US Elections 2016

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

But for me the main difference is Obama believes that the Federal government needs to sometimes intervene in the states to achieve a more equitable society....like the Gay Marriage Bill

 

 

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem!

 

I hear you but surly if the objective is positive then it should be fine?

 

GD are you worried about  a Trump presidency ...in the sense he may do something really dumb like attack Iran

 

What do you think he would do first if he became president ...I think real Obamacare?

 

No, it is NOT OK if the outcome is positive. Didn't you read my post in #93? A good end NEVER justifies a bad means. Dictatorships and Oligarchies are not made overnight. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States or there is no law but what the current body politic decides. I've posted this before but the question everyone needs to ask themselves is 'Do you trust the people in government? Do you trust the people who will be there 10 years from now? 20 years from now?" The only rational answer is "No!"

 

Trump appears to favor a non interventionist foreign policy which suits me fine. As for what he's going to do, who the hell knows? He hasn't said anything intelligible yet except promise to do things no President can do like raising tariffs on Mexico. Well Mexico is a signatory of NAFTA. We have a treaty with them meaning you CAN'T raise tariffs on them. Either he thinks he can and that's a problem. Or he knows he can't and he full of s--t and that is a problem. 

 

I understand your point, you see the Constitution as sacrosanct and you cannot change it

 

But what if the Constitution became a stumbling block to progress...so people found a way to bypass it. Like the Gay Marriage Bill...you realize if the Supreme Court  hadn't intervened you would still have states that would be refusing to allow two people who are in love to get married, of course these would be same sex couples 

 

But thats not fair GD...the USA is not about discrimination 

[Gorth]

What does that mean Gorthie? The Maastrict treaty

A bit lazy of me because I'm at work right now. The rundown Wiki page about the event

 

My own tl;dr version, Maastricht Treaty was about the ever increasing integration and erosion of national sovereignty, giving that up in favour of the EU institutions.

 

In true democratic nature, the "Eurocrat" politicians in Denmark were horrified when the voting results became official and promptly decided a new referendum was needed (and they would probably repeat that until the stupid people finally voted the way they were supposed to).

 

In order to prevent a repeat of the first result, Denmark got 4 exemptions added to the agreement that pretty much left the country out of those key elements and letting the Danes have more autonomy in areas that other countries weren't offered (because the politicians there never asked people if they wanted it, they simply signed away chunks of sovereignty to Bruxelles at the time). I voted no at the second referendum too, but sadly the second result was a yes (with the key elements of the Maastricht treaty not applying to Denmark). It's also the reason Denmark could keep it's own currency for example.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

But for me the main difference is Obama believes that the Federal government needs to sometimes intervene in the states to achieve a more equitable society....like the Gay Marriage Bill

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem!

 

Not directly related to the US election, but similar sentiments is what keeps most Scandinavians (and the UK) from ever having developed warm feelings for the entire European "Union" concept. Free and open markets, etc. yes. A super national construct telling individual countries how they should run their countries, no. Proud voter of "No!" to the Maastrict treaty in 1992

 

What does that mean Gorthie? The Maastrict treaty

 

 

And you say that you are firm believer of EU I kid, but it is treaty that created EU.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Most boring parallel universe ever, the only thing that's different is that everyone is taking Bruce seriously. I was at least hoping to find a bimbo waiting for me in the shower, but apparently the space-time continuum wasn't feeling generous

[ktchong]

Amazon CEO Jeff Bozo is using his Washington Post  to run a particularly nasty negative campaign against Bernie Sanders:

http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/

 

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by ktchong

[Amentep]

I understand your point, you see the Constitution as sacrosanct and you cannot change it

The Constitution has provisions for how you change it, so that's not really applicable. I think - and GD can correct me if I'm wrong - that any change to the Constitution needs to come from the method the Constitution provides for change. Not because politicians or courts want to ignore the limits of their power.

 

 

Most boring parallel universe ever, the only thing that's different is that everyone is taking Bruce seriously. I was at least hoping to find a bimbo waiting for me in the shower, but apparently the space-time continuum wasn't feeling generous

In this parallel universe, Bruce got all the bimbos, that's why we're tlaking to him. ...so cold and lonely....

Edited March 8, 2016 by Amentep

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

But for me the main difference is Obama believes that the Federal government needs to sometimes intervene in the states to achieve a more equitable society....like the Gay Marriage Bill

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem!

 

Not directly related to the US election, but similar sentiments is what keeps most Scandinavians (and the UK) from ever having developed warm feelings for the entire European "Union" concept. Free and open markets, etc. yes. A super national construct telling individual countries how they should run their countries, no. Proud voter of "No!" to the Maastrict treaty in 1992

 

What does that mean Gorthie? The Maastrict treaty

 

 

And you say that you are firm believer of EU I kid, but it is treaty that created EU.

 

Yes I did recognize the name but to be fair the post I'll make later is about the EU now ....not when it was created

[Guard Dog]

 

I understand your point, you see the Constitution as sacrosanct and you cannot change it

The Constitution has provisions for how you change it, so that's not really applicable. I think - and GD can correct me if I'm wrong - that any change to the Constitution needs to come from the method the Constitution provides for change. Not because politicians or courts want to ignore the limits of their power.

 

 

I could not have said it better!

[Elerond]

Most boring parallel universe ever, the only thing that's different is that everyone is taking Bruce seriously. I was at least hoping to find a bimbo waiting for me in the shower, but apparently the space-time continuum wasn't feeling generous

 

Sorry there has been calibration error in our space-time-continuum changer, which prevented bimbos in showers.

[BruceVC]

 

What does that mean Gorthie? The Maastrict treaty

A bit lazy of me because I'm at work right now. The rundown Wiki page about the event

 

My own tl;dr version, Maastricht Treaty was about the ever increasing integration and erosion of national sovereignty, giving that up in favour of the EU institutions.

 

In true democratic nature, the "Eurocrat" politicians in Denmark were horrified when the voting results became official and promptly decided a new referendum was needed (and they would probably repeat that until the stupid people finally voted the way they were supposed to).

 

In order to prevent a repeat of the first result, Denmark got 4 exemptions added to the agreement that pretty much left the country out of those key elements and letting the Danes have more autonomy in areas that other countries weren't offered (because the politicians there never asked people if they wanted it, they simply signed away chunks of sovereignty to Bruxelles at the time). I voted no at the second referendum too, but sadly the second result was a yes (with the key elements of the Maastricht treaty not applying to Denmark). It's also the reason Denmark could keep it's own currency for example.

 

Gorthie I meant to ask you, how are you enjoying the UK?

 

You staying in the countryside right...whats your routine like, found any good restaurants or places you like to go to

 

You know my family are from the UK so we have strong tries 

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

 

But for me the main difference is Obama believes that the Federal government needs to sometimes intervene in the states to achieve a more equitable society....like the Gay Marriage Bill

 

 

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem!

 

I hear you but surly if the objective is positive then it should be fine?

 

GD are you worried about  a Trump presidency ...in the sense he may do something really dumb like attack Iran

 

What do you think he would do first if he became president ...I think real Obamacare?

 

No, it is NOT OK if the outcome is positive. Didn't you read my post in #93? A good end NEVER justifies a bad means. Dictatorships and Oligarchies are not made overnight. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States or there is no law but what the current body politic decides. I've posted this before but the question everyone needs to ask themselves is 'Do you trust the people in government? Do you trust the people who will be there 10 years from now? 20 years from now?" The only rational answer is "No!"

 

Trump appears to favor a non interventionist foreign policy which suits me fine. As for what he's going to do, who the hell knows? He hasn't said anything intelligible yet except promise to do things no President can do like raising tariffs on Mexico. Well Mexico is a signatory of NAFTA. We have a treaty with them meaning you CAN'T raise tariffs on them. Either he thinks he can and that's a problem. Or he knows he can't and he full of s--t and that is a problem. 

 

I understand your point, you see the Constitution as sacrosanct and you cannot change it

 

But what if the Constitution became a stumbling block to progress...so people found a way to bypass it. Like the Gay Marriage Bill...you realize if the Supreme Court  hadn't intervened you would still have states that would be refusing to allow two people who are in love to get married, of course these would be same sex couples 

 

But thats not fair GD...the USA is not about discrimination 

 

Ok, this is a far more complex subject than can be worked over in the few lines I have time to write. Although I am pleased with the outcome I don't like the means by which Obergefell was decided. It stems from this: marriage in the US is a legal contract. That gives the court jurisdiction over it. It never should have been than and this whole mess would have been headed off long ago. 

 

I'd love to dig more into this but I have to leave for work now.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But for me the main difference is Obama believes that the Federal government needs to sometimes intervene in the states to achieve a more equitable society....like the Gay Marriage Bill

 

 

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem!

 

I hear you but surly if the objective is positive then it should be fine?

 

GD are you worried about  a Trump presidency ...in the sense he may do something really dumb like attack Iran

 

What do you think he would do first if he became president ...I think real Obamacare?

 

No, it is NOT OK if the outcome is positive. Didn't you read my post in #93? A good end NEVER justifies a bad means. Dictatorships and Oligarchies are not made overnight. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States or there is no law but what the current body politic decides. I've posted this before but the question everyone needs to ask themselves is 'Do you trust the people in government? Do you trust the people who will be there 10 years from now? 20 years from now?" The only rational answer is "No!"

 

Trump appears to favor a non interventionist foreign policy which suits me fine. As for what he's going to do, who the hell knows? He hasn't said anything intelligible yet except promise to do things no President can do like raising tariffs on Mexico. Well Mexico is a signatory of NAFTA. We have a treaty with them meaning you CAN'T raise tariffs on them. Either he thinks he can and that's a problem. Or he knows he can't and he full of s--t and that is a problem. 

 

I understand your point, you see the Constitution as sacrosanct and you cannot change it

 

But what if the Constitution became a stumbling block to progress...so people found a way to bypass it. Like the Gay Marriage Bill...you realize if the Supreme Court  hadn't intervened you would still have states that would be refusing to allow two people who are in love to get married, of course these would be same sex couples 

 

But thats not fair GD...the USA is not about discrimination 

 

Ok, this is a far more complex subject than can be worked over in the few lines I have time to write. Although I am pleased with the outcome I don't like the means by which Obergefell was decided. It stems from this: marriage in the US is a legal contract. That gives the court jurisdiction over it. It never should have been than and this whole mess would have been headed off long ago. 

 

I'd love to dig more into this but I have to leave for work now.

 

Later GD  

Edited March 8, 2016 by BruceVC

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Most boring parallel universe ever, the only thing that's different is that everyone is taking Bruce seriously. I was at least hoping to find a bimbo waiting for me in the shower, but apparently the space-time continuum wasn't feeling generous

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now.

[BruceVC]

 

Most boring parallel universe ever, the only thing that's different is that everyone is taking Bruce seriously. I was at least hoping to find a bimbo waiting for me in the shower, but apparently the space-time continuum wasn't feeling generous

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now.

 

Did you hire an escort?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Most boring parallel universe ever, the only thing that's different is that everyone is taking Bruce seriously. I was at least hoping to find a bimbo waiting for me in the shower, but apparently the space-time continuum wasn't feeling generous

 

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now.

Did you hire an escort?

No, I have a girlfriend and would not pay some poor woman in a bad situation for sex.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Most boring parallel universe ever, the only thing that's different is that everyone is taking Bruce seriously. I was at least hoping to find a bimbo waiting for me in the shower, but apparently the space-time continuum wasn't feeling generous

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now.

Did you hire an escort?

No, I have a girlfriend and would not pay some poor woman in a bad situation for sex.

 

My  bad....but KP you mustn't see hiring an escort in a negative light 

 

You could treat her very well in the same way as any girl so the overall experience is a good one 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

Most boring parallel universe ever, the only thing that's different is that everyone is taking Bruce seriously. I was at least hoping to find a bimbo waiting for me in the shower, but apparently the space-time continuum wasn't feeling generous

 

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now.

Did you hire an escort?

No, I have a girlfriend and would not pay some poor woman in a bad situation for sex.

My  bad....but KP you mustn't see hiring an escort in a negative light 

 

You could treat her very well in the same way as any girl so the overall experience is a good one

 

It isn't how I treat them, its the situation they're in with pimps and other unpleasant realities of prostitution. I know you liberals think turning everything into a commodity to be sold is good, but I have no desire to contribute to a situation that turns women into products to benefit pimps and treat said women like slaves. Not to mention it's illegal and I don't want to end up in jail.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

Most boring parallel universe ever, the only thing that's different is that everyone is taking Bruce seriously. I was at least hoping to find a bimbo waiting for me in the shower, but apparently the space-time continuum wasn't feeling generous

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now.

Did you hire an escort?

No, I have a girlfriend and would not pay some poor woman in a bad situation for sex.

My  bad....but KP you mustn't see hiring an escort in a negative light 

 

You could treat her very well in the same way as any girl so the overall experience is a good one

 

 

It isn't how I treat them, its the situation they're in with pimps and other unpleasant realities of prostitution. I know you liberals think turning everything into a commodity to be sold is good, but I have no desire to contribute to a situation that turns women into products to benefit pimps and treat said women like slaves. Not to mention it's illegal and I don't want to end up in jail.

 

Oh  no I'm not talking about a hooker who has a pimp, I mean a professional escort. They dont have pimps, there cliental would be businessmen. So you would hire them for an evening, you can have dinner, movies and you dont have to have sex ...its more about the company

[Meshugger]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aei-world-forum-donald-trump_us_56ddbd38e4b0ffe6f8ea125d?2oz85mi

 

 

Billionaires, tech CEOs and top members of the Republican establishment flew to a private island resort off the coast of Georgia this weekend for the American Enterprise Institute's annual World Forum, according to sources familiar with the secretive gathering.

 

The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

 

Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker, and Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk all attended. So did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), political guru Karl Rove, House Speaker Paul Ryan, GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.), who recently made news by saying he "cannot support Donald Trump." 

 

Along with Ryan, the House was represented by Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.), Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas) and almost-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), sources said, along with leadership figure Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.), Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas) and Diane Black (Tenn.).

 

It's like all those conspiracy movies, but it is actually happening.

[BruceVC]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aei-world-forum-donald-trump_us_56ddbd38e4b0ffe6f8ea125d?2oz85mi

 

 

Billionaires, tech CEOs and top members of the Republican establishment flew to a private island resort off the coast of Georgia this weekend for the American Enterprise Institute's annual World Forum, according to sources familiar with the secretive gathering.

 

The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

 

Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker, and Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk all attended. So did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), political guru Karl Rove, House Speaker Paul Ryan, GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.), who recently made news by saying he "cannot support Donald Trump." 

 

Along with Ryan, the House was represented by Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.), Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas) and almost-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), sources said, along with leadership figure Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.), Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas) and Diane Black (Tenn.).

 

It's like all those conspiracy movies, but it is actually happening.

I can believe this, it may be a bit late but I hope they do stop Trump....but its doubtful 

[Meshugger]

Fun fact, they have conglomerated on Sea Island, which is next to Jekyll Island: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-02-15/the-secret-meeting-that-launched-the-federal-reserve-echoes

 

This is too hilarious. They are meeting on an island next to the one were the business and political leaders met lay the framework of the Federal Reserve.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most boring parallel universe ever, the only thing that's different is that everyone is taking Bruce seriously. I was at least hoping to find a bimbo waiting for me in the shower, but apparently the space-time continuum wasn't feeling generous

 

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now.

Did you hire an escort?

No, I have a girlfriend and would not pay some poor woman in a bad situation for sex.

My  bad....but KP you mustn't see hiring an escort in a negative light 

 

You could treat her very well in the same way as any girl so the overall experience is a good one

It isn't how I treat them, its the situation they're in with pimps and other unpleasant realities of prostitution. I know you liberals think turning everything into a commodity to be sold is good, but I have no desire to contribute to a situation that turns women into products to benefit pimps and treat said women like slaves. Not to mention it's illegal and I don't want to end up in jail.

Oh  no I'm not talking about a hooker who has a pimp, I mean a professional escort. They dont have pimps, there cliental would be businessmen. So you would hire them for an evening, you can have dinner, movies and you dont have to have sex ...its more about the company

 

Those can have pimps too Bruce. Contrary to the liberal fantasy, the sex industry isn't empowering women and men by letting them sell themselves as products.

 

 

Regardless I really like my girlfriend and don't see the point in paying for (subpar)company or sex, which I find...strange to begin with.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Fun fact, they have conglomerated on Sea Island, which is next to Jekyll Island: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-02-15/the-secret-meeting-that-launched-the-federal-reserve-echoes

 

This is too hilarious. They are meeting on an island next to the one were the business and political leaders met lay the framework of the Federal Reserve.

With the TPP incoming and now this, I fully expect states to become more authoritarian and less democratic to ensure that companies retain power by curtailing privacy and worker's rights. I hope they push too hard soon and it all collapses so we can escape hell in ten years instead of fifty.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most boring parallel universe ever, the only thing that's different is that everyone is taking Bruce seriously. I was at least hoping to find a bimbo waiting for me in the shower, but apparently the space-time continuum wasn't feeling generous

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now.

Did you hire an escort?

No, I have a girlfriend and would not pay some poor woman in a bad situation for sex.

My  bad....but KP you mustn't see hiring an escort in a negative light 

 

You could treat her very well in the same way as any girl so the overall experience is a good one

It isn't how I treat them, its the situation they're in with pimps and other unpleasant realities of prostitution. I know you liberals think turning everything into a commodity to be sold is good, but I have no desire to contribute to a situation that turns women into products to benefit pimps and treat said women like slaves. Not to mention it's illegal and I don't want to end up in jail.

Oh  no I'm not talking about a hooker who has a pimp, I mean a professional escort. They dont have pimps, there cliental would be businessmen. So you would hire them for an evening, you can have dinner, movies and you dont have to have sex ...its more about the company

 

Those can have pimps too Bruce. Contrary to the liberal fantasy, the sex industry isn't empowering women and men by letting them sell themselves as products.

 

 

Regardless I really like my girlfriend and don't see the point in paying for (subpar)company or sex, which I find...strange to begin with.

 

Yes of course, I'm not suggesting you get a escort now....you are clearly in a happy relationship

 

But if you ever single, Houston has some nice ladies 

[Meshugger]

 

Fun fact, they have conglomerated on Sea Island, which is next to Jekyll Island: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-02-15/the-secret-meeting-that-launched-the-federal-reserve-echoes

 

This is too hilarious. They are meeting on an island next to the one were the business and political leaders met lay the framework of the Federal Reserve.

With the TPP incoming and now this, I fully expect states to become more authoritarian and less democratic to ensure that companies retain power by curtailing privacy and worker's rights. I hope they push too hard soon and it all collapses so we can escape hell in ten years instead of fifty.

 

 

What a time to be alive.