|
StandardVC10 posted:If it's not about actual consequences, and it's not ever going to happen, then what are we even doing right now besides jerking each other off? Standing in a circle. So there's that. We're not going to kill bankers, but we also can't kill banks, apparently. They're people too.
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
You know I'm starting to think Mitt Romney's staff that vetted Christie really made the right call: http://pando.com/2014/05/08/exclusi...-to-play-rules/ 10,000 to Republican State Committee = 25,000,000 in pension money.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Anyone else kind of disturbed by Clinton's implication that people would not be satisfied by a very extreme punishment, so clearly punishment lesser than this hyperbolic extreme shouldn't be pursued because it definitely won't satisfy people?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Anyone else kind of disturbed by Clinton's implication that people would not be satisfied by a very extreme punishment, so clearly punishment lesser than this hyperbolic extreme shouldn't be pursued because it definitely won't satisfy people? If this was 2009, certainly. But the notion that the financial sector could (probably literally) murder children and walk away while the DoJ shrugs their shoulders has been inculcated enough to have it not really make an impact.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:So, vanilla accelerationism is dumb, and voting third party is dumb, because it basically leads to accelerationism. Theoretically yes it does. In practice the third party doesn't get enough sway to get into that position because of the idiotic notion that not voting for either big party is wasting a vote.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:If it's not about actual consequences, and it's not ever going to happen, then what are we even doing right now besides jerking each other off? What part never happened: The consequences of killing bankers or bankers never being killed? And this is about some neoliberal entertaining the idea, given our lovely political climate.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Bill, people might not entertain violent revenge fantasies against these people if we actually prosecuted some motherfuckers and threw them in jail. It kills me when the government punishes a firm by fining them an amount smaller than the amount they made off their illegal actions. Revenge fantasies are what you get when people get the sense there is no justice.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:So, vanilla accelerationism is dumb, and voting third party is dumb, because it basically leads to accelerationism. Raskolnikov38 posted:Theoretically yes it does. In practice the third party doesn't get enough sway to get into that position because of the idiotic notion that not voting for either big party is wasting a vote. Yeah, this is what you see in other democracies, like the UK and Germany--coalition governments which consist of two or more parties ruling together to hold a majority vote. It's not out of the realm of possibility here, either, but the problem is getting a third party up to garnering those levels of vote. Still, it's more plausible than getting a third party that can take the election solo.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Anyone else kind of disturbed by Clinton's implication that people would not be satisfied by a very extreme punishment, so clearly punishment lesser than this hyperbolic extreme shouldn't be pursued because it definitely won't satisfy people? More clearly, the implication is that the public is so stupid that politicians should under no circumstances listen to us. So yeah, you could say I'm a little disturbed.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
The anger might as well be directed at any and all human beings who are willing to gently caress over large numbers of people for personal gain. So, basically most of humanity if given the right opportunity.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
quote:Theoretically yes it does. In practice the third party doesn't get enough sway to get into that position because of the idiotic notion that not voting for either big party is wasting a vote. quote:Yeah, this is what you see in other democracies, like the UK and Germany--coalition governments which consist of two or more parties ruling together to hold a majority vote. It's not out of the realm of possibility here, either, but the problem is getting a third party up to garnering those levels of vote. Still, it's more plausible than getting a third party that can take the election solo. that's how Canada ended up with the Conservatives gaining 54% of the seats in parliament with 40% of the popular vote. And how we ended up with GWB for that matter. quote:But if vote splitting to third parties is enough of a concern in close races, doesn't that make the third party candidate a kingmaker, not able to win, but able to decide which way the election goes? Can third party candidates extract concessions by threatening to poo poo all over an election? The problem with being a kingmaker is that any plausible third party will be closer to one of the existing parties than the other. It's more like trying to blackmail that existing party into making concessions. But the existing party has no real motivation to keep their promises and several motivations to lose the election rather than submit to said blackmail.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Voting for someone other than one of the top two parties in a given FPTP election actually is wasting your vote. Mathematically, factually true. Actually GWB "won" because they stole the election in Ohio, twice, as well as having friends in the supreme court (and a pussy Al Gore who wouldn't force recounts).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
Mineaiki posted:Or you could use the peace corps to train the poor to do jobs while paying them, thus giving them skills that they otherwise wouldn't have time to learn between minimum-wage jobs. Again, his point is to force people to go outside of their comfort zones, which is something a large portion of Americans could Really Use. Having it give you job skills and good pay would be a cherry on top, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:More clearly, the implication is that the public is so stupid that politicians should under no circumstances listen to us. So yeah, you could say I'm a little disturbed. Seems worse than that to me. He's smart and experienced enough to know the populist anger is a function of bankers getting a pass for trashing the system. Obviosuly, retracting finance's carte blanche would unwind the associated anger. If his glib dismissal of so much as appeasement is fairly presented, it implies that addressing the root cause is beneath consideration. If that snippet's presented fairly, it's fair to assume that a rising oligarchy is the system working as intended by his view. I could be reading into it too much, though. Over the years, every so often, I'll come across one thing or another about ole Bill-Jeff that makes him sound viciously classist/elitist and it's built up in my subconscious. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 12:56 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:More clearly, the implication is that the public is so stupid that politicians should under no circumstances listen to us. So yeah, you could say I'm a little disturbed. He has every right to believe it, though. He won by giving head to people who now vote for the Tea Party, and I doubt that he has even a shred of respect for those morons, who happen to make up a huge chunk of a huge chunk of our already fairly moronic society.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
BUSH 2112 posted:He has every right to believe it, though. He won by giving head to people who now vote for the Tea Party, and I doubt that he has even a shred of respect for those morons, who happen to make up a huge chunk of a huge chunk of our already fairly moronic society. Problem is that the worse things are, the worse the people are, and on that basis, a misanthropic leader with the quoted attitude's liable to create a positive feedback loop of shittiness. That dynamic's a big part of why I take a dim view of accelerationism.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
I just want to chime in and say that I'd like to throw bankers in jail, not kill them. But if we aren't throwing them in jail, I'd be ok with putting them in front of a court presided by the scarecrow. Yknow the more I think about how the elite get away with ruining the world, the more I kind of understand why someone in the Middle East turns to terrorism.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
to be honest; from a legal standpoint I don't think the government even had the evidence to convict these motherfuckers, let alone go China on them and summarily execute. Yes, I have read the emails, and Yes, I have seen the Levin hearings (they're fantastic). To put more bankers in jail for the poo poo they pulled in 08 would require a substantial revision of securities laws. I completely agree that Wall Street executives who marketed mortgage backed securities that led to the crash are robber baron motherfuckers, and that it would hilarious if Bill Clinton gave Lloyd Blankfein a Colombian Necktie, I just don't think that a criminal prosecution of a top executive under our current laws would result in anything other than an acquittal, or a guilty plea if he is a dipshit, unless there was a paper trail that literally said "hey, let's do this fraudulent thing to defraud investors fraudulently." More controversially, I am also p. sure the DOJ looked into this as best they could, and did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute, because that is how prosecutors do. I do believe that civil charges may have had more luck because of the lower burden of proof, but there is still a lot of plausible deniability for higher ranking folk.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:The anger might as well be directed at any and all human beings who are willing to gently caress over large numbers of people for personal gain. So, basically most of humanity if given the right opportunity. There's a difference between "people who will gently caress over large numbers of other people given the right opportunity" and "people who have actually and literally hosed and are loving over large numbers of people"
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:to be honest; from a legal standpoint I don't think the government even had the evidence to convict these motherfuckers, let alone go China on them and summarily execute. Yes, I have read the emails, and Yes, I have seen the Levin hearings (they're fantastic). To put more bankers in jail for the poo poo they pulled in 08 would require a substantial revision of securities laws. I completely agree that Wall Street executives who marketed mortgage backed securities that led to the crash are robber baron motherfuckers, and that it would hilarious if Bill Clinton gave Lloyd Blankfein a Colombian Necktie, I just don't think that a criminal prosecution of a top executive under our current laws would result in anything other than an acquittal, or a guilty plea if he is a dipshit, unless there was a paper trail that literally said "hey, let's do this fraudulent thing to defraud investors fraudulently." More controversially, I am also p. sure the DOJ looked into this as best they could, and did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute, because that is how prosecutors do. I do believe that civil charges may have had more luck because of the lower burden of proof, but there is still a lot of plausible deniability for higher ranking folk. The laws are insufficient
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 11:37
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:The laws are insufficient And have been deliberately made so, over the course of the past few decades, at great expense.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:The laws are insufficient I concur completely, I am just maybe challenging the notion that the failure to string up Wall Street is completely the Executive Branch's fault. Edit: I am only speaking from the perspective of being frustrated with how many smoking guns are necessary to put financial dickholes behind bars. I do not know the full extent of DOJ work post-crash, but from what I've seen I can understand why it may have been deficient in this area. Homura and Sickle fucked around with this message at 11:50 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:to be honest; from a legal standpoint I don't think the government even had the evidence to convict these motherfuckers, let alone go China on them and summarily execute. Yes, I have read the emails, and Yes, I have seen the Levin hearings (they're fantastic). To put more bankers in jail for the poo poo they pulled in 08 would require a substantial revision of securities laws. I completely agree that Wall Street executives who marketed mortgage backed securities that led to the crash are robber baron motherfuckers, and that it would hilarious if Bill Clinton gave Lloyd Blankfein a Colombian Necktie, I just don't think that a criminal prosecution of a top executive under our current laws would result in anything other than an acquittal, or a guilty plea if he is a dipshit, unless there was a paper trail that literally said "hey, let's do this fraudulent thing to defraud investors fraudulently." More controversially, I am also p. sure the DOJ looked into this as best they could, and did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute, because that is how prosecutors do. I do believe that civil charges may have had more luck because of the lower burden of proof, but there is still a lot of plausible deniability for higher ranking folk. A bigger issue is they no longer have the institutional knowledge for it. In 2001 Bush changed SEC and DoJ corporate crime policy to one of going for limited settlements instead of criminal prosecution. By the time 2009 rolled around, the people who knew how to prosecute these cases - the evidence needed, the statutes, the various ways they could approach a situation to bring charges, and how to handle everything in court - had all left for other positions since it wasn't being done there anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Voting for someone other than one of the top two parties in a given FPTP election actually is wasting your vote. Mathematically, factually true. This is only true if you can predict with 100% accuracy, in advance of the election, who the top two parties will be. Also if you disregard the effects a strong third party showing can have on the policies of the other candidates in the following elections (the Tea Party seem to have managed this without even running candidates, which is a neat trick).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 12:22
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:I concur completely, I am just maybe challenging the notion that the failure to string up Wall Street is completely the Executive Branch's fault. From what I understand this is the case and trials regarding financial heads probably would have been incredibly expensive and likely to not lead to convictions in most cases. From watching the 60 Minutes stuff there definitely seems like illegal actions going on but who knows if that could be proven in a trial and it's much more difficult to prosecute incredibly complicated financial crime. Having said that, Clinton has always been poo poo so his attitude here isn't a surprise. It's one thing to say that legally thieves can't be prosecuted and it's a tough reality of the world, it's another to infer that the unwashed proles are barbarically howling for blood of the innocent instead of just wanting justice for the criminals (even if technically they are not) that robbed them. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 12:33 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
Radish posted:From what I understand this is the case and trials regarding financial heads probably would have been incredibly expensive and likely to not lead to convictions in most cases. From watching the 60 Minutes stuff there definitely seems like illegal actions going on but who knows if that could be proven in a trial and it's much more difficult to prosecute incredibly complicated financial crime. Having said that, Clinton has always been poo poo so his attitude here isn't a surprise. It's one thing to say that legally thieves can't be prosecuted and it's a tough reality of the world, it's another to infer that the unwashed proles are barbarically howling for blood of the innocent instead of just wanting justice for the criminals (even if technically they are not) that robbed them. But a lot of the actions causing the great recession were not illegal per se, more stupid, greedy and short sighted. People not taking a close look at the risks of the investments they were purchasing and so on. But some companies have been dinged already, such as Goldman Sakhs getting hit with a few billion dollar fines for selling investments they internally knew were poo poo but marketing as prime grade investment vehicles. The problem with a few billion dollar in fines is that GS can easily take that as a cost of business expense and keep doing what they were doing. Also since our economy is so tightly tied with the investment banks, hitting any of that could harm economic recovery.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
Cimber posted:But a lot of the actions causing the great recession were not illegal per se, more stupid, greedy and short sighted. People not taking a close look at the risks of the investments they were purchasing and so on. But some companies have been dinged already, such as Goldman Sakhs getting hit with a few billion dollar fines for selling investments they internally knew were poo poo but marketing as prime grade investment vehicles. Yeah I agree which is why what irks me about Clinton is his tone. The American people don't have the legal and insider knowledge to know that it was legal but we do know we got hosed and who hosed us so acting like we are unreasonable savages is pretty insulting, especially from a guy who (along with many others) helped to make it happen.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
effectual posted:Actually GWB "won" because they stole the election in Ohio, twice, as well as having friends in the supreme court (and a pussy Al Gore who wouldn't force recounts). I can't believe Republicans think Obama was illegitimately elected!!! Now let me tell you how Bush stole Ohio...
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Voting for someone other than one of the top two parties in a given FPTP election actually is wasting your vote. Mathematically, factually true.  , and it doesn't matter which party they're closer to (because jumping into the race changes the results), but I agree that there's no way to enforce any concessions. Maybe carrying out your threat next election?I don't know, I think it's the whole wasting your vote or being a powerless poltical minority that is making me  At least it's like trying to find a way to sell your vote, to get something instead of nothing.I guess I'm looking for one weird trick for elections that politicians hate, haha. Rockopolis fucked around with this message at 14:14 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:to be honest; from a legal standpoint I don't think the government even had the evidence to convict these motherfuckers, let alone go China on them and summarily execute. Black has been long retired out of actively regulating banks but is an active professor and has serious academic chops and will, and has, told anyone (including Congress, who pretty much just smiled and ignored him) who will listen in great detail just how hosed up and bullshit this whole situation was and still is for years now. Appeal to authority is a fallacy and all but the guy is if not a living real life messiah when it comes to stopping and prosecuting white collar financial fraud then he would be considered the next best thing to it and will hopefully change your mind on this subject.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
quote:Violently murder all the bankers! effectual posted:Actually GWB "won" because they stole the election in Ohio, twice, as well as having friends in the supreme court (and a pussy Al Gore who wouldn't force recounts). I'm a left-leaning individual and I find these threads to be a valuable resource for political news, as well as for presenting fact-based arguments that convincingly advocate for progressive solutions. I would recommend these threads to anyone looking for an objective view on the state of politics in the U.S. However, these last two pages with the creepy murder and conspiracy fantasies makes everyone look like a bunch of unhinged loving loons. Yeah, we should lament the system that allowed bankers to get away with everything and yeah the Supreme Court made a controversial and very-arguably bullshit call with Bush v. Gore. But this freep-laced tinfoil hat bullshit does far more to undermine all the progressive positions advocated in this thread than any right-wing hack could hope to accomplish. The fact that more people haven't called out the crazy makes it even more disturbing. Hakarne fucked around with this message at 14:18 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
I was all set to be a progressive and then you guys said mean stuff about bankers  It's the GOP for me, I'm afraid.Beamed posted:I can't believe Republicans think Obama was illegitimately elected!!! Now let me tell you how Bush stole Ohio... Biiig difference.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
Hakarne posted:I'm a left-leaning individual and I find these threads to be a valuable resource for political news, as well as for presenting fact-based arguments that convincingly advocate for progressive solutions. I would recommend these threads to anyone looking for an objective view on the state of politics in the U.S. Considering violent revolutions have been going on since the beginning of civilization, I don't think continuing the discussion started by Bill Clinton about what the people want vis a vis graphically murdering bankers makes us somehow outside of the norm. If you no longer recommend the US Politics for Month thread in D&D to others as a valuable political resource I understand and will respect your decision.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
How do you determine which of the people at these banks deserve death? Furthermore, isn't committing violence for the purpose of class interest the... exact same thing? I would think the government is more culpable than the banks themselves. If someone breaks the law, punish them according to the laws in place (don't believe in the death penalty btw). This mob hoo-rah BS is funny to read because of its impotency, but it's also ludicrously misguided and childish to me.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Beamed posted:I can't believe Republicans think Obama was illegitimately elected!!! Now let me tell you how Bush stole Ohio... Granted that dumb bullshit happens in every state on Election Day, but Ohio specifically in 2004 had a bunch of misinformation given to democratic voters and their voting machines had a load of security issues in addition to a few cases where the machines had some pretty big irregularities (that were corrected IIRC)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Granted that dumb bullshit happens in every state on Election Day, but Ohio specifically in 2004 had a bunch of misinformation given to democratic voters and their voting machines had a load of security issues in addition to a few cases where the machines had some pretty big irregularities (that were corrected IIRC) You mean the machines that added a vote for Bush if you voted for Gore. Yeh, that was lovely.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
anonumos posted:You mean the machines that added a vote for Bush if you voted for Gore. Yeh, that was lovely. Wow look at this conspiracy theorist. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Phone posted:Wow look at this conspiracy theorist. Though Bush still did win with a comfortable majority of the popular vote (albeit not as good as either of Obama's) so at best that would've ended up as another 2000 style election. e: Bush won with about the same margin (in terms of the popular vote) as Carter did over Ford, the man who pardoned Richard Nixon. computer parts fucked around with this message at 14:53 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
anonumos posted:You mean the machines that added a vote for Bush if you voted for Gore. Yeh, that was lovely.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
Hakarne posted:I'm a left-leaning individual and I find these threads to be a valuable resource for political news, as well as for presenting fact-based arguments that convincingly advocate for progressive solutions. I would recommend these threads to anyone looking for an objective view on the state of politics in the U.S. Basically how I feel. No one's joining the GOP or any other strawman people feel like throwing out there, but c'mon guys, get it together.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 14:59
|
|