US Elections 2016

[BruceVC]

 

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..

/

Hold on...maybe I'm misunderstanding you....are you telling me Finnish citizens get to scrutinize government decisions?

 

In my country people like me help people make the right decision....think about it Elerond wouldnt it be better not having  to think about a solution when I can just tell you the right answer.....then you don't have to worry about making the wrong decision ?

[BruceVC]

 

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.

 

WOD do you think the USA has declined under Obama...and if so what specifically? You have mentioned some things but I am still keen to see your updated view 

[Vaeliorin]

Just out of curiosity, anyone know what happens if Obama appoints someone, but they aren't confirmed during his tenure?  Do they continue through the confirmation process when a new president comes in, or are they tossed out and someone new appointed?

 

Personally, not opposed to liberal justices, but I am opposed to activist judges, and the two seem to generally be one and the same, sadly.

[BruceVC]

Just out of curiosity, anyone know what happens if Obama appoints someone, but they aren't confirmed during his tenure?  Do they continue through the confirmation process when a new president comes in, or are they tossed out and someone new appointed?

 

Personally, not opposed to liberal justices, but I am opposed to activist judges, and the two seem to generally be one and the same, sadly.

" but I am opposed to activist judge"  

 

I love the world you guys all live in....I have called this " first world privileged blindness " ( dont you think thats a cool phrase )and I'm not being condescending. I often see it and hope one day that would be a  reality for what ails my fellow countrymen 

 

Its a good place to get to and not realize you there 

Edited February 14, 2016 by BruceVC

[Valsuelm]

Just out of curiosity, anyone know what happens if Obama appoints someone, but they aren't confirmed during his tenure?  Do they continue through the confirmation process when a new president comes in, or are they tossed out and someone new appointed?

 

Personally, not opposed to liberal justices, but I am opposed to activist judges, and the two seem to generally be one and the same, sadly.

A president nominates a justice. The senate confirms. It is possible for a president to nominate a justice and then have that justice confirmed after the president leaves office.

[Bartimaeus]

Just out of curiosity, anyone know what happens if Obama appoints someone, but they aren't confirmed during his tenure?  Do they continue through the confirmation process when a new president comes in, or are they tossed out and someone new appointed?

 

Personally, not opposed to liberal justices, but I am opposed to activist judges, and the two seem to generally be one and the same, sadly.

From what I've heard on reddit, the President can appoint whom he wishes, but unless it's confirmed by the Senate (and no others are appointed/nominated in the meantime), then the appointment essentially lasts only one year (there are actually a few more details than that, such as if they're really determined and really, really want to disrupt things to prevent there from being even a temporary additional liberal judge, they can actually break this by deciding to never go into recess the entire year, but this was essentially my understanding of it).

 

e: words

Edited February 14, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Rostere]

OMG, Trump, you can't say that GWB fabricated WMD evidence for the Iraq War. How rude! Boo! Totally not appropriate to say that Bush has some blame for the 9/11 attacks! We must never talk about that. Especially not in front of a Bush, we must be kind to Jeb! But Hillary Clinton was of course 100% responsible for Benghazi, everyone knows that. Quick, everyone get to your computers, write articles about how hard Trump lost the debate and how we should never talk critically about 9/11 or the Iraq War!

 

Meanwhile, observations from the fact-based world.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Rostere

[Vaeliorin]

 

Just out of curiosity, anyone know what happens if Obama appoints someone, but they aren't confirmed during his tenure?  Do they continue through the confirmation process when a new president comes in, or are they tossed out and someone new appointed? Personally, not opposed to liberal justices, but I am opposed to activist judges, and the two seem to generally be one and the same, sadly.

A president nominates a justice. The senate confirms. It is possible for a president to nominate a justice and then have that justice confirmed after the president leaves office.

Ah. I just wasn't sure if the change in power would cause the nomination to be dropped. (Yes, I realize now that I said appoint when I should have said nominate. It was unintentional, and a result of not paying close attention when I was posting.)

[Meshugger]

OMG, Trump, you can't say that GWB fabricated WMD evidence for the Iraq War. How rude! Boo! Totally not appropriate to say that Bush has some blame for the 9/11 attacks! We must never talk about that. Especially not in front of a Bush, we must be kind to Jeb! But Hillary Clinton was of course 100% responsible for Benghazi, everyone knows that. Quick, everyone get to your computers, write articles about how hard Trump lost the debate and how we should never talk critically about 9/11 or the Iraq War!

 

Meanwhile, observations from the fact-based world.

 

...which will work as before. Their incompetence on handling the matter will bite their asses in the end. The day when these neocons (=old trotskies) are thrown out cannot be dawned too soon.

 

Btw, lets ask DNC Chair on these strange superdelegates:

 

 

The best part is at about 2:00. 

 

 

 

"unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials dont have to be in a position where they are running against grasroots activists"

 

...all in the name of diversity and inclousivety. Strange how those tenets lead to people being less represented to their interests in the end. How strange.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Meshugger

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Meanwhile, observations from the fact-based world.

 

Interesting.

 

 

 

The show played a clip of Cheney saying, “We know [saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

“Was that true or not,” host Chris Matthews asked.

“We were saying–”

“Can you answer that question? Was that true?”

“No, that was not true,” he finally said.

 

From where I'm standing, that exchange makes remarkably little sense. In what world is admitting that you basically lied to the entire nation a reasonable move? It doesn't make you any less of a liar.

[Rostere]

 

Meanwhile, observations from the fact-based world.

 

Interesting.

 

The show played a clip of Cheney saying, “We know [saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

“Was that true or not,” host Chris Matthews asked.

“We were saying–”

“Can you answer that question? Was that true?”

“No, that was not true,” he finally said.

 

From where I'm standing, that exchange makes remarkably little sense. In what world is admitting that you basically lied to the entire nation a reasonable move? It doesn't make you any less of a liar.

 

But it would be absurd to claim at this point that Saddam Hussein had built nuclear weapons. How could he not agree to the allegation being false? The current consensus is that there was no evidence for WMDs, and that Cheney and his cohorts were twisting the facts beyond all recognition and willfully using "sources" with zero credibility.

 

The Bush administration had years of poking around in Iraq, but they couldn't find a single shred of evidence of any WMDs other than the nerve gases provided by the US itself. Compare this to the deluge of allegations before the invasion. We have the fabricated Iraq-Niger uranium deal, admitted liars such as "Curveball" and his mobile biological weapon factories, the aluminium tube story which was twisted and then leaked by Cheney staff to later support their own arguments, and so on and so forth. All leaked and declassified memos documents point towards people talking about the need to convince people that Iraq had WMDs. Clearly if they had any actual evidence in all of this, they would have put forth that evidence. In light of them pushing the WMD line in spite of there being no evidence, well, that is the definition of lying to the public. But clearly nobody is going to continue to lie when faced with undeniable evidence to the contrary. And there is no need to take the blame yourself when you can just say you were handed these allegations by someone else.

 

Hell, even Colin Powell - whose image holding the vial at the UN has become the the 21st century's strongest image of the public being fed lies - has admitted the intelligence on Iraq was completely wrong, and had he known that at the time, he would not have invaded Iraq. I don't think any person, not even GWB or Cheney, would say that the intelligence was in fact correct. But everybody is also going to blame someone else for coming up with these wild-eyed theories about Iraqi WMDs in the first place. The question is not whether the charges were trumped up, but who knew about it, and on whose request it was done.

[Namutree]

OMG, Trump, you can't say that GWB fabricated WMD evidence for the Iraq War. How rude! Boo! Totally not appropriate to say that Bush has some blame for the 9/11 attacks! We must never talk about that. Especially not in front of a Bush, we must be kind to Jeb! But Hillary Clinton was of course 100% responsible for Benghazi, everyone knows that. Quick, everyone get to your computers, write articles about how hard Trump lost the debate and how we should never talk critically about 9/11 or the Iraq War!

 

Meanwhile, observations from the fact-based world.

He did go a little far by blaming George Bush for 9/11. That tragedy was an inevitable product of interventionist foreign policy that predates Bush. The same would have happened regardless of who was president in 2001.

[Volourn]

Funny enough, Hussein admitted to having WMDs. The fault for it is on him.

 

It is like if I rob a store, put my hand in my pocket, pretend it's a gun then the store owner ends up shooting me b/c he thogut I had a gun... Who is to blame? LMAO

[HoonDing]

Highly entertaining vitriol.

 

You know you're in a slump when the best you can do during a debate is argue "urmom".

[BruceVC]

Funny enough, Hussein admitted to having WMDs. The fault for it is on him.

 

It is like if I rob a store, put my hand in my pocket, pretend it's a gun then the store owner ends up shooting me b/c he thogut I had a gun... Who is to blame? LMAO

Of course,also he used them against the Iranians and the Kurd's

 

I am way over the whole " America should not have invaded Iraq" .....the real issue here is most of the ME is just not interested in understanding why a Democracy is a good thing. For them religious intolerance is preferable ....so the West must just not get involved. The Russians also dont place much value in overall human rights unless its there own citizens so they would feel more comfortable in the region...that makes sense to me

[Wrath of Dagon]

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

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now.

 

WOD do you think the USA has declined under Obama...and if so what specifically? You have mentioned some things but I am still keen to see your updated view

Rule of law definitely declined when the President constantly refuses to enforce or follow the law. We're a laughing stock in foreign affairs because our enemies believe us weak and stupid. All the new regulations and laws and the general anti-business attitude I believe hurt the economy. The accumulated national debt is a heavy burden on the economy. The deficit is going up without bound again and no one's dealing with it, possibly leading to an economic collapse in the future.

 

As far as Iraq having nuclear weapons, I think Cheney meant to say Iraq had reconstituted a nuclear weapon capability, not an actual nuclear weapon, because I don't remember such a claim being made at the time.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Rostere]

 

OMG, Trump, you can't say that GWB fabricated WMD evidence for the Iraq War. How rude! Boo! Totally not appropriate to say that Bush has some blame for the 9/11 attacks! We must never talk about that. Especially not in front of a Bush, we must be kind to Jeb! But Hillary Clinton was of course 100% responsible for Benghazi, everyone knows that. Quick, everyone get to your computers, write articles about how hard Trump lost the debate and how we should never talk critically about 9/11 or the Iraq War!

 

Meanwhile, observations from the fact-based world.

He did go a little far by blaming George Bush for 9/11. That tragedy was an inevitable product of interventionist foreign policy that predates Bush. The same would have happened regardless of who was president in 2001.

 

Well, yes and no. There was ample evidence of the attacks before 9/11 occurred. You can't blame Bush for creating the threat, but you can blame him for not preventing the attacks. Although that does not necessary implicate him personally of course, nor does it necessarily mean that the attacks were not prevented intentionally. But they did happen, and the more you read about it, the more mind-boggling it becomes that they did not arrest the hijackers earlier.

 

Rubio was also right about Clinton not dealing with Osama earlier. But while that statement is factually true, it is sort of beside the point in this discussion. It does not make Bush less culpable if others could have prevented 9/11 at an earlier stage, when there was no evidence for any bigger plot.

 

 

Funny enough, Hussein admitted to having WMDs. The fault for it is on him.

 

It is like if I rob a store, put my hand in my pocket, pretend it's a gun then the store owner ends up shooting me b/c he thogut I had a gun... Who is to blame? LMAO

Of course,also he used them against the Iranians and the Kurd's

 

You are both right, of course. Saddam had the nerve gas agents he had retrieved from the US, which were relevant way before the Bush regime. These were also retrieved after the war, but were (or so the story goes) in an deteriorated state. But this discovery was obviously not all over the world the day after. Everybody knew of these, and if US-made nerve gas in an inert state was the only thing they could show to the world, well, better not to announce any findings at all.

 

At the point of the Iraq War, there was no reason to believe any of the US' false allegations about Iraq's WMD programs. The actual experts were all unanimous on this.

[Valsuelm]

 

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

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now.

 

It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression.

 

That said, in modern times, very few politicians at the national level respect and appreciate the U.S. Constitution, and it's likely that almost as few have even read it. Something that most of even the worst politicians at the national level in the 19th century had, and had done.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Elerond]

 

 

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

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now.

 

It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression.

 

That said, in modern times, very few politicians at the national level respect and appreciate the U.S. Constitution, and it's likely that almost as few have even read it. Something that most of even the worst politicians at the national level in the 19th century had, and had done.

 

 

Is it actually possible to graduate from school in USA without getting passing grade from course about constitution? (Not any way relating in topic, but I am just curios)

[BruceVC]

 

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

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now.

 

WOD do you think the USA has declined under Obama...and if so what specifically? You have mentioned some things but I am still keen to see your updated view

Rule of law definitely declined when the President constantly refuses to enforce or follow the law. We're a laughing stock in foreign affairs because our enemies believe us weak and stupid. All the new regulations and laws and the general anti-business attitude I believe hurt the economy. The accumulated national debt is a heavy burden on the economy. The deficit is going up without bound again and no one's dealing with it, possibly leading to an economic collapse in the future.

 

As far as Iraq having nuclear weapons, I think Cheney meant to say Iraq had reconstituted a nuclear weapon capability, not an actual nuclear weapon, because I don't remember such a claim being made at the time.

 

Okay those criticism are not dissimilar to GD, when you say enemies can you be specific ?

 

Question, what would  you say if I told you that millions of people who live outside the USA think that USA offers them the best quality of life and the best economic prospects ?

[HoonDing]

 

 

 

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

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now.

 

It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression.

 

That said, in modern times, very few politicians at the national level respect and appreciate the U.S. Constitution, and it's likely that almost as few have even read it. Something that most of even the worst politicians at the national level in the 19th century had, and had done.

 

 

Is it actually possible to graduate from school in USA without getting passing grade from course about constitution? (Not any way relating in topic, but I am just curios)

 

You're talking about a country where random Joe doesn't even know all 51 states.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

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

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now.

 

It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression.

 

That said, in modern times, very few politicians at the national level respect and appreciate the U.S. Constitution, and it's likely that almost as few have even read it. Something that most of even the worst politicians at the national level in the 19th century had, and had done.

 

 

Is it actually possible to graduate from school in USA without getting passing grade from course about constitution? (Not any way relating in topic, but I am just curios)

 

 

Yes.

 

It's safe to say that most people have never read it, even though it's not exactly a long read. Hence the not these days uncommon 'this isn't constitutional' claims from various sides of debates, where the it's clear that those saying it have never read the document. Even fewer have read the Federalist and anti-federalist papers, or other historical documents, which give a pretty clear indication of what was intended in the U.S. Constitution (some aspects of it have been thoroughly corrupted or ignored over the years; most famously (but not only) the 'commerce clause').

 

A school might discuss certain aspects of it, ie: most people have an idea of the protection of free speech in the 1st amendment, but at the same time a large chunk of those people totally misunderstand the 'freedom of religion' aspect of the same amendment. One could chalk this up to their lack of reading comprehension, or their lack reading, period.

 

Reading the U.S. Constitution isn't even required in most law schools (one would think your average lawyer should be familiar with the supreme law of the land, but a great many are not). Nor is it required for most if not all of the various public officials and military personal who swear to uphold it. Most of these folks don't even know what exactly it is they are upholding. The sad truth is that the vast majority of those who have died 'defending it' have never even read it.

 

This is no small reason why we're quite far down the road to hell, and very far from the free republic we are supposed to be.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

 

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

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now.

 

It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression.

 

That said, in modern times, very few politicians at the national level respect and appreciate the U.S. Constitution, and it's likely that almost as few have even read it. Something that most of even the worst politicians at the national level in the 19th century had, and had done.

 

 

Is it actually possible to graduate from school in USA without getting passing grade from course about constitution? (Not any way relating in topic, but I am just curios)

 

You're talking about a country where random Joe doesn't even know all 51 states.

 

50.

 

And the general populace is generally no smarter or better informed anywhere else in modern times either.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Okay those criticism are not dissimilar to GD, when you say enemies can you be specific ?

 

Question, what would  you say if I told you that millions of people who live outside the USA think that USA offers them the best quality of life and the best economic prospects ?

I wouldn't doubt it, I firmly believe US is the greatest country in the history of the world. That's not Obola's achievement though, he'd like to destroy everything that makes US great.

 

As far as enemies, the usual, Russia, China, NK, Iran.

 

Btw, turns out the Senate is in recess unit Feb 22, so Obola could make a recess appointment if he hurries up.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[BruceVC]

 

I wouldn't doubt it, I firmly believe US is the greatest country in the history of the world. That's not Obola's achievement though, he'd like to destroy everything that makes US great.

 

As far as enemies, the usual, Russia, China, NK, Iran.

 

Btw, turns out the Senate is in recess unit Feb 22, so Obola could make a recess appointment if he hurries up.

 

Okay but you seemed to be concerned about the fact that Americas enemies were laughing at you because they see America as weak and stupid ...yet you mention countries that cannot laugh at either of those things  because Russia's economy is in recession and this wont change and the Chinese great economic experiment of a export driven economy and relying on state control in times of economic hardship has failed .....its really failed and the Chinese are now restructuring there entire economy to consumer based and industrialized. This makes sense but will take 3-5 years if it succeeds  

 

So think about it neither of those countries could possibly laugh at the USA when they failed to maintain there own economies. And this is a fundamental point that actually contradicts what certain right wing views espouse...and I'm worried they may be unduly influencing your view. I'm not suggesting you stupid at all but can you see how someone saying " America is now the laughing stock of its enemies due to Obama"  is factually not correct

 

And I'm not going to even mention NK or Iran as they are no real threat to the West