Politics US Edition Volume II

[Gorth]

Makes you wonder if the FAA is an independent organization, or are they completely under the thumb of other interests, political or otherwise?

No sooner did the plane get the FAA certification and someone cries "foul". Never mind that the FAA and it's certifications is worth **** all in large part of the rest of the world by now and will require recertification by other authorities because there is no trust left at all when it comes to the FAA.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55372499

US Senate investigators say that Boeing officials "inappropriately coached" test pilots during efforts to recertify the company's 737 Max aircraft.

The planes were grounded in March 2019 following two deadly crashes.

Investigators accused Boeing and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials of "attempting to cover up important information".

[Guard Dog]

Correct me if I'm wrong... isn't espionage an act of war? Doesn't anyone thing the President, either of them... should say something about this? I'm not suggesting we expel all ambassadors and go to DEFCON 2 but surely there is SOMETHING they should be doing? 

[HoonDing]

Amerika tries the same constantly, they are just less competent.

[Gorth]

Traditionally spies got exchanged in Berlin at "Checkpoint Charlie". That doesn't quite work this way anymore with cyber espionage. No doubt everyone is doing it. Russians, Americans, Israelis, Chinese, Europeans, etc. Bonus points if you can frame your cyber espionage on someone else and play them against each other.

 

[213374U]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Correct me if I'm wrong... isn't espionage an act of war? Doesn't anyone thing the President, either of them... should say something about this? I'm not suggesting we expel all ambassadors and go to DEFCON 2 but surely there is SOMETHING they should be doing? 

I figure they won't even bother to change their passwords. A tweet or two perhaps is the most you can expect.

Remember that time when the NSA was caught tapping Merkel's phone? That was fun.

[Malcador]

8 hours ago, Gorth said:

Makes you wonder if the FAA is an independent organization, or are they completely under the thumb of other interests, political or otherwise?

No sooner did the plane get the FAA certification and someone cries "foul". Never mind that the FAA and it's certifications is worth **** all in large part of the rest of the world by now and will require recertification by other authorities because there is no trust left at all when it comes to the FAA.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55372499

US Senate investigators say that Boeing officials "inappropriately coached" test pilots during efforts to recertify the company's 737 Max aircraft.

The planes were grounded in March 2019 following two deadly crashes.

Investigators accused Boeing and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials of "attempting to cover up important information".

Sadly nothing will come of this.

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Correct me if I'm wrong... isn't espionage an act of war? Doesn't anyone thing the President, either of them... should say something about this? I'm not suggesting we expel all ambassadors and go to DEFCON 2 but surely there is SOMETHING they should be doing? 

It should be seen as a real offensive on the institutions of the USA and all Americans should be annoyed and concerned

But you cant or wont go to war on cyber espionage because even though you can almost definitely prove it was a Russian attack they will always deny it and even if you confirm it comes from within Russia they will just deny its state sponsored and claim its independent hackers.

So there is no " real " smoking gun to motivate a serious escalation. This needs to be fought in the world of cyber warfare and the USA has the potential and resources to do this through its own cyberwarfare division 

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Correct me if I'm wrong... isn't espionage an act of war? Doesn't anyone thing the President, either of them... should say something about this? I'm not suggesting we expel all ambassadors and go to DEFCON 2 but surely there is SOMETHING they should be doing? 

biden responded, but he can't even get his people through the door at the pentagon at the moment.

trump, by comparison, never adds heat to any "russia hoax."

worse, U.S. State Department Closing Two Consulates In Russia 

were one more item on putin's wish list before trump leaves office? 

for any still trying to imagine other bad actors responsible, pompeo singled out the russians. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[BruceVC]

14 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

biden responded, but he can't even get his people through the door at the pentagon at the moment.

trump, by comparison, never adds heat to any "russia hoax."

worse, U.S. State Department Closing Two Consulates In Russia 

were one more item on putin's wish list before trump leaves office? 

for any still trying to imagine other bad actors responsible, pompeo singled out the russians. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Gromnir now that the Trump presidency is over I always wanted to ask you a question that I felt the issues with Trump would have made the question unfair due to your focus at the time 

Why have you never been openly critical about or concerned around  Russia's attempts to undermine US institutions that do define what the US is about, like the importance  of free and fair election?

I am not trying to single you out on a disingenuous level, its just you are a qualified lawyer who has devoted his life to important values of the US Constitution and how even sometimes you must do things that are anathema but you do these things in the interest of legal principles  like " all people accused of a crime are  entitled to a qualified defense "  ....like defending a racist or a right winger

So I am just surprised you arent raising real concerns about this type of warfare on the USA. I do know you have been critical on the Trump surrogates who worked with Russia and lied but I cant recall you actually  calling out Putin or Russia directly ?

[Gromnir]

have never been quiet 'bout our concerns regarding russia.

LTG H.R. McMaster: The Toughest Man on Russia?

have posted the video embedded in the article more than once. am recommending a viewing for any who is thinking the threat o' russia is diminished 'cause they is impoverished (economy 'bout the size o' texas but with ~5x the population.)

how many times has we mocked obama for his it didn't age well debate response to romney. 

as an aside, recent fired #1 at cisa were prophetic when he posted the following:

https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ncas/alerts/aa20-296a

we linked the post 2 days after cisa made available.

Trump downplays Russia in first comments on cyberattack

"Officials at the White House had been prepared to put out a statement Friday afternoon that accused Russia of being “the main actor” in the hack, but were told at the last minute to stand down, according to one U.S. official familiar with the conversations who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

"It is not clear whether Pompeo got that message before his interview, but officials are now scrambling to figure out how to square the disparate accounts. The White House did not immediately respond to questions about the statement or the basis of Trump’s claims."

so charlie fox.

edit:

as if the election nonsense couldn't get weirder.

Trump Discussed Naming Campaign Lawyer as Special Counsel on Election Fraud

HA! Good Fun!

ps in case it were missed, from the haberman twitter link:

"During the meeting, the president asked about Flynn’s suggestion of deploying the military, those briefed said. That was also shot down."

both flynn and powell were at the meeting.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Gromnir

[rjshae]

11 hours ago, Gorth said:

Makes you wonder if the FAA is an independent organization, or are they completely under the thumb of other interests, political or otherwise?

They aren't particularly well funded, so they are dependent on the aircraft manufacturers for much of the technical knowledge and testing expertise.

[Zoraptor]

The only way the MAX got certified in the first place was due to regulatory capture of the FAA by Boeing so it wouldn't be surprising if it got recertified the same way. Fundamentally the MAX will always try and crash itself because the 737 airframe simply wasn't designed for the size of engines they've now stuck on it, so it will always try and crash itself. All its problems flow on from that single fact. If they wanted the big engines it needed a full redesign to be fundamentally safe but instead went with corner cutting and doing it on the cheap.

A plane constantly trying to crash itself is far from a unique situation- for a F35 or Eurofighter- but it's not great if you're flying 150 people around.

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

worse, U.S. State Department Closing Two Consulates In Russia

That's a delayed consequence of the last big round of diplomat expulsions in 2017 when Russia reduced US diplomat numbers in Russia to parity with theirs in the US. The US had probably been hoping that some of the extra 755 (!) 'diplomats' the US had in Russia would be let back in at some point so the consulates could be properly staffed again, but that seems unlikely under Biden.

Alternatively, and more likely, they're planning on shutting down the 2 Russian consulates in Houston and San Francisco (?) and want to remove the obvious retaliatory targets.

[Maedhros]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/530968-warren-reintroduces-bill-to-bar-lawmakers-from-trading-stocks

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Guard Dog]

5 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/530968-warren-reintroduces-bill-to-bar-lawmakers-from-trading-stocks

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

My knee-jerk reaction is who the hell does the government think it is trying to tell a citizen of the United States they cannot make a legal transaction with their own money.

 

[Maedhros]

22 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

My knee-jerk reaction is who the hell does the government think it is trying to tell a citizen of the United States they cannot make a legal transaction with their own money.

 

It wouldn't be a legal transaction under this new law. Lawmakers are in a very special position, special rules should apply. There's something very iffy about being able to buy stocks, when you have access to information that could largely affect the market days before it becomes public knowledge. If the ones who enrichened themselves due to inside information were actually seized and jailed, this would be a different story. But nothing seems to be done about it?

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Maedhros

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

My knee-jerk reaction is who the hell does the government think it is trying to tell a citizen of the United States they cannot make a legal transaction with their own money.

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?

[BruceVC]

10 hours ago, Gromnir said:

have never been quiet 'bout our concerns regarding russia.

LTG H.R. McMaster: The Toughest Man on Russia?

have posted the video embedded in the article more than once. am recommending a viewing for any who is thinking the threat o' russia is diminished 'cause they is impoverished (economy 'bout the size o' texas but with ~5x the population.)

how many times has we mocked obama for his it didn't age well debate response to romney. 

as an aside, recent fired #1 at cisa were prophetic when he posted the following:

https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ncas/alerts/aa20-296a

we linked the post 2 days after cisa made available.

Trump downplays Russia in first comments on cyberattack

"Officials at the White House had been prepared to put out a statement Friday afternoon that accused Russia of being “the main actor” in the hack, but were told at the last minute to stand down, according to one U.S. official familiar with the conversations who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

"It is not clear whether Pompeo got that message before his interview, but officials are now scrambling to figure out how to square the disparate accounts. The White House did not immediately respond to questions about the statement or the basis of Trump’s claims."

so charlie fox.

edit:

as if the election nonsense couldn't get weirder.

Trump Discussed Naming Campaign Lawyer as Special Counsel on Election Fraud

HA! Good Fun!

ps in case it were missed, from the haberman twitter link:

"During the meeting, the president asked about Flynn’s suggestion of deploying the military, those briefed said. That was also shot down."

both flynn and powell were at the meeting.

I apologize, I was wrong about you not  raising genuine Russian concerns 

I didnt read those previous comments but I did read your Trump concerns which was why I was under the wrong impression

Because now Biden is president their will naturally be less Trump chaos and the USA needs to focus on other real foreign and domestic threats like this constant and irritating Russian cavalier attitude towards perpetuating crimes like Cyber espionage 

[BruceVC]

2 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?

I have several issues with what Warren is doing and they start with this is the type of thing I raised as a concern with a Democrat victory ...the implementation of well meaning "far left " and socialist policies that could inadvertently harm the US financial markets and how they operate

Most, not all but most, politicians should be able to trade any stocks if they understand the market. I doubt they really did there own trading so they would use a stockbroker known as an intermediary 

But there is no conflict of interest unless you are suggesting these politicians can directly influence the stock price which would be a form of inside trading which is a crime and they would be prosecuted 

But they dont influence any stock prices as the price of your stock is intrinsically  linked to buying and selling of the shares and this is directly linked to the real performance of the company. So for example is the company going to make its committed and yearly target ? Politicians dont control the profitability of private sector companies because it would be illegal or unconstitutional at least 

Edited December 20, 2020 by BruceVC

[Gorth]

If a CEO or a CFO does insider trading, you bet the legal hammer falls. Why should a politician have special benefits and be able to do the same without repercussions? Especially when it comes to pending political decisions that affect share prices.

 

[BruceVC]

18 minutes ago, Gorth said:

If a CEO or a CFO does insider trading, you bet the legal hammer falls. Why should a politician have special benefits and be able to do the same without repercussions? Especially when it comes to pending political decisions that affect share prices.

 

Yes but any politician is not the CEO or CFO or is a board member, that is my point

So why should a politician be charged for trading shares on a company that they have no influence on?

[Skarpen]

13 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Yes but any politician is not the CEO or CFO or is a board member, that is my point

So why should a politician be charged for trading shares on a company that they have no influence on?

You think political decisions don't influence markets? Or that politicians don't have access to informations that can affect stock prices? Come on, man

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

You think political decisions don't influence markets? Or that politicians don't have access to informations that can affect stock prices? Come on, man

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 

[Boeroer]

This year the head of German BAFIN had to go because he traded with Wirecard stocks: a company which he was supposed to control and which was one the biggest financial fraud in German history which the BAFIN didn't investigate even though there were hundreds of journalists, activists etc. who shouted "look into Wirecard!"

I'm pretty sure some politicians will follow. And rightfully so. 

[BruceVC]

10 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

This year the head of German BAFIN had to go because he traded with Wirecard stocks: a company which he was supposed to control and which was one the biggest financial fraud in German history which the BAFIN didn't investigate even though there were hundreds of journalists, activists etc. who shouted "look into Wirecard!"

I'm pretty sure some politicians will follow. And rightfully so. 

Absolutely and Germany is a very good example of how governments can prosecute private sector companies and politicians when they involved in crimes like manipulating of the stock price

But that doesnt mean we should support the banning of allowing any politician to be able to trade shares unless its illegal activity like BAFIN in which case you should prosecute 

[Boeroer]

The thing is it wasn't even illegal. The head of a control instance like BAFIN (federal control instance for the financial industry) is allowed to trade whatever he wants. The problem was that BAFIN and several high-ranking politicians didn't do anything against Wirecard although everybody was screaming "FRAUD"! Now thousands of "normal" people lost their pensions etc.

And you might wonder what the motivation behind this inactivity was *surprise-surprise*. But it wasn't illegal. Might become illegal now (I hope so).

It's also not illegal for our former Minister of Environmental Affairs to become consultant for a gas pipeline project afterwards - or for a former German Chancellor to become board member of Gazprom. Or for a former Minister of Transportation to become CEO of Deutsche Bahn. I mean hello? What is this? Some kind of reverse undercover organized crime movie? People are like "What the eff?" - but nothing is done because the people who profit from this are the same making the rules. 

It should not be allowed that politicians trade in stocks or otherwise hold shares of companies they influence (unless non-profit maybe). It should also not be allowed that they take jobs with companies they had influence over after they quit politics. There has to be a looong moratorium at least. Because... corruption.

In exchange just pay them very well and give them a high, livelong rent after their service. Oh wait, we're already doing this here... oh well...  

By the way my wife is working for the German government and thinks the same. But we don't want her to get into trouble so please hush!

Edit: of course this isn't the US so please excuse the excursion to German politics. I just thought it was a good example that might work universally. Look at that Senator Perdue maybe. 

 

Edited December 20, 2020 by Boeroer