|
FlamingLiberal posted:But no, nobody should be prosecuted for literally manipulating global financial markets for profit It must really get your goat to learn that big banks have a larger budget for hiring lawyers than the DoJ/SEC/et al can spend on a single big bank case.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It must really get your goat to learn that big banks have a larger budget for hiring lawyers than the DoJ/SEC/et al can spend on a single big bank case. Tax legal services. Surely it costs DoJ/SEC less to bring a case than it does to defend those cases; bring enough cases, at the right legal services tax, and the cases will generate tax revenue in and of themselves from the banks regardless how much the banks outspend the feds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Maarek posted:So half of this forum is also to blame for drone killings and whistle-blowers being imprisoned because they voted for Obama? At least their not responsible for nuking Iran if they had instead voted for the other guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:This is just me spit balling here, and correct me if I'm wrong - but my dog isn't responsible for the existence of my dad in this scenario. FYI is this the exact rationale that Al Qaeda uses for justifying targeting Western civilians.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Say what you will about the oil industry and the Bushes, That they start illegal wars at the cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent human lives quote:they don't take oil money to benefit their children's hedge fund manger husbands. This crosses the line, and shows why Americans simply can't trust Clinton to be President. Ah, of course. That's what crosses the line
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Bingo, and speaking of personality/individual character... Yeah! And just because there's no evidence that Clinton did anything even unseemly that doesn't consist of speculation from the right-wing hack the Times inexplicably paid for this bullshit, doesn't mean we shouldn't just take it at face value that she's corrupt as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
GOP brainiac Steve King has introduced a bill to strip the courts of their constitutional right of judicial oversight. As a resident of Iowa I am so sorry and I give you all permission to turn this state into the world's largest popcorn tub.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Maarek posted:So half of this forum is also to blame for drone killings and whistle-blowers being imprisoned because they voted for Obama? Drone strikes were going on before the Obama administration, so that's not really a result of electing him. However, the inability of the public/unwillingness to hold politicians to higher standards certainly is something where partial fault lies with the voters. If you just pull the lever for (D) or (R) without ever considering their positions and never attempting to change the system (via primaries/trying to get better pols elected), then yeah you're kind of culpable. If someone campaigned on the platform of "Kill all Gays" and you voted for that person without even attempting to get an alternative in place of them, then you don't just get to wash your hands of it when they do some terrible poo poo. e: Obviously there are some allowances here for people who are too poor or disadvantaged to be informed and make informed decisions, but that isn't everyone who is voting in this country. zoux posted:FYI is this the exact rationale that Al Qaeda uses for justifying targeting Western civilians. And? Superficial similarities mean I'm pretty much advocating the death of Western civilians? Aves Maria! fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Bingo, and speaking of personality/individual character... quote:The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting. Unless your point was to show how easily the NYT regresses to its lovely 2000-2008 reporting, do better
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
I am glad the government managed to get their cut. This will surely convince the banks to pay in advance next time so that no unsightly "investigation" needs to happen at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Drone strikes were going on before the Obama administration, so that's not really a result of electing him. Funding cuts, deregulation, and racism against blacks were going on before the Reagan administration, why do we specifically need to blame the people who voted for him for those things? Is your argument that because Obama's platform was not specifically about blowing up people with flying robots that voters can't be blamed for that? What about people who voted for him in 2012? How are they not to blame for all those things?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Say what you will about the oil industry and the Bushes, they don't take oil money to benefit their children's hedge fund manger husbands. You're right, they just took oil money to benefit themselves, which is way better only if greed is your true god. Maarek posted:Funding cuts, deregulation, and racism against blacks were going on before the Reagan administration, why do we specifically need to blame the people who voted for him for those things? Is your argument that because Obama's platform was not specifically about blowing up people with flying robots that voters can't be blamed for that? What about people who voted for him in 2012? How are they not to blame for all those things? Which was the candidate running in the general election in 2012 that was anti-drone strike?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Drone strikes were going on before the Obama administration, so that's not really a result of electing him. However, the inability of the public/unwillingness to hold politicians to higher standards certainly is something where partial fault lies with the voters. If you just pull the lever for (D) or (R) without ever considering their positions and never attempting to change the system (via primaries/trying to get better pols elected), then yeah you're kind of culpable. If someone campaigned on the platform of "Kill all Gays" and you voted for that person without even attempting to get an alternative in place of them, then you don't just get to wash your hands of it when they do some terrible poo poo. I'm saying it's bad reasoning because, for one, American democracy is corrupt as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Bingo, and speaking of personality/individual character...
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:At least their not responsible for nuking Iran if they had instead voted for the other guy. While I completely agree that McCain and Romney were both worse candidates for the Presidency, this does nothing to explain why we have to blame Reagan voters for all the bad things that Ronald Reagan did but we shouldn't blame Obama voters for the bad things that he has done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, are there any noteworthy individuals or organizations that support/fund progressive primary challengers against moderate dems? Is that a thing? It seems to me that claiming a few scalps in primary challenges would go a long way toward sending a message of "Hey, don't loving support poo poo like the TPP you assholes."
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Lindsey Graham has weighed in on the deaths of the 2 hostages (one American, one Italian) that I posted about earlier But Obama did it, so doesn't that make it bad?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Funding cuts, deregulation, and racism against blacks were going on before the Reagan administration, why do we specifically need to blame the people who voted for him for those things? Is your argument that because Obama's platform was not specifically about blowing up people with flying robots that voters can't be blamed for that? What about people who voted for him in 2012? How are they not to blame for all those things? They are at least slightly to blame for that policy being acceptable - I however did not indicate that everyone was equally to blame or equally culpable. It's also not something that they really had a choice in when they were voting because either party would have continued it. Based on circumstance, levels of blame can be assigned. The poorest and most disenfranchised obviously would hold the least, while those who are cheering when someone says "Let them die" are much much more to blame. I wasn't saying that all people who voted for Reagan are equally to blame, but there is absolutely blame to be had. Not everyone is an innocent victim. zoux posted:I'm saying it's bad reasoning because, for one, American democracy is corrupt as gently caress. As corrupt and lovely as American democracy is, that's not an excuse to disavow yourself of any blame when it comes to bad poo poo that your elected officials do. Specifically if it is things they are campaigning on or you are aware they are actively involved in. We don't live in a tinpot dictatorship here, those of us who have the means can at least attempt to affect change instead of just saying "Welp, there's no better choice so child death it is" e: And I'm not even advocating that we should spend our time pointing out how people contributed to [bad thing] and shame them. I literally said that was completely unproductive in my first post. It's just that it is at least understandable that some people do that because blame can be assigned. Aves Maria! fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Republicans are proposing a bill to extend Obamacare subsidies until 2017, so that if/when the Supreme Court destroys it the fallout won't affect their 2016 election chances. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/senate-republicans-obamacare-subsidies-ron-johnson
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Maarek posted:While I completely agree that McCain and Romney were both worse candidates for the Presidency, this does nothing to explain why we have to blame Reagan voters for all the bad things that Ronald Reagan did but we shouldn't blame Obama voters for the bad things that he has done. This analogy isn't valid because as stated, there wasn't a "no drone strikes" option in the election. If you want to argue that Reagan and Carter Presidencies would have resulted in the same amount of deregulation that's fine, but otherwise the comparison isn't apt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:My secret shameful confession: I like NAFTA. People here keep saying it's the worst thing ever, but I am pro-free-trade. It could have bene executed better... but, well, I'm gonna say the same thing about the TPP once that inevitably passes, too The TPP is one of those issues where it could be good in theory but because of the process behind it there's pretty much no way for it to not be awful in practice. It was negotiated by government representatives and multinational corporations, and is being kept under wraps until after the TPA. The leaked portions we have seen so far are basically a goody bag of everything large multinational corporations could ever want at the expense of everything else, even the very sovereignty of the countries involved. Expecting that process to result in anything even vaguely progressive is crazy person thinking. It would be like letting Republicans write a bill and complaining that the bill forwards Republican interests, no poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:As corrupt and lovely as American democracy is, that's not an excuse to disavow yourself of any blame when it comes to bad poo poo that your elected officials do. Specifically if it is things they are campaigning on or you are aware they are actively involved in. We don't live in a tinpot dictatorship here, those of us who have the means can at least attempt to affect change instead of just saying "Welp, there's no better choice so child death it is" The electoral college absolves me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Aerox posted:Republicans are proposing a bill to extend Obamacare subsidies until 2017, so that if/when the Supreme Court destroys it the fallout won't affect their 2016 election chances.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:This analogy isn't valid because as stated, there wasn't a "no drone strikes" option in the election. If you want to argue that Reagan and Carter Presidencies would have resulted in the same amount of deregulation that's fine, but otherwise the comparison isn't apt. The comparison is very apt, it's just much easier for you to see how you might be forced into voting for someone who does bad things than how someone else might do that, especially if those people are wearing the other team's jerseys. The problem is that when you stop viewing The Others as a mass of mean little political hobgoblins it reveals just how powerless everyone who doesn't have a few million dollars to toss around is in our political system. It also destroys one of D&D's favorite fantasies about how once everyone born before 1950 is dead, our populace will be cafe au lait progressives who will all vote us into Social Democracy or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Aerox posted:Republicans are proposing a bill to extend Obamacare subsidies until 2017, so that if/when the Supreme Court destroys it the fallout won't affect their 2016 election chances. If there was ever a time for Obama to troll with a veto... Also, wouldn't that not work? If the SC drops the subsidies they're gone, aren't they?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It must really get your goat to learn that big banks have a larger budget for hiring lawyers than the DoJ/SEC/et al can spend on a single big bank case. Revenue from these settlements at least partly go to the same teams and agencies prosecuting them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Maarek posted:The comparison is very apt, it's just much easier for you to see how you might be forced into voting for someone who does bad things than how someone else might do that, especially if those people are wearing the other team's jerseys. The problem is that when you stop viewing The Others as a mass of mean little political hobgoblins it reveals just how powerless everyone who doesn't have a few million dollars to toss around is in our political system. It also destroys one of D&D's favorite fantasies about how once everyone born before 1950 is dead, our populace will be cafe au lait progressives who will all vote us into Social Democracy or something. This is a whole lot of straw men packed into one post. At least attempt to engage in a good faith discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Has anyone about posted how hosed Virginia's voting machines are? Aleksei Vasiliev posted:http://elections.virginia.gov/WebDocs/VotingEquipReport/WINVote-final.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:MIGF, your gimmick is fraying, you're supposed to be an anti-populist Democrat not an rear end in a top hat who thinks we need a Republican for the sake of foreign policy. So he's Dennis Miller then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Unless your point was to show how easily the NYT regresses to its lovely 2000-2008 reporting, do better It wasn't just 2000-2008 that the NYT sucked as a news organization. They were at the front of the Whitewater, Rose Law Firm lynching of the Clintons. They slobbered all over Kenneth Star's knob for years. The NYT has been a poo poo rag sheet for decades that fails to even give cursory editorial oversight to the crap they publish. Who needs sources and investigative reporters when you can pay a hired hit man to do your work for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Unless your point was to show how easily the NYT regresses to its lovely 2000-2008 reporting, do better quote:The New York Times' public editor on Thursday addressed blowback from readers and critics over the paper's decision to enter into an "exclusive" agreement with a conservative author shopping dirt on Hillary and Bill Clinton. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/new-york-times-clinton-book-deal
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Washington was built with slave labor at its founding and runs on slave labor today. Fun fact: reading through the comments I found out that it's actually illegal to be homeless in England due to the Vagrancy Act of 1824, which "makes it an offence to sleep on the streets or to beg for subsistence money". quote:Punishment for the wide definition of vagrancy (including prostitution) was up to one month hard labour.[1] The 1824 Act was amended several times, most notably by the Vagrancy Act 1838, which introduced a number of new public order offences that were deemed at the time to be likely to cause moral outrage. It contained the provision for the prosecution of "every Person wilfully exposing to view, in any Street... or public Place, any obscene Print, Picture, or other indecent Exhibition". [2] The Vagrancy Act 1898 prohibited soliciting or importuning for immoral purposes. Originally intended as a measure against prostitution, in practice the legislation was almost solely used to convict men for gay sex.[3] The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1912, which extended provisions of the 1824 Act to Scotland and Ireland, gave further protection to women and girls through the suppression of brothels.[4] This is my favorite part: quote:Under the Act, discharged military personnel continue to be granted exemption certificates allowing them to appeal for alms under certain circumstances. Nice work England, providing the model for some of America's worst, most regressive policies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:This is a whole lot of straw men packed into one post. At least attempt to engage in a good faith discussion. You made a blowhard proclamation about how we should blame Reagan voters for all the bad things he did as president was their fault but then pulled some half-hearted bullshit about how there were already drones blowing up Yemenis to excuse everyone who pulled the lever for the guy you felt you had no choice but to support because the alternative was worse. Guess what, that's exactly what the people pulling the lever for the other guy think too. There are definitely a lot of assholes out there who would love to vote for someone who would turn our country into The Handmaid's Tale. They're not going to be able to for the same reason that Bernie Sanders ain't gonna be president: the people who are actually calling the shots don't want that to happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:If there was ever a time for Obama to troll with a veto... Say a veto happens, what would it mean for PPACA?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Aerox posted:Republicans are proposing a bill to extend Obamacare subsidies until 2017, so that if/when the Supreme Court destroys it the fallout won't affect their 2016 election chances. My first impression was this was horrible and the Democrats should do everything they can to stop it but, what would happen if they let this pass and Hillary wins the election. In that event, even if the Supreme Court guts the law, the subsidies are in effect when she takes office and the Democrats still get to campaign on the issue of saving Obamacare. Could this actually screw the GOP in the end? edit: if a Republican wins, the law is gone anyway; probably
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Say a veto happens, what would it mean for PPACA? I would imagine the Republicans would then blame Obama for all the chaos that would follow the SCOTUS gutting Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Maarek posted:You made a blowhard proclamation about how we should blame Reagan voters for all the bad things he did as president was their fault but then pulled some half-hearted bullshit about how there were already drones blowing up Yemenis to excuse everyone who pulled the lever for the guy you felt you had no choice but to support because the alternative was worse. Guess what, that's exactly what the people pulling the lever for the other guy think too. Your reading comp isn't the best so I urge you to go back and take your time to read my posts. The sparknotes: I'm not saying all blame is equal or that people who voted for Obama hold zero responsibility for the drone program, but responsibility is based on context. How hard is it to read?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
I'm hoping that it won't get past the Senate. There are probably some Republicans who don't want voting to extend a portion of Obamacare on their voting record, that combined with the Democrats voting no could tank it before it reaches the President's desk. Voters don't understand Congressional obstruction as easily as they do Presidential obstruction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
I can't imagine it would get past the House either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:If there was ever a time for Obama to troll with a veto... Presumably it wouldn't have the same language as the portion of the PPACA that is at the center of the trial in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 19:06
|
|