the particular instance of the Georgia runoff I don’t know that any of the four candidates are corrupt or not. All of them have said and done some morally questionable things from what I’ve read. I don’t think any of those four are any dirtier than the rest of the rats in the sewer

Edited December 22, 2020 by Guard Dog

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I don’t see is how we have to choose between the two. That’s the kind of “transactional thinking” Gromnir was warning against. In most respects Donald Trump was a better candidate to protect individual liberty than Hillary Clinton ever could’ve been. I didn’t vote for Donald Trump. It’s quite possible he would even have been a better candidate for individual liberty than Joe Biden. I still didn’t vote for Donald Trump. It would be a cold day in hell before I supported a man like that. If a political figure is corrupt and I really don’t give a damn where he sits on the political spectrum. He’s not worthy of the office he sits in. If you were asking me if I would rather see an honest authoritarian or a corrupt libertarian my answer would be neither. I reject the notion that it’s a choice of two. There is always a third option even if it’s only “none of the above“. Like I said your vote is your name. No candidate is owed that just because they mostly agree with you or they presume you have to pick some lesser evil. You don’t.
 

now the great legal barbarian of the west takes that a one step further than I do. Trump is a terrible president, a corrupt authoritarian and the Republicans supported him. Therefore the Republicans deserve to lose. Can’t fault his thinking on that. But I would rather see the Republicans retain control of some of the government so the Democrats do not have total power. I’m pulling very hard for one or both of the republican candidates in Georgia to win their respective races and deny the Democrats complete control of Washington. But for what it’s worth if everything were reversed and the Democrats were trying to prevent complete Republican control of Washington I would be pulling for the Democrats in that instance. Politically united government is a thing to be feared and avoided. Just my opinion.

Which part of my post is this in reference to?

[Guard Dog]

7 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Which part of my post is this in reference to?

You were wondering whether it was more important to have ideological compatible candidates who are corrupt or honest candidates who are ideologically incompatible. The short answer is it’s a false choice to think you have to choose between the two. Selecting the lesser evil is still choosing evil.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

You were wondering whether it was more important to have ideological compatible candidates who are corrupt or honest candidates who are ideologically incompatible. The short answer is it’s a false choice to think you have to choose between the two. Selecting the lesser evil is still choosing evil.

No, that wasn't my question at all.

My question was: how do I reconcile the various positions you've staked out on this particular topic? I'm assuming one of them best represents your actual views, but unfortunately, they each at least partially contradict other positions I've heard you take. This isn't judgement; there's absolutely room for nuance, but some clarification is needed.

[Guard Dog]

30 minutes ago, Achilles said:

No, that wasn't my question at all.

My question was: how do I reconcile the various positions you've staked out on this particular topic? I'm assuming one of them best represents your actual views, but unfortunately, they each at least partially contradict other positions I've heard you take. This isn't judgement; there's absolutely room for nuance, but some clarification is needed.

I believe I do represent my views 95% of the time. Although I will admit sometimes I will stake out a contrarian position just to be the devil’s advocate. The discussion on whether Congress critters should be for bidden from trading in stocks while in office is an example of that. It’s nothing I have a very strong opinion about one way or the other. Although my knee-jerk reaction anytime the government says someone cannot do something (or must do something) is “screw you“. I do have a strong antiauthority streak. And a very strong desire to just be left alone.

I do want a government that protects and respects individual rights and liberties. I also want a government that does not abuse our tax dollars. And I want 10 million dollars. The last one I believe is the one I’m most likely to get. So if we can’t get what we want I figure I’ll take the next best thing. A government that is immobilized by the infighting and intransigence of its members. The thinking being they can’t screw us if they’re trying to screw each other. Of course last night they showed everybody just tell wrong that notion is. 
 

I am a card carrying dues paying member of the United States libertarian party. I have voted for the libertarian candidate in every election since 1996 except for 2008 when I voted for John McCain. I do not think the Libertarian party would do a particularly good job running the country. In fact if they got everything they wanted all at once it would be a hot mess. However with the Democrats tilting farther and farther left in the Republicans becoming whatever the hell they are becoming the only advocate for limited government and individual liberty left in the US political spectrum is the libertarian party. That’s why I support them.  
 

In a nutshell that’s my political beliefs system. I think for the most part I have been pretty consistent.

[Guard Dog]

Trump turns on Pence and staffers who say he lost 

I’d say this was all a joke but it’s just not funny. It’s not even sad. It’s worse than that.

[rjshae]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Trump turns on Pence and staffers who say he lost 

I’d say this was all a joke but it’s just not funny. It’s not even sad. It’s worse than that.

And now we have our Ahab.

[Guard Dog]

8 hours ago, rjshae said:

And now we have our Ahab.

At least Ahab had a legit beef. No one bit Trumps leg off nor deprived him of what was legitimately his. Of course there is no convincing him of that. 

[BruceVC]

17 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

I don’t see is how we have to choose between the two. That’s the kind of “transactional thinking” Gromnir was warning against. In most respects Donald Trump was a better candidate to protect individual liberty than Hillary Clinton ever could’ve been. I didn’t vote for Donald Trump. It’s quite possible he would even have been a better candidate for individual liberty than Joe Biden. I still didn’t vote for Donald Trump. It would be a cold day in hell before I supported a man like that. If a political figure is corrupt and I really don’t give a damn where he sits on the political spectrum. He’s not worthy of the office he sits in. If you were asking me if I would rather see an honest authoritarian or a corrupt libertarian my answer would be neither. I reject the notion that it’s a choice of two. There is always a third option even if it’s only “none of the above“. Like I said your vote is your name. No candidate is owed that just because they mostly agree with you or they presume you have to pick some lesser evil. You don’t.
 

now the great legal barbarian of the west takes that a one step further than I do. Trump is a terrible president, a corrupt authoritarian and the Republicans supported him. Therefore the Republicans deserve to lose. Can’t fault his thinking on that. But I would rather see the Republicans retain control of some of the government so the Democrats do not have total power. I’m pulling very hard for one or both of the republican candidates in Georgia to win their respective races and deny the Democrats complete control of Washington. But for what it’s worth if everything were reversed and the Democrats were trying to prevent complete Republican control of Washington I would be pulling for the Democrats in that instance. Politically united government is a thing to be feared and avoided. Just my opinion. In the particular instance of the Georgia runoff I don’t know that any of the four candidates are corrupt or not. All of them have said and done some morally questionable things from what I’ve read. I don’t think any of those four are any dirtier than the rest of the rats in the sewer

 GD in your opinion do you think Trump was overall worse than Obama, who would you chose if you had to select one of them for another 4 years?

 

 

[Guard Dog]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

 GD in your opinion do you think Trump was overall worse than Obama, who would you chose if you had to select one of them for another 4 years?

 

 

Obama. As bad as his authoritiaian bent was Trumps was worse because it does not even pay lip service to Constitutonal restrictions or legalities. Obama was not at all afraid to bend the law when no one was looking. Nor was he afraid to use the apparatus of government to hurt peope if it furthered his own ends. He was terrible, but Trump is worse. Plus had Obama lost in 2012 he would have walked away with his head held high. He would never have pitched this hissy fit we are getting from Trump.