Politics Episode 7: Remake of Episode 4

[KP From Another World]

Trump, Mummy May vs Corbyn, petty arguments. You guys know the drill.

 

America First brought to you by Saudi Arabia and Blackstone

[Valsuelm]

This thread does not exist in my Star Wars universe.

[algroth]

This thread does not exist in my Star Wars universe.

Does it exist in your politics universe?

[KP From Another World]

This thread does not exist in my Star Wars universe.

Enough alternative facts and you get an alternative universe I guess.

[Zoraptor]

This thread does not exist in my Star Wars universe.

 

...

 

It's Teresa May then?

 

Lies! Deception! (meh, low hanging fruit)

 

 

What about the moderators attack on the Politics thread? It's a discussion we can't afford to lose!

 

[Malcador]

Alternate universe would have the porn star as PM. She was good in the Prodigy video

[algroth]

I hope this thread continues to discuss anything but politics.

[Valsuelm]

 

This thread does not exist in my Star Wars universe.

Enough alternative facts and you get an alternative universe I guess.

 

 

[Gromnir]

I hope this thread continues to discuss anything but politics.

kp brought up Mummy in the genesis post.  with the new universal monster movies being released, we cannot help but lament the metaphorical death o' the traditional mummy.  no longer is the mummy a revenant punishing those who defile a tomb, but is a demigod/god with apocalyptic intent. blame the brendan fraser rachel weisz films? to keep this political, we can throw out a more sinister (ridiculous) possibility.  given the middle-eastern origin o' the mummy, is the transformation from a singular and limited threat to a danger directed at western culture entire represent transparent and insidious islamophobia on the part o' the movie producers?

 

muahaha.

 

c'mon.  you has seen crazier stuff from breitbart, no?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Chilloutman]

 

I hope this thread continues to discuss anything but politics.

kp brought up Mummy in the genesis post.  with the new universal monster movies being released, we cannot help but lament the metaphorical death o' the traditional mummy.  no longer is the mummy a revenant punishing those who defile a tomb, but is a demigod/god with apocalyptic intent. blame the brendan fraser rachel weisz films? to keep this political, we can throw out a more sinister (ridiculous) possibility.  given the middle-eastern origin o' the mummy, is the transformation from a singular and limited threat to a danger directed at western culture entire represent transparent and insidious islamophobia on the part o' the movie producers?

 

muahaha.

 

c'mon.  you has seen crazier stuff from breitbart, no?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I can't unseen that parallel now...

[Guard Dog]

Sorry Algoth, it looks like I will be the first to post about politics in the politics thread.

 

So anyway it seems College Alumni, tired of seeing their almae matres turning into left wing protester factories are cooling it with their donations and endowments.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/college-protests-alumni-donations.html?_r=0

 

Personally I never saw the sense in that anyway. I absolutely hated the University I ended up graduating from and everyone in it. I didn't even attend the graduation and I sure as hell haven't written them any checks since.

[BruceVC]

I hope this thread continues to discuss anything but politics.

algroth how is your knowledge of economics  and  financial instruments and how they pertain to your country ?

 

I want to ask you something about the Argentine bond crisis but I dont want to ask you something that you may not be familiar with? 

[Guard Dog]

You know... it Trump had half a brain (something no one has accused him of in my hearing) he would submit the Paris Accord to the Senate for ratification like Barack Obama should have done. If they ratify we stay in. If they don't we don't. Either way it's off his back and he looks like a hero to the right for following the Constitution.

 

If Obama had any brains, and he's not stupid, he knew an Executive Agreement could be undone by the next executive. And I'm sure he also knew an agreement that placed statutory requirements on private American citizens, subject to punitive actions by entities OUTSIDE of the United States is not an agreement. It's a treaty. Treaties are supposed to be ratified by the Senate. So why didn't he do it? Because more than half of the Senate is voted in by people who didn't vote for him and he can't impose his will on people if that pesky Constitution and democratic process keep getting in the way.

[Hurlshort]

 

Personally I never saw the sense in that anyway. I absolutely hated the University I ended up graduating from and everyone in it. I didn't even attend the graduation and I sure as hell haven't written them any checks since.

 

I have fond memories of my school, but I certainly paid enough while I was there. I don't feel the need to donate either. 

[algroth]

 

I hope this thread continues to discuss anything but politics.

algroth how is your knowledge of economics  and  financial instruments and how they pertain to your country ?

 

I want to ask you something about the Argentine bond crisis but I dont want to ask you something that you may not be familiar with? 

 

I have some... But my father is a former secretary of treasury and economy vice-minister so I'm sure any questions I wouldn't be able to answer, I could just ask him.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I hope this thread continues to discuss anything but politics.

algroth how is your knowledge of economics  and  financial instruments and how they pertain to your country ?

 

I want to ask you something about the Argentine bond crisis but I dont want to ask you something that you may not be familiar with? 

 

I have some... But my father is a former secretary of treasury and economy vice-minister so I'm sure any questions I wouldn't be able to answer, I could just ask him.

 

Your father is probably the best person to answer this actually

 

I will keep it simple, ask him if all the outdated bonds have been paid back. Basically most of Argentina's  creditors exchanged their defaulted debt for new securities in two restructurings that took place in 2005 and 2010....are these debts paid back?

[algroth]

 

 

 

I hope this thread continues to discuss anything but politics.

algroth how is your knowledge of economics  and  financial instruments and how they pertain to your country ?

 

I want to ask you something about the Argentine bond crisis but I dont want to ask you something that you may not be familiar with? 

 

I have some... But my father is a former secretary of treasury and economy vice-minister so I'm sure any questions I wouldn't be able to answer, I could just ask him.

 

Your father is probably the best person to answer this actually

 

I will keep it simple, ask him if all the outdated bonds have been paid back. Basically most of Argentina's  creditors exchanged their defaulted debt for new securities in two restructurings that took place in 2005 and 2010....are these debts paid back?

 

I would say "absolutely not", but before I screw up and confirm my answer I'll ask him about it.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

Personally I never saw the sense in that anyway. I absolutely hated the University I ended up graduating from and everyone in it. I didn't even attend the graduation and I sure as hell haven't written them any checks since.

 

I have fond memories of my school, but I certainly paid enough while I was there. I don't feel the need to donate either. 

 

 

I actually took classes at four different schools. Tennessee St. Miami-Dade Community College, and Broward College before transferring everything to FAU. I have nothing negative to say about the first three. All I'll say about FAU is you'll never catch me there again. Every ill vice and attitude bred by unearned wealth is on display there. I don't begrudge anyone fortune or success however the come by it... but don't be an a-----e about it. 

[Wrath of Dagon]

You know... it Trump had half a brain (something no one has accused him of in my hearing) he would submit the Paris Accord to the Senate for ratification like Barack Obama should have done. If they ratify we stay in. If they don't we don't. Either way it's off his back and he looks like a hero to the right for following the Constitution.

 

If Obama had any brains, and he's not stupid, he knew an Executive Agreement could be undone by the next executive. And I'm sure he also knew an agreement that placed statutory requirements on private American citizens, subject to punitive actions by entities OUTSIDE of the United States is not an agreement. It's a treaty. Treaties are supposed to be ratified by the Senate. So why didn't he do it? Because more than half of the Senate is voted in by people who didn't vote for him and he can't impose his will on people if that pesky Constitution and democratic process keep getting in the way.

Why would Trump submit something to the Senate that he disagrees with? Then have it certainly defeated and look like he lost? Obama and the Democrats thought they won the demographics war (and they probably have, just not quite yet), so the next President would certainly be a Democrat and follow Obama's policies. Didn't quite work out that way in spite of everyone's expectations. Also Trump could still unilaterally withdraw from a treaty even if it's ratified by the Senate, and a non-treaty agreement can not place statutory requirements on American citizens.

[Gromnir]

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/531558813/trumps-latest-tweets-on-travel-ban-could-raise-new-legal-hurdles

 

look at what trump left on his desk this morning. another steamy pile o' wtf.

 

*shrug*

 

attempting to come up with reasonable explanations for trump impulse control blunders is becoming increasing difficult.  the only explanation we got is if trump were convinced the travel ban is doomed, it would be better to face inevitable defeat with a show o' strength. core constituents appear ok with trump ineffectiveness as long as he continues to act tough and talk big.  so IF the executive order is a lost cause, it would be better for trump to defend vigorous and then blame Court for failure.  is no other reasonable explanation for the latest trumpism.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[HoonDing]

I think he hates ppl called Khan.

 

[Gromnir]

hmmm. 

 

 

the conan bit is a quote attributed to genghis khan.  as such, am betting trump actual has a stash o' khanp0rn he drools over... while eating fried chicken and donuts as he sits on his golden toilet.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

 

You know... it Trump had half a brain (something no one has accused him of in my hearing) he would submit the Paris Accord to the Senate for ratification like Barack Obama should have done. If they ratify we stay in. If they don't we don't. Either way it's off his back and he looks like a hero to the right for following the Constitution.

 

If Obama had any brains, and he's not stupid, he knew an Executive Agreement could be undone by the next executive. And I'm sure he also knew an agreement that placed statutory requirements on private American citizens, subject to punitive actions by entities OUTSIDE of the United States is not an agreement. It's a treaty. Treaties are supposed to be ratified by the Senate. So why didn't he do it? Because more than half of the Senate is voted in by people who didn't vote for him and he can't impose his will on people if that pesky Constitution and democratic process keep getting in the way.

Why would Trump submit something to the Senate that he disagrees with? Then have it certainly defeated and look like he lost? Obama and the Democrats thought they won the demographics war (and they probably have, just not quite yet), so the next President would certainly be a Democrat and follow Obama's policies. Didn't quite work out that way in spite of everyone's expectations. Also Trump could still unilaterally withdraw from a treaty even if it's ratified by the Senate, and a non-treaty agreement can not place statutory requirements on American citizens.

 

 

1. ​It's too late to do anything like this now. Done is done. So let's get that out of the way first. If he said he was pulling out because it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification he gets two things. He gets the treaty killed without paying a political price because it would never be ratified. Two he looks like a real constitutionalist while doing it. That will appeal to the people he needs to win in 2020. It's a win-win.
2. The President can NOT unilaterally withdraw from a treaty ratified by the US Senate. Such a treaty is law in the US. The only way he can is if the withdraw is allowed for in the language of the treaty. For example, NATO. The language of that treaty allows for any member to withdraw with a notice of a certain period of time. 1 year IIRC. When George W Bush withdrew from the ABM treaty with Russia he was allowed to do that because the language of the treaty allowed for a withdrawal. Since a ratified treaty has the force of law the President must enforce it. Only Congress can repeal one. Or the supreme court if there is a constitutionality issue. I seem to remember that actually happened once in the '60s.
3. You're right, a non treaty agreement cannot permit regulatory administration of the activities of the citizens of the Unites States. It's that whole consent of the governed thing. Which is why the Paris "Accords" should have been sent to the Senate in the first place.

[Guard Dog]

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/531558813/trumps-latest-tweets-on-travel-ban-could-raise-new-legal-hurdles

 

look at what trump left on his desk this morning. another steamy pile o' wtf.

 

*shrug*

 

attempting to come up with reasonable explanations for trump impulse control blunders is becoming increasing difficult.  the only explanation we got is if trump were convinced the travel ban is doomed, it would be better to face inevitable defeat with a show o' strength. core constituents appear ok with trump ineffectiveness as long as he continues to act tough and talk big.  so IF the executive order is a lost cause, it would be better for trump to defend vigorous and then blame Court for failure.  is no other reasonable explanation for the latest trumpism.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Well, I realize this is of small consolation but look at it this way. While this is embarrassing for Americans of an above average education and political awareness it is also a little entertaining waiting to see what he does next.  Also you would have had no joy from a Hillary Clinton administration. Just a whole other set of problems. So really no matter who won last year it was going to suck.

 

As ditzy as he was I voted for the best candidate in 2016. I thought so then... I KNOW it now.  

[Amentep]

 

I hope this thread continues to discuss anything but politics.

kp brought up Mummy in the genesis post.  with the new universal monster movies being released, we cannot help but lament the metaphorical death o' the traditional mummy.  no longer is the mummy a revenant punishing those who defile a tomb, but is a demigod/god with apocalyptic intent. blame the brendan fraser rachel weisz films? to keep this political, we can throw out a more sinister (ridiculous) possibility.  given the middle-eastern origin o' the mummy, is the transformation from a singular and limited threat to a danger directed at western culture entire represent transparent and insidious islamophobia on the part o' the movie producers?

 

muahaha.

 

c'mon.  you has seen crazier stuff from breitbart, no?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

First Universal Mummy film w/Karloff has the Mummy/Imhotep not punishing interlopers or defilers; instead he walks out of the tomb area (sure he drives an archeologist mad so doing, but that's he couldn't take the site of the Mummy walking around) and later tries to force the re-incarnation of his lost love.

 

You have to jump forward 8 years to 1940's THE MUMMY'S HAND to get the idea of the Mummy being directed by the High Priest of Karnak to kill all those who'd defile Anaka's tomb.

 

That said, its probably important to point out that the first of the major mummy novels, Stoker's Jewel of the Seven Stars, involves the mummy trying to re-unite her soul (trapped in a mummified cat) with her 'astral body' who happens to be the daughter of one of the expedition leaders who found her tomb.  That a bunch of people end-up dead (at least in the original version) is secondary to her attempt to reunite spirit and body, however its arguable that Queen Tera is the prototype for the super-powered Mummy who could potentially rain destruction down that you see picked up in the Frasier and current films.