US Elections 2016

[Rostere]

I'm not asking you that and I'm not trying to catch you ..I just want to know if you like and or respect him?

 

So let me get my point, in London he was fighting extradition to Sweden. He had hundreds of supporters and people who paid his legal fees...then he decided to skip bail and went to hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy. His argument was Sweden would send him to the USA where he would be tortured and suffer indescribable punishment

 

But he really did was

• Insult the entire Swedish legal system by suggesting they would pander to any American request. He also also called the Swedish legal system liars as the rape charges were just fabrications
• He insulted the entire USA legal system by telling everyone he would be tortured...can you imagine a reality under the Obama government where such a high profile person would be tortured?
• And he has made NO effort to actually address the rape charges.... 

So why would you respect him or take what he says seriously?

 

 

But all of these points are irrelevant to the issue at hand. The Swedish justice system could interrogate Assange in London, which is the current praxis. The only interesting point is that an emphasis has been placed on getting him extradited before proceeding with the trial, which has no precedent and is completely unnecessary. Everything points to that certain people in the Swedish justice system have taken unprecedented steps towards getting their hands on him, without getting a conviction. That is the only interesting and relevant issue in this entire story.

 

He might be guilty of rape, and might not be, he might be an ****, might not be, but that is kind of beside the point.

[BruceVC]

 

I'm not asking you that and I'm not trying to catch you ..I just want to know if you like and or respect him?

 

So let me get my point, in London he was fighting extradition to Sweden. He had hundreds of supporters and people who paid his legal fees...then he decided to skip bail and went to hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy. His argument was Sweden would send him to the USA where he would be tortured and suffer indescribable punishment

 

But he really did was

• Insult the entire Swedish legal system by suggesting they would pander to any American request. He also also called the Swedish legal system liars as the rape charges were just fabrications
• He insulted the entire USA legal system by telling everyone he would be tortured...can you imagine a reality under the Obama government where such a high profile person would be tortured?
• And he has made NO effort to actually address the rape charges.... 

So why would you respect him or take what he says seriously?

 

 

But all of these points are irrelevant to the issue at hand. The Swedish justice system could interrogate Assange in London, which is the current praxis. The only interesting point is that an emphasis has been placed on getting him extradited before proceeding with the trial, which has no precedent and is completely unnecessary. Everything points to that certain people in the Swedish justice system have taken unprecedented steps towards getting their hands on him, without getting a conviction. That is the only interesting and relevant issue in this entire story.

 

He might be guilty of rape, and might not be, he might be an ****, might not be, but that is kind of beside the point.

 

No its not as simple as that, the Ecudorian embassy denied the initial attempt by Swedish lawyers to interview him in the embassy ..so they are also complicating the issue

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-prosecutor-idUSKCN0VI0V0

[Leferd]

Gromnir's favorite Justice, Antonin Scalia, dead at 79. Dang. 

 

Now it's a ballgame.

[Calax]

 

 

What Bruce is thinking, while it does not stand up to factual scrutiny I'm afraid to say, is just another example of the political tribalism that is gripping the US. Like many of his supporters Bruce believes in Barack Obama. Like many he believes Obama is a good man who wants to do good things. And the too many people are willing to accept what they are told is good ends justified by bad means. Obama is "their" guy so it must be ok. It was the same during GWB's admin I am sorry to say. Too many people who favor the Republicans did not stand up to stop the Patriot Act. Indeed too many who should be a bit more libertarian in their thinking supported it. The left opposed it. Obama doubled down on it now the left likes it and the right hates it. If everyone had their heads on straight is would have been stopped.

 

Those on the left want Democrats in power. The don't necessarily like Obama using the IRS to destroy political opposition but if it gets more democrats in power the ends justify the means. But someday that weapon will be in someone's else's hand. Why does no one ever think of that?

 

Every overreach, every abuse, every right usurped and every freedom mitigated harms us all. That is evil. That so many go along with it because the temporarily like the result, or it's "their guy" doing it makes it tragic. 

 

To quote Daniel Webster: "I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing."

You right, I do believe he is a good guy who wants to do good things. And he has done many good things, I can list them if you want to discuss them?

 

But don't you think using the word evil is hyperbole.....its just seems extreme?

 

What would you call using the IRS to shut down political organizations whose aims are opposed to his?

 

Oh, you mean that news story where they targeted both parties for further auditing but the media went around announcing they were bias and a bi partisan senate group declared they were clean?

 

 

But its very reassuring that they both support most of the fundamental ideals of Obama..which is a more equitable  and fair society for all.

Bruce I just don't understand where you get the notion this is what Barack Obama is all about. How is a society where an agency of the government is used to undermine political participation of opposing viewpoints fair and equitable? How is a society where veterans are subject to addtional police scrutiny because of political opinions the administration THINKS they MIGHT have fair and equitable? How is a government that asserts it would be perfectly ok to kill it's own citizens with no due process if the leader of that government believes they are participating in terrorisim? How is is fair and equitable for an administration to use executive orders to make changes to laws passed by the legislature and signed by the executive years after the fact? How is is fair and equitable when every shred of electronic communication is being monitored by the NSA? How is it fair of equitable if the government can use the force of law to complel a citizen, as a condition of citizenship, to enter into a private contract with a 3rd party of the governments choosing?

 

There is nothing fair or equitable about that has been going on in the United States the past fifteen years.

 

The first item is about the above, The second two are born from the Bush presidency. The third I'd say is debatable and significantly better than just using a "signing statement" to ignore the laws as Bush did. The NSA was Bush's legacy, and the last bit wasn't what Obama wanted. Obama wanted a Single payer/public option built into the Affordable Care act, but that was forcibly removed by Republicans during their various votes on it.

 

So yeah, everything you declare to be his legacy, isn't really his legacy.

 

Also Scalia's dead, so the Obama gets to pick a new justice.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Calax

[Leferd]

 

Also Scalia's dead, so the Obama gets to pick a new justice.

 

 

And some of the candidates are already calling for Obama to not nominate the next Justice...

 

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/698634625246195712

 

Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.

[Calax]

 

 

Also Scalia's dead, so the Obama gets to pick a new justice.

 

 

And some of the candidates are already calling for Obama to not nominate the next Justice...

 

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/698634625246195712

 

Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.

 

Because they want a Republican Justice on the bench... never mind that the Court still has to go through it's docket this year.

 

also this 

https://www.facebook.com/SashaGrey/posts/982542815118452

Edited February 13, 2016 by Calax

[ShadySands]

It's mid February and elections aren't until November and the winner won't take office until 11 months from now... I don't see them postponing it for nearly a year

[BruceVC]

 

I'm not asking you that and I'm not trying to catch you ..I just want to know if you like and or respect him?

Yes. Do you have a point to make about the lack of transparency on these trade agreements that impact almost everyone on this forums or are you just triggered by Assange?

 

Okay I watched the entire video so I would understand your concern...a couple of considerations 

 

1. There are trade blocks throughout the world that are designed to only benefit its members ...like BRICS
2. There is constant scrutiny of USA companies by the EU ...like the whole tax issue around Google in the UK. So the idea that somehow the USA is going to be able to abuse the EU through this agreement just doesnt make sense ..the EU is well aware of how to grow there economy 
3. The idea by that Journalist that " large global corporations "  will be able to run rampant in poor countries that will have no rights is really 1970's " Confessions of an Economic Hitman " rhetoric. Nowadays large corporations have to jump through numerous hoops to integrate
4. Finally the average person on the street doesn't need to know the contractual agreement between a multinational and a government  ....people need to learn to trust there governments

 

Hopefully this will alleviate your concerns ?

[Leferd]

 

It's mid February and elections aren't until November and the winner won't take office until 11 months from now... I don't see them postponing it for nearly a year

 

It'll make for some good politiking this year.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-wont-be-getting-another-sotomayor-anytime-soon/

 

A little old, but still relevant.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Leferd

[ShadySands]

Also, does the spot have to remain vacant the whole ~year or is there a process to select an interim judge?

 

I just realized how little I actually know about the workings of the Supreme Court, hmm

[kgambit]

Also, does the spot have to remain vacant the whole ~year or is there a process to select an interim judge?

 

I just realized how little I actually know about the workings of the Supreme Court, hmm

 

I think Obama can make a recess appointment that would last until the end of the congressional session, unless the recess appointment was confirmed as a permanent appointment. 

Edited February 14, 2016 by kgambit

[Wrath of Dagon]

Hopefully the market crash is big enough to completely destabilize the world economy so we don't live under this for more than a decade.

I don't think you've quite imagined what that would be like.

 

 

Obama wanted a Single payer/public option built into the Affordable Care act, but that was forcibly removed by Republicans during their various votes on it.

No, it was removed to have a filibuster proof majority of Democrats, unless you consider Lieberman a Republican.

 

 

Also, does the spot have to remain vacant the whole ~year or is there a process to select an interim judge?

 

I just realized how little I actually know about the workings of the Supreme Court, hmm

It can be vacant for as long as Senate doesn't confirm a nominee. So Republicans will have to decide whether to confirm a moderate Obola would have to nominate or have the possibility that the next president will be a Democrat with a Democrat Senate and appoint a far left person. I predict Republicans will try to drag it out till after the election. If the Court is tied 4-4, the appellate court decision stands.

 

Edit:

I think Obama can make a recess appointment that would last until the end of the congressional session, unless the recess appointment was confirmed as a permanent appointment.

Yeah, you're right, I doubt Republicans would let the Senate officially go into recess for that reason. Edited February 14, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[ShadySands]

Thanks all

[Elerond]

 

 

I'm not asking you that and I'm not trying to catch you ..I just want to know if you like and or respect him?

Yes. Do you have a point to make about the lack of transparency on these trade agreements that impact almost everyone on this forums or are you just triggered by Assange?

 

Okay I watched the entire video so I would understand your concern...a couple of considerations 

 

1. There are trade blocks throughout the world that are designed to only benefit its members ...like BRICS
2. There is constant scrutiny of USA companies by the EU ...like the whole tax issue around Google in the UK. So the idea that somehow the USA is going to be able to abuse the EU through this agreement just doesnt make sense ..the EU is well aware of how to grow there economy 
3. The idea by that Journalist that " large global corporations "  will be able to run rampant in poor countries that will have no rights is really 1970's " Confessions of an Economic Hitman " rhetoric. Nowadays large corporations have to jump through numerous hoops to integrate
4. Finally the average person on the street doesn't need to know the contractual agreement between a multinational and a government  ....people need to learn to trust there governments

 

Hopefully this will alleviate your concerns ?

 

 

 

 

Agreement and how it is prepared and negotiated are very questionable and agreement actually has impact on average person on street so they should have ability say about it, at least if we want to continue to call ourself as democratic society.

 

Here is some examples of questionable things in agreement's current form:

That it threatens self-determination right of EU member countries, because it includes things like establishing separate trade court in which US companies can sue countries over their changing laws and making court decisions that they feel to hamper their investments (like for example those actions that UK take against Google) . And members of this court consist from arbitrators that companies themselves pick. (Although this at least something that those who negotiate on behalf of EU didn't accept and it is under further negotiations, but their counter proposal of court that consist from judges from EU, USA and third world, this proposal has yet to go in negotiation round).  

 

Another things is harmonization of standards, because it can heavily hamper how countries can limit things that are dangerous for health and/or environment. Especially when currently most of harmonization would follow US standards instead of EU's. 

 

Free movement of investments and protections for investments. There is already quite big problem because companies move their profits in tax havens inside of EU and free movement of investments from EU to USA would make situation even worse than it is now. Protections for investments lets companies hide their real owners which gives them to slip from their responsibilities and it would make tax evasion even easier for them, which is step to opposite direction than where EU is currently going. 

 

And finally people should never trust their governments and always question their actions and ask rationale behind them, because we are democratic societies after all. 

 

P.S. Those questionable things are from Finland's foreign trade minister, who is pro EU, pro USA, pro Nato and pro Free Trade liberal conservative. Although she estimated that trade deal will not be struct during Obama administration and they mostly start from beginning if USA's next president is republican. 

[Hurlshort]

I will miss Justice Scalia.  He balanced out the liberal elements of the court while still being thoughtful and understanding of opposing views.  He also completed the greatest odd couple in government with Ginsberg.    

[Namutree]

.people need to learn to trust there governments

 

That's what the people of Flint did. Do you know how they were rewarded?

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

I'm not asking you that and I'm not trying to catch you ..I just want to know if you like and or respect him?

Yes. Do you have a point to make about the lack of transparency on these trade agreements that impact almost everyone on this forums or are you just triggered by Assange?

 

Okay I watched the entire video so I would understand your concern...a couple of considerations 

 

1. There are trade blocks throughout the world that are designed to only benefit its members ...like BRICS
2. There is constant scrutiny of USA companies by the EU ...like the whole tax issue around Google in the UK. So the idea that somehow the USA is going to be able to abuse the EU through this agreement just doesnt make sense ..the EU is well aware of how to grow there economy 
3. The idea by that Journalist that " large global corporations "  will be able to run rampant in poor countries that will have no rights is really 1970's " Confessions of an Economic Hitman " rhetoric. Nowadays large corporations have to jump through numerous hoops to integrate
4. Finally the average person on the street doesn't need to know the contractual agreement between a multinational and a government  ....people need to learn to trust there governments

 

Hopefully this will alleviate your concerns ?

 

 

 

 

Agreement and how it is prepared and negotiated are very questionable and agreement actually has impact on average person on street so they should have ability say about it, at least if we want to continue to call ourself as democratic society.

 

Here is some examples of questionable things in agreement's current form:

That it threatens self-determination right of EU member countries, because it includes things like establishing separate trade court in which US companies can sue countries over their changing laws and making court decisions that they feel to hamper their investments (like for example those actions that UK take against Google) . And members of this court consist from arbitrators that companies themselves pick. (Although this at least something that those who negotiate on behalf of EU didn't accept and it is under further negotiations, but their counter proposal of court that consist from judges from EU, USA and third world, this proposal has yet to go in negotiation round).  

 

Another things is harmonization of standards, because it can heavily hamper how countries can limit things that are dangerous for health and/or environment. Especially when currently most of harmonization would follow US standards instead of EU's. 

 

Free movement of investments and protections for investments. There is already quite big problem because companies move their profits in tax havens inside of EU and free movement of investments from EU to USA would make situation even worse than it is now. Protections for investments lets companies hide their real owners which gives them to slip from their responsibilities and it would make tax evasion even easier for them, which is step to opposite direction than where EU is currently going. 

 

And finally people should never trust their governments and always question their actions and ask rationale behind them, because we are democratic societies after all. 

 

P.S. Those questionable things are from Finland's foreign trade minister, who is pro EU, pro USA, pro Nato and pro Free Trade liberal conservative. Although she estimated that trade deal will not be struct during Obama administration and they mostly start from beginning if USA's next president is republican. 

 

I appreciate your post but this is one of those rare times I am going to disagree with you

 

Firstly its not the sign of a Democratic society to not trust your government? Do you not believe that the Finnish government actually wants the best for your people ? Why would you assume you can't trust your government...

 

I agree that in some countries you absolutely can't trust the government but not the EU?

 

Then that whole video is a combination of global economic reality and fear mongering, so at the moment basically every single country in the world has elements of global multinationals. This is a major foundation of a global world ...this is a good thing and something that third world countries are desperate for, investment. Now give me an example of why the average person in the street needs to understand the terms and conditions of how HSBC would operate in Finland.....why should you need to know? Most people wouldn't understand it and once again the various governments in the EU and HSBC own legal departments are very pedantic around the agreements and what the company can do 

 

Then this whole fear of the USA being able to sue the likes of the EU and the EU actually agreeing to this is ....just absurd. The EU consists of the likes of ECB, the European Commission and the individual finance ministers of some of the most prominent and successful economies in the world....why would these  people agree to something that would undermine the EU economy? 

[BruceVC]

 

.people need to learn to trust there governments

 

That's what the people of Flint did. Do you know how they were rewarded?

 

Well in the case of the USA the state governments can make certain mistakes 

[Wrath of Dagon]

McConnell says no SC replacement until next president: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/13/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-vacancy-should-be-filled-after-election/

[Leferd]

Ronald Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy 264 days before the 1988 election and made the case that it was the government's constitutional obligation to restore the Supreme Court to full complement.

 

https://twitter.com/igorvolsky/status/698682511350755328

Edited February 14, 2016 by Leferd

[Barothmuk]

Republican debate is infinitely more entertaining than the Democrat one.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Republican debate is infinitely more entertaining than the Democrat one.

Baro when I think of the Republican debate I imagine a pack of feral, snarling wolves fighting in  some arctic featureless   plain, the wind is howling and visibility is limited ....they tear into each other, its brutal and savage...no mercy is given but finally one wolf emerges as leader...blood covering its mouth 

 

When I think of Sanders and Clinton I imagine two cuddly bear cubs rolling down a hill in some Alpine valley, its summer and the entire valley is covered in flowers. The bear cubs don't really fight each other but merely play, they don't want to destroy each other. Finally one cub emerges as victor ...( and bear cubs are soooooo cute    )

[Elerond]

I appreciate your post but this is one of those rare times I am going to disagree with you

 

Firstly its not the sign of a Democratic society to not trust your government? Do you not believe that the Finnish government actually wants the best for your people ? Why would you assume you can't trust your government...

 

I agree that in some countries you absolutely can't trust the government but not the EU?

 

Then that whole video is a combination of global economic reality and fear mongering, so at the moment basically every single country in the world has elements of global multinationals. This is a major foundation of a global world ...this is a good thing and something that third world countries are desperate for, investment. Now give me an example of why the average person in the street needs to understand the terms and conditions of how HSBC would operate in Finland.....why should you need to know? Most people wouldn't understand it and once again the various governments in the EU and HSBC own legal departments are very pedantic around the agreements and what the company can do 

 

Then this whole fear of the USA being able to sue the likes of the EU and the EU actually agreeing to this is ....just absurd. The EU consists of the likes of ECB, the European Commission and the individual finance ministers of some of the most prominent and successful economies in the world....why would these  people agree to something that would undermine the EU economy?

 

Firstly I don't blindly trust my government because it all it members are human and they aren't usually brightest minds in my country. Also they are there to represent my interest (and interest of other people in Finland) and if they aren't open and give reasons for their decision I and other people of Finland can't review and determine if their actions were actually in our best interest as they should. And without that knowledge I can't do educated decision in next elections if I continue to give my support for them or do I seek new representatives for my interests. Also blind trust for government opens doors for corruption and other things that people who have power but no supervision do and in democratic societies people are supervisors of their government, all their power should come from will of people. Not blindingly trust in government is even more important when it comes to EU, because EU represent all it member nations and not only Finland so representatives there less likely represent my interest than they do in Finnish government. Also nature of EU's governance allows even more corruption and misuses of power than government of Finland. Although on bright side our representatives in our local governments work as partial supervisors over EU's governance which make it easier to supervise such multinational institution, but existence of EU make it even more important that people in Finland supervise our own government and demand them to do their jobs and supervise over EU's governance and keep us in the loop. Also it is important to keep our representatives in European Parliament responsible of their actions and give reasons for Parliaments actions and supervise European Commission. If people don't question their governments and keep up how their interest are handled by them our democratic systems lose their foundation. It would be like company that don't question actions of their employees.

 

It is not fear that they can sue, it is actual fact that TTIP's current revision would give corporations power sue countries and ECB or Commission or any other institution but that new international trade court, which will be established to handle those suits, will have power to say anything about it if agreement would come in effective in its current form. Whole purpose of that agreement is to create new rules in trade between USA and EU and those new rules will overwrite current ones to make trade easier and more free. Also it is not USA who has ability to sue, but US companies that make invests in EU (this of course also means that EU companies can sue USA, but I write these concerns from Finnish perspective naturally). And as I pointed out those concerns in my previous post were from out Foreign Trade minister, who is the accountable Finnish representative in negotiations about the agreement (so I am not sure that are you saying that I should trust or not trust my government in this matter? Because now your statements are contract each other ).

 

People don't need to necessary know how any specific company will work in Finland, but they need to know when some international agreement will change how they can govern themselves. And also need to have knowledge of new rules so that they can judge how those will effect their everyday lives, companies, etc..

Edited February 14, 2016 by Elerond

[Wrath of Dagon]

Ronald Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy 264 days before the 1988 election and made the case that it was the government's constitutional obligation to restore the Supreme Court to full complement.

 

https://twitter.com/igorvolsky/status/698682511350755328

Funny how liberals suddenly find outmoded, useless Constitution when it's convenient.

[Calax]

 

Ronald Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy 264 days before the 1988 election and made the case that it was the government's constitutional obligation to restore the Supreme Court to full complement.

 

https://twitter.com/igorvolsky/status/698682511350755328

Funny how liberals suddenly find outmoded, useless Constitution when it's convenient.

 

It's not just Liberals... I mean the Arch Conservative Abraham (or was it Ibrahim?) Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus.

 

Also Mitch McConnal is trying to convince the world not to appoint until the election is settled now