Politics 2017 part V

[Elerond]

Wow. The Supreme Court did two good things in to weeks. I'm surprised. Especially since the majority opinion in one of those was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg who I usually have nothing good to say about.

 

In Nelson v Colorado they decided 7-1 (WTF Thomas?) that the state was not entitled to assets seized as proceeds of a crime where the conviction had been overturned. You see there is one thing and one thing only that government loves. Any government. All of them. Money. They love money. Governments are far more venal than these "big corporations" so many of you seem to be terrified of. Only the governments have police powers and can just take things from you. As I've said a miilion times the biggest company in the world could not take a single penny from my checking account without my approval. The smallest level of government right here in my home state can take all of it including my home, my dogs and my freedom. Ugh. There I go ranting again. Anyway. In Nelson v Colorado defendant Shannon Nelson was convicted of four counts of child abuse and sentenced to 20 years in prison. After a witness recanted she got a new trial and was acquitted. But the state kept all the money it seized even though technically no crime was ever committed.  http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/21/scotus-says-states-have-no-right-to-mone

 

The other good thing they did was decline to take up Illinois Transportation Trade Association v. City of Chicago. It seems the cab companies in Chicago don't like competition from Uber and Lyft and were trying to shut them down. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/24/supreme-court-lets-stand-7th-circuit-vic

 

I would point out that bank where your checking account is could absolutely keep all you money if they want.  And it isn't even hypothetical scenario but thing that has happened many times in history. Meaning that it is absolutely possible for biggest company in world can buy the bank where your account is and seize your money. 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Never heard of that happening in the US, sounds ridiculous.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/us/politics/james-comey-election.html?_r=0

During Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention.

 

The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document.

Just wow. The Russians - keeping American government honest for a century.

 

Edit:

But John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, was so concerned about the Russian threat that he gave an unusual private briefing in the late summer to Harry Reid, then the Senate Democratic leader.

Yes, I'm sure that's why.

Even with his notoriety, this would have had little impact on national politics but for one coincidence. Mr. Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, was one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest confidantes, and had used an email account on her server.

Yes, pure coincidence.

 

Edit2: Liberals never learn:

“Turkey is changing in surprising and encouraging ways,” wrote the New York Times that year,

 

"setting a constructive example for the entire Muslim Middle East. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an Islamic politician who favors democratic pluralism, it has enacted far-reaching reforms that are intended to meet the exacting admissions criteria of the European Union."

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/04/24/guilty-men/

I hear Muslim Brotherhood is also mostly secular.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Guard Dog]

 

Wow. The Supreme Court did two good things in to weeks. I'm surprised. Especially since the majority opinion in one of those was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg who I usually have nothing good to say about.

 

In Nelson v Colorado they decided 7-1 (WTF Thomas?) that the state was not entitled to assets seized as proceeds of a crime where the conviction had been overturned. You see there is one thing and one thing only that government loves. Any government. All of them. Money. They love money. Governments are far more venal than these "big corporations" so many of you seem to be terrified of. Only the governments have police powers and can just take things from you. As I've said a miilion times the biggest company in the world could not take a single penny from my checking account without my approval. The smallest level of government right here in my home state can take all of it including my home, my dogs and my freedom. Ugh. There I go ranting again. Anyway. In Nelson v Colorado defendant Shannon Nelson was convicted of four counts of child abuse and sentenced to 20 years in prison. After a witness recanted she got a new trial and was acquitted. But the state kept all the money it seized even though technically no crime was ever committed.  http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/21/scotus-says-states-have-no-right-to-mone

 

The other good thing they did was decline to take up Illinois Transportation Trade Association v. City of Chicago. It seems the cab companies in Chicago don't like competition from Uber and Lyft and were trying to shut them down. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/24/supreme-court-lets-stand-7th-circuit-vic

 

I would point out that bank where your checking account is could absolutely keep all you money if they want.  And it isn't even hypothetical scenario but thing that has happened many times in history. Meaning that it is absolutely possible for biggest company in world can buy the bank where your account is and seize your money. 

 

I don't know where the heck you got that idea but in the US at least, no they cannot. And even if the bank failed the accounts are insured (up to a point). They may withdraw fess and other expenses and these are all things you agree too when opening the account. And that is the key, that account is an agreement, a contract between them and the account holder. They have to live up to their end and vice versa. So if I overdraft my checking account and they hit me with a $20 overdraft fee (or however much it is) I agreed to the rules when I opened the account so that is not taking money without my permission either.

[Raithe]

This one might be good for the politics thread..

 

Politico - The Media Bubble is Real, and Worse than you Think

[Elerond]

 

 

Wow. The Supreme Court did two good things in to weeks. I'm surprised. Especially since the majority opinion in one of those was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg who I usually have nothing good to say about.

 

In Nelson v Colorado they decided 7-1 (WTF Thomas?) that the state was not entitled to assets seized as proceeds of a crime where the conviction had been overturned. You see there is one thing and one thing only that government loves. Any government. All of them. Money. They love money. Governments are far more venal than these "big corporations" so many of you seem to be terrified of. Only the governments have police powers and can just take things from you. As I've said a miilion times the biggest company in the world could not take a single penny from my checking account without my approval. The smallest level of government right here in my home state can take all of it including my home, my dogs and my freedom. Ugh. There I go ranting again. Anyway. In Nelson v Colorado defendant Shannon Nelson was convicted of four counts of child abuse and sentenced to 20 years in prison. After a witness recanted she got a new trial and was acquitted. But the state kept all the money it seized even though technically no crime was ever committed.  http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/21/scotus-says-states-have-no-right-to-mone

 

The other good thing they did was decline to take up Illinois Transportation Trade Association v. City of Chicago. It seems the cab companies in Chicago don't like competition from Uber and Lyft and were trying to shut them down. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/24/supreme-court-lets-stand-7th-circuit-vic

 

I would point out that bank where your checking account is could absolutely keep all you money if they want.  And it isn't even hypothetical scenario but thing that has happened many times in history. Meaning that it is absolutely possible for biggest company in world can buy the bank where your account is and seize your money. 

 

I don't know where the heck you got that idea but in the US at least, no they cannot. And even if the bank failed the accounts are insured (up to a point). They may withdraw fess and other expenses and these are all things you agree too when opening the account. And that is the key, that account is an agreement, a contract between them and the account holder. They have to live up to their end and vice versa. So if I overdraft my checking account and they hit me with a $20 overdraft fee (or however much it is) I agreed to the rules when I opened the account so that is not taking money without my permission either.

 

 

When you give them you money they are in control over it. It is government that gives you assurance that bank can't arbitrarily without consequences to do so, at least not without permission from the government (usually meaning that they have court order that gives them right to seize your money to pay your debts, or something similar).

 

Meaning that even though you have agreement with bank about them holding your money with certain term it does not mean that they can't break those terms and just keep your money. 

 

And I would say that in case of bank failure bank has already mishandled money that you and others gave them and insurance exists because such mishandling can happen, even on level that threatens worlds economy. 

 

I would point out that governments have power that people give them, where big companies power is restricted by governments (world where there is no governments, who would be there to assure that big companies follow through agreements that they have made with you? You can just look how many big companies work in countries that have weak governments).

[Zoraptor]

Never heard of that happening in the US, sounds ridiculous.

I have to idea whether it's legal in the US, but depositor 'haircuts' have been widely suggested in the Euro Zone, especially Cyprus where they stole ~50% of deposits (mostly Russian) to bail out that failed garbage tier Euro, again. Kind of ironic, you get people who seem to genuinely wonder why Russia hates the EU as if there's no reason when they've outright stolen billions to prop up their failed economic model.

 

(I'd also bet that if a bank outright failed you'd not get your money back except via insurance, though that's a somewhat different situation. Seizing depositor money is obviously a last resort- or done to people you don't like to avoid your deserved political repercussions from your funny money joke currency experiment- since it utterly destroys confidence in those banks every bit as much as them actually bankrupting)

 

 

“Turkey is changing in surprising and encouraging ways,” wrote the New York Times that year,

 

"setting a constructive example for the entire Muslim Middle East. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an Islamic politician who favors democratic pluralism, it has enacted far-reaching reforms that are intended to meet the exacting admissions criteria of the European Union."

 

Lol. There's not a single correct thing there. Couldn't pick their nose.

 

Strangely enough the Turks bombed the Yezidis last night, on Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day no less. Obviously ISIS didn't quite do a good enough job for the Turks or their Barzani stooges who stole all the Yezidis weapons then ran off to Irbil three years ago, so they need bombing until they let Barzani's goons back in for a wash and repeat.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Zoraptor

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Wow. The Supreme Court did two good things in to weeks. I'm surprised. Especially since the majority opinion in one of those was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg who I usually have nothing good to say about.

 

In Nelson v Colorado they decided 7-1 (WTF Thomas?) that the state was not entitled to assets seized as proceeds of a crime where the conviction had been overturned. You see there is one thing and one thing only that government loves. Any government. All of them. Money. They love money. Governments are far more venal than these "big corporations" so many of you seem to be terrified of. Only the governments have police powers and can just take things from you. As I've said a miilion times the biggest company in the world could not take a single penny from my checking account without my approval. The smallest level of government right here in my home state can take all of it including my home, my dogs and my freedom. Ugh. There I go ranting again. Anyway. In Nelson v Colorado defendant Shannon Nelson was convicted of four counts of child abuse and sentenced to 20 years in prison. After a witness recanted she got a new trial and was acquitted. But the state kept all the money it seized even though technically no crime was ever committed.  http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/21/scotus-says-states-have-no-right-to-mone

 

The other good thing they did was decline to take up Illinois Transportation Trade Association v. City of Chicago. It seems the cab companies in Chicago don't like competition from Uber and Lyft and were trying to shut them down. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/24/supreme-court-lets-stand-7th-circuit-vic

 

I would point out that bank where your checking account is could absolutely keep all you money if they want.  And it isn't even hypothetical scenario but thing that has happened many times in history. Meaning that it is absolutely possible for biggest company in world can buy the bank where your account is and seize your money. 

 

I don't know where the heck you got that idea but in the US at least, no they cannot. And even if the bank failed the accounts are insured (up to a point). They may withdraw fess and other expenses and these are all things you agree too when opening the account. And that is the key, that account is an agreement, a contract between them and the account holder. They have to live up to their end and vice versa. So if I overdraft my checking account and they hit me with a $20 overdraft fee (or however much it is) I agreed to the rules when I opened the account so that is not taking money without my permission either.

 

 

When you give them you money they are in control over it. It is government that gives you assurance that bank can't arbitrarily without consequences to do so, at least not without permission from the government (usually meaning that they have court order that gives them right to seize your money to pay your debts, or something similar).

 

Meaning that even though you have agreement with bank about them holding your money with certain term it does not mean that they can't break those terms and just keep your money. 

 

And I would say that in case of bank failure bank has already mishandled money that you and others gave them and insurance exists because such mishandling can happen, even on level that threatens worlds economy. 

 

I would point out that governments have power that people give them, where big companies power is restricted by governments (world where there is no governments, who would be there to assure that big companies follow through agreements that they have made with you? You can just look how many big companies work in countries that have weak governments).

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Never heard of that happening in the US, sounds ridiculous.

I have to idea whether it's legal in the US, but depositor 'haircuts' have been widely suggested in the Euro Zone, especially Cyprus where they stole ~50% of deposits (mostly Russian) to bail out that failed garbage tier Euro, again. Kind of ironic, you get people who seem to genuinely wonder why Russia hates the EU as if there's no reason when they've outright stolen billions to prop up their failed economic model.

 

But they were authorized by government to do it, which is what GD was saying, not stealing your money on their own as Elerond was claiming.

 

(I'd also bet that if a bank outright failed you'd not get your money back except via insurance, though that's a somewhat different situation. Seizing depositor money is obviously a last resort- or done to people you don't like to avoid your deserved political repercussions from your funny money joke currency experiment- since it utterly destroys confidence in those banks every bit as much as them actually bankrupting)

In US deposits are insured by the government up to $250000 per bank per account ownership type (except for accrued but unpaid interest), but in practice no one's ever lost money in a bank as the government takes them over when they fail.

[Chilloutman]

there never been devaluation in US history?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Not a formal one, of course the dollar is always losing value through inflation.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Guard Dog]

The dollar has never been worth nothing. But I've been advising here since 2007 that everyone, no matter where you live, invest a little in real assets like gold, silver or other commodities. That is the best hedge against currency devaluation due to inflation or whatever.

[pmp10]

This one might be good for the politics thread..

 

Politico - The Media Bubble is Real, and Worse than you Think

Thanks.

That's a really interesting way of looking at change in media.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Can North Korea really destroy Seoul? http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/04/26/could_north_korea_annihilate_seoul_with_its_artillery_111248.html

 

We should've kept the neutron bomb.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

Never heard of that happening in the US, sounds ridiculous.

I have to idea whether it's legal in the US, but depositor 'haircuts' have been widely suggested in the Euro Zone, especially Cyprus where they stole ~50% of deposits (mostly Russian) to bail out that failed garbage tier Euro, again. Kind of ironic, you get people who seem to genuinely wonder why Russia hates the EU as if there's no reason when they've outright stolen billions to prop up their failed economic model.

 

But they were authorized by government to do it, which is what GD was saying, not stealing your money on their own as Elerond was claiming.

 

(I'd also bet that if a bank outright failed you'd not get your money back except via insurance, though that's a somewhat different situation. Seizing depositor money is obviously a last resort- or done to people you don't like to avoid your deserved political repercussions from your funny money joke currency experiment- since it utterly destroys confidence in those banks every bit as much as them actually bankrupting)

In US deposits are insured by the government up to $250000 per bank per account ownership type (except for accrued but unpaid interest), but in practice no one's ever lost money in a bank as the government takes them over when they fail.

 

 

The haircuts were not only authorised by the government, they were forced by them. The government of Cyprus basically nationalised their banks then stuck all the bad assets into one and grabbed depositor cash under direct orders of the EU/ ECB and under threat of being taken out behind the shed and Greeced into submission if they didn't.

 

No bank is going to seize depositor cash 'voluntarily', anywhere, since it utterly destroys their credibility and business. But theoretically at least depositors are the same as other creditors to a failing business and much as a creditor may only get cents back on the dollar owed from a failing business the same can happen to banks. Practically though, they're bailed out as the consequences are so severe and failure may make people realise that 'money' is a completely fiat concept practically as well as theoretically. That's also why the Cyprus approach was so utterly moronic, since it encouraged people not to deposit in Cypriot banks lest it happen again, which makes them even less solvent (but, coincidentally, makes German banks more appealing; coincidentally)

[Guard Dog]

66% of all murders in the US occur in just 5% of US counties:

 

 

A study by the Crime Prevention Research Center has found The overwhelming majority of murders happen in just a handful of counties with 2/3 in just 5% of the 3144 Counties that exist in the US. Now that might sound impressive but anyone with a casual knowledge of US Geography can glance at that map and tell you those red counties correspond with major cities. So the majority of the murders occur where the majority of the people are. Hmmm... never would have guessed. What an amazing statistical coincidence. They cited the state of Indiana which had 135 murders in 2014 but take Indianapolis out of the equation and that number drops to 4.

 

They also pointed out that the areas with the highest probable gun ownership (meaning most relaxed gun laws) had the lowest murder rate. The top four percent strictest counties had a rate of 4.4 per 100000 and the four percent most relaxed it was .056 per 100000. But none of those had a metro area in them.

 

So the conclusion I take from this is don't live in a city. Either it's the traffic, the noise, the crowds, the high cost of everything, or the inability to find a parking spot. Whatever it is it's driving people nuts enough to kill each other.

[Hurlshort]

Law and Order taught me that long ago.

[Gfted1]

Huh, Canadian border nice and peaceful. Mexican border is murderpalloza.

[Wrath of Dagon]

There are no cities in Canada, hence no crime.

 

Edit:

When you look at individual counties with a high number of murders, you find large areas with few murders. Take Los Angeles County, with 526 murders in 2014, the most of any county in the US. The county has virtually no murders in the northwestern part of the county. There was only one murder each in Beverly Hills, Hawthorne, and Van Nuys. Clearly, different parts of the county face very different risks of murder.

 

The map below shows the distribution of murders in Indianapolis, with 135 murders. Although the city extends well beyond the 465 Highway that encircles downtown Indianapolis, there are only four murders outside of that loop. The northern half of the city within 465 also has relatively few murders.

 

Washington, DC has large areas without murders. 14th Street NW divides the eastern and western parts of the district, with murders overwhelmingly limited to the eastern half. The area around the capitol is also extremely safe.

Quite a mystery all right. Edited April 27, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Guard Dog]

Huh, Canadian border nice and peaceful. Mexican border is murderpalloza.

Of all the cities I worked in Mexico, the two worst, by far, were Juarez and Nuevo Laredo. And they were right on the border. Nuevo Laredo was the worst. I never actually saw anything bad go down but the project manager for our customer told me in no uncertain terms all the places not to go. And there were a lot of them.

[Volourn]

"So the conclusion I take from this is don't live in a city"

 

Is it a coincidence that the cities is where you find the most leftards? That likely leads to a lot of murders too.

 

As for the Kanada goes, our big cities have theire share of crime. Just ask Toronto - our most Ameirkan like city. R00fles!

Edited April 27, 2017 by Volourn

[Raithe]

Does this count as politics or just a commentary on the nature of division and engagement?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wYXw4K0A3g&feature=youtu.be

[Gfted1]

Of all the cities I worked in Mexico, the two worst, by far, were Juarez and Nuevo Laredo. And they were right on the border. Nuevo Laredo was the worst. I never actually saw anything bad go down but the project manager for our customer told me in no uncertain terms all the places not to go. And there were a lot of them.

Never you mind that dark crimson blob just SW of lake Michigan.

[HoonDing]

What's that red blob in Montana?

 

isn't that middle of nowhere

[redneckdevil]

I don't even need to zoom in and tell 4 of NC red blobs are mainly Winston Salem, Greensboro, Raliegh, and Charlotte.

[Amentep]

What's that red blob in Montana?

 

isn't that middle of nowhere

Looks like it corresponds with Billings to me.