Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rob C on May 31, 2019, 08:49:30 am

Title: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on May 31, 2019, 08:49:30 am
I refer, in the above, to the political one; just a tiny effort to give the subject its own space without causing yet more confusion, distraction, misunderstanding and downright fake infomation in the Brexit one.

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 31, 2019, 09:21:30 am
The U.S. Constitution, and its Bill of Rights, is the most beautiful document in the history of the mankind.

EDIT for a typo.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on May 31, 2019, 09:31:38 am
The U.S. Constitution, and its Bill of Rights, is the most beatiful document in the history of the mankind.

I admire the ardent faith of the convert!

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 31, 2019, 09:39:34 am
I admire the ardent faith of the convert!

No need for conversion, I admired it from a distance, and continue to do so once here. While walking the streets of Washington D.C., seeing its quotes on monuments and historic buildings still brings tears to my eyes.

It helps to occasionally snap out of our usual jaded and cynical selves and see the underlying values behind our mundane existence.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on May 31, 2019, 09:55:22 am
To me the most interesting thing about the Constitution is that for the first time in human history our predecessors established a republic based on a founding document – an anchor -- upon which subsequent U.S. law has been based. The Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights ran counter to the history of humanity and gave power to the people, but it was power filtered through a network of restrictions that prevented it from becoming what the French Revolution became. The electoral college was a fundamental guarantee that we wouldn’t bring in tumbrils and the guillotine. Now we have a number of states choosing to give their electoral college vote to a national majority. Can tumbrils and the guillotine be far behind? Far-fetched? Check the Salem witch trials, lynchings in the south for decades after the Civil war and the day-care sex-abuse hysteria in the 1980’s. An ill-informed majority can be deadly.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on May 31, 2019, 10:09:34 am
To me the most interesting thing about the Constitution is that for the first time in human history our predecessors established a republic based on a founding document ...

AFAIK even the Swiss Constitution is based on the USC
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on May 31, 2019, 10:12:28 am
Check the Salem witch trials, lynchings in the south for decades after the Civil war and the day-care sex-abuse hysteria in the 1980’s. An ill-informed majority can be deadly.
Salem witch trials preceded the Constitution and the day care incidents were examples of improper law enforcemtne.  Only the southern lynchings were violative of the Constitution.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on May 31, 2019, 10:19:17 am
Yes, Alan. I'm quite aware of all that. But all three examples are cases where an ignorant mob took over with catastrophic results. That's the direction in which abdication of state majorities in the Electoral College vote is leading us.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on May 31, 2019, 10:22:27 am
Russ writes on the Brexit thread:  "There was nothing “vague” about the Constitution, much as the left would like to believe that. Unfortunately, as TS Eliot pointed out: “Words strain, Crack and sometimes break, under the burden, Under the tension, slip, slide, perish, Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place, Will not stay still.” So the intent of amendments has been to keep the “originalism,” which you disdain, but to apply it to changes in our condition and in our understanding of the meaning of words. All in all the effort has been been pretty damn effective.

Jeremy: yes, we probably could give up our guns, as Britain has. Then we could kill each other with knives – same thing that’s going on in London at a great rate. The problem is people, not guns or knives."


It's not that I disdain "originalism" but that I find it ill-defined and given the long history of Supreme Court decisions, a poor measure to use.  One can argue that the Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Marbury v Madison, Martin v Hunter's Lessee and many other decisions handed down by the Court were in keeping with "orginalism."  Similarly, one can argue that Bush v Gore was an example of the Court going against "originalism."  "Originalism" ends up, as pornography, something that is in the eye of the beholder and everyone will have different views on the topic.  Constitutional scholars have fought over this matter for years.

Regarding the 2nd amendment which Russ refers to, one has to note that the Federal government already has bans on certain weapons.  They have struck down statutes in some states as well as the District of Columbia that sought to regulate firearms.  If we are to believe that States are empowered to pass laws in accordance with the 10th amendment, are not these Supreme Court decisions against the "originalism" concept.

I can remember back to when I took Constitutional Law in college that many of these issues were subject to hot discussion.  Things have not changed in the fifty years since I studied this.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on May 31, 2019, 10:29:13 am
Yes, Alan. I'm quite aware of all that. But all three examples are cases where an ignorant mob took over with catastrophic results. That's the direction in which abdication of state majorities in the Electoral College vote is leading us.
It is not inconceivable that President Trump could be re-elected in 2020 and lose the popular vote by a much greater margin than in 2016.  Do you not think that this would lead to a catastrophic result?  The Electoral College section of the Constitution was written for a specific time and place.  It will never be overturned by an amendment because the smaller states would never allow their 'power' of vote to be diminished.  I think by 2050 (vaguely remembering this date), 70% of the Senators will represent 30% of the American populace.  This sounds more like a recipe for minority rule than majority.  I can only see the legislative process getting worse than better.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on May 31, 2019, 10:50:17 am
Russ writes on the Brexit thread:  "There was nothing “vague” about the Constitution, much as the left would like to believe that. Unfortunately, as TS Eliot pointed out: “Words strain, Crack and sometimes break, under the burden, Under the tension, slip, slide, perish, Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place, Will not stay still.” So the intent of amendments has been to keep the “originalism,” which you disdain, but to apply it to changes in our condition and in our understanding of the meaning of words. All in all the effort has been been pretty damn effective.

Jeremy: yes, we probably could give up our guns, as Britain has. Then we could kill each other with knives – same thing that’s going on in London at a great rate. The problem is people, not guns or knives."


It's not that I disdain "originalism" but that I find it ill-defined and given the long history of Supreme Court decisions, a poor measure to use.  One can argue that the Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Marbury v Madison, Martin v Hunter's Lessee and many other decisions handed down by the Court were in keeping with "orginalism."  Similarly, one can argue that Bush v Gore was an example of the Court going against "originalism."  "Originalism" ends up, as pornography, something that is in the eye of the beholder and everyone will have different views on the topic.  Constitutional scholars have fought over this matter for years.

Regarding the 2nd amendment which Russ refers to, one has to note that the Federal government already has bans on certain weapons.  They have struck down statutes in some states as well as the District of Columbia that sought to regulate firearms.  If we are to believe that States are empowered to pass laws in accordance with the 10th amendment, are not these Supreme Court decisions against the "originalism" concept.

I can remember back to when I took Constitutional Law in college that many of these issues were subject to hot discussion.  Things have not changed in the fifty years since I studied this.

Somehow we muddle through, Alan, even though we make a lot of mistakes. Yes, the popular vote difference may increase. But do you really want to be governed by New York and California? Check the runaway increase of infectious diseases in LA, for instance. I don't want to be governed by Cal, and I think it's just splendid that a majority of the Senate has been put in place by smaller states. The left still has the House.

Oh, and by the way, I think our next election will be a Republican blowout unless the Democrats come down off the clouds and stop chasing their impeachment flag.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Krug on May 31, 2019, 11:26:11 am
The problem with any Constitution - be it written in 1787 or an 'unwritten' one based on common Law such as that of the United Kingdom - is that without sometimes radical revision over time it can relate to circumstances that have changed out of all recognition.  Fundamental rights and principles may remain inviolate but the interpretation of those will need to be reviewed and probably updated.   For example it is unarguably clear that for good historical reasons the second Amendment was written to prevent a standing army such as that which had assisted in the persecution of the original settlers in America - both before and after they had immigrated.  In an age were the USA has one of the largest and most sophisticated standing armies and weapons themselves have developed far beyond 18th century muskets even that most 'sacred' of constitutional elements it might be thought in need of some revision.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on May 31, 2019, 11:36:28 am
Somehow we muddle through, Alan, even though we make a lot of mistakes. Yes, the popular vote difference may increase. But do you really want to be governed by New York and California? Check the runaway increase of infectious diseases in LA, for instance. I don't want to be governed by Cal, and I think it's just splendid that a majority of the Senate has been put in place by smaller states. The left still has the House.

Oh, and by the way, I think our next election will be a Republican blowout unless the Democrats come down off the clouds and stop chasing their impeachment flag.
The big issue for me these days is voter disenfranchisement.  Look at what is happening in Florida.  The electorate in pretty much a bipartisan breakdown voted to let convicted felons vote once they paid their debt to society.  Now the Republican Legislature wants to put some barriers in place.  I'm also against Gerrymandering in every state including my own (Maryland which has really bizarre boundaries that eliminated a Republican district). 

I don't know about the infectious disease rates in LA but the worst of the opioid epidemic is in regions that voted heavily for Trump; go figure.  I think there is a better than even chance that the House might start an Impeachment inquiry that would give them much more authority to subpoena information about the President.  Were the President to refuse, that would be clear obstruction as was the case when Nixon initially refused to turn over Watergate information.  Personally, I think there is a lot of very dicey stuff in the Trump companies finances and this is the prime reason the President has gone back on his campaign promise to release his taxes.  The dealings with Deutsche Bank are only the tip of the iceberg.  I don't think the 2020 election will be a blowout if the House goes down the route of just doing an inquiry, there are too many solid Democratic states for that to happen.  However, if the voter suppression efforts continue he could win the electoral vote again.  The Democratic candidate will get a plurality of the popular vote in the neighborhood of 5 million votes./
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on May 31, 2019, 11:41:25 am
The problem with any Constitution - be it written in 1787 or an 'unwritten' one based on common Law such as that of the United Kingdom - is that without sometimes radical revision over time it can relate to circumstances that have changed out of all recognition.  Fundamental rights and principles may remain inviolate but the interpretation of those will need to be reviewed and probably updated.   For example it is unarguably clear that for good historical reasons the second Amendment was written to prevent a standing army such as that which had assisted in the persecution of the original settlers in America - both before and after they had immigrated.  In an age were the USA has one of the largest and most sophisticated standing armies and weapons themselves have developed far beyond 18th century muskets even that most 'sacred' of constitutional elements it might be thought in need of some revision.
I just finished reading Jill Lepore's fine history of the US, "These Truths: A History of the United States."  I found it a very informative read.  One point she raised about the current 2nd Amendment stuff which I had forgotten about was the role the Black Panthers played in preventing gun control in the 1970s.  The Oakland chapter was armed to the teeth with legal purchases and there was a lot of concern at the time that there would be a "standing black army."   I continue to believe that a lot of gun purchases or illegal acquisitions are racially motivated on both sides based on fear.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on May 31, 2019, 12:05:24 pm
I think there is a better than even chance that the House might start an Impeachment inquiry that would give them much more authority to subpoena information about the President.

Let's hope they do. That'll insure a Republican victory in 2020. The Repubs probably will get back the House along with hanging on to the presidency. All in all a development much to be desired.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 31, 2019, 12:10:37 pm
... I think by 2050 (vaguely remembering this date), 70% of the Senators will represent 30% of the American populace.  This sounds more like a recipe for minority rule than majority....

Oh, for God's sake, Alan, you are an educated man, you surely know that's by design. Senate is not designed to represent the populace, but to represent states. In any federal state, there is an attempt to create a balance between proportional representation (population ) and parity representation (territories).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on May 31, 2019, 12:13:36 pm
I suspect Alan isn't sure about the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 31, 2019, 12:20:31 pm
The beauty of the US Constitution is in the fact that it is based on timeless principles, not current fads.

In my previous home country, I witnessed several constitutional changes in the relatively short period I lived there. Not amendments, mind you, but whole new constitutions. The last one was like 200 pages long and contained such current-fad idiocies like workers right to a lunch break (not that I think lunch break is idiocy, but putting it in a country's constitution is).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 31, 2019, 12:26:22 pm
Oh, for God's sake, Alan, you are an educated man, you surely know that's by design. Senate is not designed to represent the populace, but to represent states. In any federal state, there is an attempt to create a balance between proportional representation (population ) and parity representation (territories).

Alan K. must love that principle, being governed by a 'foreign' state ...  ;D

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on May 31, 2019, 01:52:09 pm
Oh, for God's sake, Alan, you are an educated man, you surely know that's by design. Senate is not designed to represent the populace, but to represent states. In any federal state, there is an attempt to create a balance between proportional representation (population ) and parity representation (territories).
thanks for encouraging me to depart the Coffee Corner one more time.  I was reluctant to revisit it based on past experience and thought that I might make a contribution to a topic that I have a considerable amount of knowledge on.  Once again I'm insulted and pushed out.  Adieu and I can't use the term mes amis as it looks like I have precious few on this section of the forum.  I'll be careful an confine my postings to the technical sections of LuLa for the short period that it lives on.

Have fun with the ongoing food fight.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on May 31, 2019, 02:30:33 pm
Bye Alan. Stay reluctant.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 31, 2019, 02:57:03 pm
... Once again I'm insulted and pushed out...

Seriously!? You find insulting that I called you "an educated man" and that "you surely know"!?

You made a deliberately nonsensical statement, you were called out on it, and now you are finding refuge in the righteous indignation?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Redcrown on May 31, 2019, 03:21:23 pm
Quote
The U.S. Constitution, and its Bill of Rights, is the most beatiful document in the history of the mankind.

I first read "beatiful" as a purposeful play on words, trying to say the Constitution is often and easily "beat." Now I'm not sure since no one else picked up on that. So maybe it was just a typo?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 31, 2019, 03:25:06 pm
I first read "beatiful" as a purposeful play on words, trying to say the Constitution is often and easily "beat." Now I'm not sure since no one else picked up on that. So maybe it was just a typo?

Thanks for pointing out, corrected. That's what happens when one types on a phone early in the morning ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 31, 2019, 03:43:38 pm
I suspect Alan isn't sure about the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.

Well, whatever it is, it is not a democracy. You seem to be proud of that, I wouldn't.
Whether it can be called a constitutional republic is open for debate (and there is a difference between the intended structure and the actual structure).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on May 31, 2019, 03:56:02 pm
Thanks for pointing out, corrected. That's what happens when one types on a phone early in the morning ;)

You have my absolute sympathy; here, on LuLa I can correct later if nobody picks up and sets in amber, but on another - now the only other photography site I visit - once flown, done! (My love is the small iPad.)

Yes I know one can enlarge the screen image, but that introduces all sorts of other inconveniences.

That said, where previously the computer ruled, now it's relegated to a couple of checks a day; the tv is only watched twice a day for the news which fits perfectly with my times for the eye drops, so as I can't see anything for ten minutes, it acts as a radio. If the Beeb has some good music on Friday nights, I watch that on tv. Otherwise, the iPad is undisputed king.

I use the cellphone almost not at all.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on May 31, 2019, 04:01:07 pm
Well, whatever it is, it is not a democracy. You seem to be proud of that, I wouldn't.
Whether it can be called a constitutional republic is open for debate (and there is a difference between the intended structure and the actual structure).

Cheers,
Bart

Really, Bart? Exactly what is that difference?

You're right. What we have surely (and thank Heaven) is not a democracy. The founders were pretty smart people and they were able to avoid the kind of thing we saw shortly after the founding of the US in the French revolution. The French had a real democracy, where a majority could vote to kill people who disagreed with them. On rumbled the tumbrils and down came the guillotine.

After the convention someone asked Ben Franklin: "What kind of government have you given us?" Ben replied: "A republic, if you can keep it." As it turned out the US Constitution gave us the most successful form of government the world has ever seen -- a government that, incidentally, saved Europe from destruction and enslavement twice. Now we have people who are trying desperately to make sure we don't keep our Republic.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 31, 2019, 04:16:37 pm
... a real democracy, where a majority could vote to kill people who disagreed with them...

Indeed.

Some of the newly minted socialists/communists were still peeing in their diapers when the Berlin wall fell, so they can be forgiven (no, not really) for not realizing that the word bolshevik - a synonym for the Soviets - means a member of the majority.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on May 31, 2019, 05:09:56 pm
just a tiny effort to give the subject its own space without causing yet more confusion, distraction, misunderstanding and downright fake infomation

Yer absolutely right: we norteamericanos deserve our own space on this forum for confusion, distraction, misunderstanding, and downright fake information.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on May 31, 2019, 05:49:00 pm
The French had a real democracy, where a majority could vote to kill people who disagreed with them.

That might be a mis-characterization of what happened.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on May 31, 2019, 05:52:27 pm
Only slightly, Robert. They stood by as the "leaders" executed those who'd been indicted by their neighbors.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 31, 2019, 06:57:43 pm
That might be a mis-characterization of what happened.

Perhaps this will help the, again, sadly misinformed to understand that the French Revolution is not synonymous with democracy as we know it today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTTvKwCylFY

or, at a slightly lower tempo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBn7iWzrKoI

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on May 31, 2019, 07:47:38 pm
Yes, Bart, democracy “as we know it today” is different from democracy during the French revolution, but as long as a majority has absolute power things can change rapidly. At bottom, a pure democracy is also a potential mob.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: BobShaw on May 31, 2019, 08:08:03 pm
To me the most interesting thing about the Constitution is that for the first time in human history our predecessors established a republic based on a founding document – an anchor -- upon which subsequent U.S. law has been based.
Yep. it anchored the US in 1776.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: David Sutton on May 31, 2019, 10:17:09 pm
Perhaps I'm getting more cynical in my dotage, but it seems that constitutions and bills of rights, while fine aspirational (and inspirational) documents, are increasingly becoming works of fiction. Was it always that way?
By this I mean that in many countries the constitution is simply ignored by the rich, by corporations, and by governments when it gets in the way of their power. I include all of North and South America, and much of Europe. Can't speak for Asia or the Middle East.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 01, 2019, 04:29:35 am
Perhaps I'm getting more cynical in my dotage, but it seems that constitutions and bills of rights, while fine aspirational (and inspirational) documents, are increasingly becoming works of fiction. Was it always that way?
By this I mean that in many countries the constitution is simply ignored by the rich, by corporations, and by governments when it gets in the way of their power. I include all of North and South America, and much of Europe. Can't speak for Asia or the Middle East.


That's an acutely accurate observation.

Regarding the French Revolution - mobs and street violence have always been associated with that country. Even its students were revolting in 1968. ;-)

It's the only land I know where mobs can close the motorways and the police and/or army do not clear them the hell out of the way. I know about that first-hand, having been diverted from one such motorway onto a series of interminable little roads through beautiful farmlands, where our queue of cars was pretty much parked. Ann and I had a little fit of mutual hysterics sitting there, immobile in our automobile, looking at a row of cows that had wandered across the field to the fence to look at us looking back at them. Sadly, if not ironically, the expressions on their faces were incredibly wise ones.

It doesn't matter what you call a political system when crowds of people go nuts together. The only difference is in whether or not they get machine-gunned into submission.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 01, 2019, 05:52:38 am
Yes, Bart, democracy “as we know it today” is different from democracy during the French revolution, but as long as a majority has absolute power things can change rapidly. At bottom, a pure democracy is also a potential mob.

You're still not getting it. The French Revolution had little to do with democracy, rather more with the lack of it. The people took the draining of the swamp into their own hands, they wanted food, and not be the only ones who paid taxes.

There are some parallels that could be drawn with the current situation in the USA. The first 'estate' and the 'second estate' as they were called in France are more or less 'elected' amongst themselves, and pay very little if any taxes. Only those with financial backing from the second estate can be successfully nominated for office. Then the 'third estate', that is paying all the taxes and who have to run multiple jobs to even earn a living wage, may attempt to pick one of these figureheads.

Maybe the (ab)use of guns (e.g. yesterday's Virginia Beach shooting) is an indication of the mob taking control into their own hands?
I prefer a Democracy that aims to avoid such things by allowing more people to shape their own future, in a mutually beneficial way.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 01, 2019, 08:15:26 am
True, about the French revolution, Bart, but in relation to what I said, irrelevant. Didn’t matter what the people “wanted.” The fact is that they cheered the tumbrils as they rattled toward the guillotine. There’s always an ignorant mob waiting to pounce when they’re stirred up by political stirrers. Again: Salem witch trials and southern lynchings, to name just two of many examples. That's true democracy at work.

In the US, the top 1% of earners pays 37.3% of income taxes. The bottom 90% pays only 20.0%. I guess you’d see the top 1% as the “second estate,” which contributes to the “first estate,” the political elite, which we call the “deep state,” or “the establishment.” Thing is, it often doesn’t work. See our last presidential election. Thanks to the electoral college, the vast funding available to the left (roughly 330 million more than on the right) simply couldn’t get the job done across the states. It got it done in places like New York and California, but couldn’t corrupt the whole country.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 01, 2019, 08:56:38 am
It is not inconceivable that President Trump could be re-elected in 2020 and lose the popular vote by a much greater margin than in 2016.  Do you not think that this would lead to a catastrophic result?  The Electoral College section of the Constitution was written for a specific time and place.  It will never be overturned by an amendment because the smaller states would never allow their 'power' of vote to be diminished.  I think by 2050 (vaguely remembering this date), 70% of the Senators will represent 30% of the American populace.  This sounds more like a recipe for minority rule than majority.  I can only see the legislative process getting worse than better.

Senators do not represent the people.  That's an argument from those who want to do away with the Electoral College and argue that it's time has come and gone.  Senators represent the individual States.  Remember we are a Federal Republic made up of sovereign states that have equal value, position and rights.  Two senators per state whether your 50 million strong California or 600,000 peopled Wyoming.  Just like there is one vote per country in the UN General Assembly whether you're 1.4 billion China or little Jamaica.  If you were let's say Jamaican, would you join an organization where your country did not have equal standing to all the other countries?  Yes, I know about the Security Council.  But the General Assembly is the answer to that just as Senators are the answer to the House of Representatives.

 

So it's the House of Representatives who represent the people and it is apportioned by the number of people in the districts in each state.  For example 53 in California and 1 in Wyoming.  But the Senate represents each sovereign State equally among the 50 states.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 01, 2019, 09:10:12 am
Yes, Bart, democracy “as we know it today” is different from democracy during the French revolution, but as long as a majority has absolute power things can change rapidly. At bottom, a pure democracy is also a potential mob.
Which the American Founders understood, hence the Bill of Rights to protect us from ourselves.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 01, 2019, 09:17:53 am
Yep. it anchored the US in 1776.

Nothing has changed since 1776 or 3000 years ago.  The Rights of Man are eternal. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 01, 2019, 09:25:54 am
Perhaps I'm getting more cynical in my dotage, but it seems that constitutions and bills of rights, while fine aspirational (and inspirational) documents, are increasingly becoming works of fiction. Was it always that way?
By this I mean that in many countries the constitution is simply ignored by the rich, by corporations, and by governments when it gets in the way of their power. I include all of North and South America, and much of Europe. Can't speak for Asia or the Middle East.
You're right.  A Constitution has value directly in proportion to the respect it has from the people.  In many countries where the constitution is basically ignored, the people lose their rights.  One of the concerns I have, is that our Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution has become a political arm of the US government.  As more and more people see it making conclusions that appear based on political viewpoints, ignoring the constitution's original intent, the Court will lose is power and respectability.  It's decisions will be ignored.  We'll then become like those other countries.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 01, 2019, 10:18:35 am
True, about the French revolution, Bart, but in relation to what I said, irrelevant. Didn’t matter what the people “wanted.” The fact is that they cheered the tumbrils as they rattled toward the guillotine. There’s always an ignorant mob waiting to pounce when they’re stirred up by political stirrers. Again: Salem witch trials and southern lynchings, to name just two of many examples. That's true democracy at work.

Indeed. 

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/413050-trump-rally-chants-lock-her-up-after-in-wake-of-bomb-threats-to

with more subtlety...

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/411765-conspicuous-irony-lecturing-to-a-trump-rally-against-mob-rule
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 01, 2019, 10:21:03 am
... Then the 'third estate', that is paying all the taxes and who have to run multiple jobs to even earn a living wage, may attempt to pick one of these figureheads...


And... off he goes into a phantasy land. Bon voyage, Bart!

Top 10% pay 70% of all taxes.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 01, 2019, 12:35:15 pm
Nothing has changed since 1776 or 3000 years ago.  The Rights of Man are eternal.
Wow, did you ever step in doo-doo with this post.  Of course it is a truism that women, until the 20th century, often had no rights at all.  Abigail Adams cautioned John about not including women when drafting the Constitution but was ignored.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 01, 2019, 12:38:01 pm
Wow, did you ever step in doo-doo with this post...

Man, you are hard to push out, no matter how hard I try ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 01, 2019, 12:48:52 pm
Wow, did you ever step in doo-doo with this post.  Of course it is a truism that women, until the 20th century, often had no rights at all.  Abigail Adams cautioned John about not including women when drafting the Constitution but was ignored.

As Churchill observed in this context, man (or Man) embraces woman.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 01, 2019, 01:00:44 pm
Wow, did you ever step in doo-doo with this post.  Of course it is a truism that women, until the 20th century, often had no rights at all.  Abigail Adams cautioned John about not including women when drafting the Constitution but was ignored.

Now now, this is growing into a byzantine discussion.
I understand very well "man" as belonging to the humans species.
I go to the doctor, not to the "she-doctor", whatever gender she or he may belong to.

Look what happened in Harvard to professor Sullivan. One should be careful not to overdo it IMHO
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 01, 2019, 01:32:45 pm
Nothing has changed since 1776 or 3000 years ago.  The Rights of Man are eternal.

Unless they're black, of course.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 01, 2019, 02:00:32 pm
Now now, this is growing into a byzantine discussion.
I understand very well "man" as belonging to the humans species.
I go to the doctor, not to the "she-doctor", whatever gender she or he may belong to.

Look what happened in Harvard to professor Sullivan. One should be careful not to overdo it IMHO

The point though, is that in 1789 that was NOT “well-understood,” just as slavery WAS “well understood” to mean that people who were literally owned by other people were worth precisely 3/5 as much when accounting for representation.   Which is why, (amongst other reasons) unlike Goldhammer, I absolutely do hold strict originalists in contempt, not only for their inevitable hypocrisy, but for their retrograde ideas that are inflexible when they shouldn’t be and flexible when politically convenient. 

Of course it’s not just originalists that are guilty of the latter, it’s just that they loudly trumpet such a moral base while doing so.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 01, 2019, 02:00:49 pm

And... off he goes into a phantasy land. Bon voyage, Bart!

Top 10% pay 70% of all taxes.

Do they? Any sources for that assumption? It does stand to reason that only paying a small percentage of one's sizeable income does amount to a sizeable amount of money, but it would remain a small percentage of income. For those with minimal free spending power, each tax dollar weighs more heavily.



The top 10% apparently do have 70% of the wealth, while the rest is having less and less. In fact, the bottom 50% have something in the order of 1% of the wealth ...
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-richest-10-of-households-now-represent-70-of-all-us-wealth-2019-05-24

And the gap is widening.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 01, 2019, 02:33:46 pm
Do they? Any sources for that assumption? It does stand to reason that only paying a small percentage of one's sizeable income does amount to a sizeable amount of money, but it would remain a small percentage of income. For those with minimal free spending power, each tax dollar weighs more heavily.



The top 10% apparently do have 70% of the wealth, while the rest is having less and less. In fact, the bottom 50% have something in the order of 1% of the wealth ...
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-richest-10-of-households-now-represent-70-of-all-us-wealth-2019-05-24

And the gap is widening.

Cheers,
Bart
Da, it is true Commissar.  Ve should take all the rich people's money and spread it around.  Dat seems like a fair solution.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 01, 2019, 02:41:33 pm
Unless they're black, of course.
A terrible decision that has haunted us since.  However, we fought a brutal Civil War over it, the Constitution was amended, corrected even when slaves were freed and blacks given equal status as were women allowed to vote in another Amendment.  The point is the Constitution was a brilliant document that limited government power and recognized the rights of man being innate.  The Amendment process allows the document to be improved.  No one said it was perfectly written but it left openings to be perfected.  Only God is perfect. What more can you ask of Man?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 01, 2019, 03:06:47 pm
Do they? Any sources for that assumption? It does stand to reason that only paying a small percentage of one's sizeable income...

Yes. And it is not my assumption, just statistics. Look it up, it is easy. Your "small percentage" amounts for the 1%-ers to twice as much as all taxpayers pay.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-u-s-taxpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 01, 2019, 03:26:47 pm
Your "small percentage" amounts for the 1%-ers to twice as much as all taxpayers pay.

As I said, that stands to reason, but you keep avoiding the simple fact that that still leaves them with a sizeable amount of free spending power, unlike the lower income brackets where every dollar counts. The formal definition is called "discretionary income". And things have not improved since 2016.

To put it in a French Revolution context, it's harder to be taxed a cow when you only have one cow than it is to be taxed a few cows when you already took a herd of cows from others.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 01, 2019, 04:20:36 pm
As I said, that stands to reason, but you keep avoiding the simple fact that that still leaves them with a sizeable amount of free spending power, unlike the lower income brackets where every dollar counts. The formal definition is called "discretionary income". And things have not improved since 2016.

To put it in a French Revolution context, it's harder to be taxed a cow when you only have one cow than it is to be taxed a few cows when you already took a herd of cows from others.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, you seem to believe that wealthy people rathole spendable cash away in their basements. You really need a serious course in economics.

If you start cleaning out wealthy people you’ll soon put an end to productivity because productivity requires investment. You evidently believe that capital is spendable cash. It’s not. It’s stuff like the machinery in an auto plant. If you don’t have capital investment you’re screwed. Communists (and I hope you’re not one of them, though I can't tell from your posts) believe that government can invest people’s money in a smarter, more productive way than individuals. They’ve managed to demonstrate the catastrophic fallacy of that idea over and over and over, but leftists still don’t believe it.

Believe it!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on June 01, 2019, 05:35:22 pm
..
Believe it!
Amen
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: David Sutton on June 01, 2019, 11:18:38 pm
Yes. And it is not my assumption, just statistics. Look it up, it is easy. Your "small percentage" amounts for the 1%-ers to twice as much as all taxpayers pay.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-u-s-taxpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016
I think that data a bit misleading Slobodan. I looked up the Bloomberg article and then the 2016 data sheet it refers to.
Those earning $100,000 to $500,000 dollars in the US account for over 40% of tax payments.
Not including corporate tax.
The income from the $10,000,000 bracket looks impressive until you factor in what everyone else pays.
Then there is the issue of tax avoidance by the super wealthy, estimated at $200 billion yearly by someone who has number crunched data:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-05-23/the-wealth-detective-who-finds-the-hidden-money-of-the-super-rich

Now I agree that the ultra rich are the wealth creators of society, but the problem is that the created wealth goes in their own pockets.
They don't do capital investment. Over the last 20 years I've seen little proper capital investment worldwide, apart from China. And even that may be debt funded, heaven help us.
What I have seen is that the greatest wealth generators for most folks are small business owners. It's the small business owners who provide the most jobs in most nations. They tend to strengthen social networks and give cities more resilience by paying rates and spending and employing locally.
I don't begrudge anyone their material goods, but IMHO you could get rid of the really wealthy and life would go on just as well, but lose sight of your small businesses and the values they represent, and watch your financial system head straight to 1929.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2019, 01:52:44 am
... the issue of tax avoidance by the super wealthy, estimated at $200 billion yearly...

Tax avoidance is completely legal and everyone who has ever filed taxes, including myself, is doing it to the fullest extent of the law. Tax evasion, however, is illegal.

Taking both into account, avoidance (legal) and evasion (illegal), doesn’t change the fact one bit that the rich pay the majority of income taxes. Add that to the the fact that about 45% of the population doesn’t pay income tax at all (that would be the lowest paid ones).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: David Sutton on June 02, 2019, 03:54:03 am
Tax avoidance is completely legal and everyone who has ever filed taxes, including myself, is doing it to the fullest extent of the law. Tax evasion, however, is illegal.
I see where you're coming from. What you call "tax avoidance", we tend to call tax minimisation. But "tax evasion" is, of course, what I meant. They're all somewhat weasel words.

Taking both into account, avoidance (legal) and evasion (illegal), doesn’t change the fact one bit that the rich pay the majority of income taxes. Add that to the the fact that about 45% of the population doesn’t pay income tax at all (that would be the lowest paid ones).

Taking into account those in the US who don't pay tax may shift the data.
But according to the IRS 2016 spreadsheet referenced and linked by the Bloomberg article, of those who pay tax, the "rich" pay the highest tax per head, but their total contribution is 8% of the total, while those who earn $100,000 to $500,000 contribute 43.9% of the total. Have a look at the source figures. Happy to be corrected.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 02, 2019, 07:19:07 am
As Churchill observed in this context, man (or Man) embraces woman.

Jeremy
While a useful quote it is not accurate in a historical context which was the problem with Alan Klein's post.  Much religious law is still patriarchal and we have nation state examples where outrageous things continue to happen.  National sufferage in the US required a Constitutional amendment.  I'm unsure of how things progressed in Britain which is governed by common law.  In the US the temperance movement that led to prohibition started as a women's movement responding to spousal abuse by drunken husbands (quite frequent in the 1800s).  The point of my earlier post is that the original Constitution and Bill of Rights was 'white male' centric.  It took some years before the 14th amendment established equal protection and some more years for the 15th amendment to establish universal voting rights.  Even though there were constitutional protections, the examples of Jim Crow laws in the former Confederate states showed that this was not always enough.  Plessy v Ferguson, as decided by the Supreme Court, stated that 'separate but equal' was a sufficient solution.

I'll spare you the discussion of treatment of the indigenous Indians who are now largely confined to reservations.

While Churchill was an admirable man and leader, this particular quote is wide of the mark.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 02, 2019, 07:33:09 am
Taking into account those in the US who don't pay tax may shift the data.
But according to the IRS 2016 spreadsheet referenced and linked by the Bloomberg article, of those who pay tax, the "rich" pay the highest tax per head, but their total contribution is 8% of the total, while those who earn $100,000 to $500,000 contribute 43.9% of the total. Have a look at the source figures. Happy to be corrected.
The problem with the Bloomberg article is that it only covers those who pay Federal income tax and does not include state and local taxes as well as those withheld for Social Security and Medicare.  These latter two taxes as well as sales taxes are regressive in that the same rate applies to all.  Social Security tax withholding has an annual earnings cap that once you reach that point you owe no tax for the remainder of that calendar year.  When I was still working, I usually reached this point by the middle of the year and I would be "tax free" for this category for the rest of the year.  Those in lower Federal tax brackets or even those who pay no Federal income tax because of the new deduction are still subject to taxation and that might be a significant part of their overall income.

As Warren Buffett has noted, his secretary is in a higher tax bracket than he is despite is much larger income.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 02, 2019, 08:58:02 am
Simpler, would be a straight ten percent taxation on whatever you earn - the moral being that ten per cent of a million feels as horrid to somebody earning that as does ten percent of ten grand, if that happens to be where you're at.

I firmly believe - know for a fact from from the small group of healthy earners I know/knew (my generation is on the extinction list) that money sitting in the bank is not thought the clever option - especially today. You invest it as cleverly as you know how, and try to make it grow. Investing it usually means into companies on the stock market, big players who in turn provide employment and, in good times, a reasonable return. Of course, the old advice holds: don't invest what you can't afford to lose.

In Spain, the reasoning is slightly different - at least at more humble levels closer to my own - where faith in governments and pensions is slim, to be generous about it. The objective is often to find enough dosh to enable the purchase of a second house or apartment with the intention of letting it out to provide the income old folks can mostly no longer earn. But even there, the taxman has spies and ears everywhere.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 02, 2019, 09:35:55 am
Simpler, would be a straight ten percent taxation on whatever you earn

Then you will have to be clear about what is meant by "earn" :-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 02, 2019, 10:02:21 am
Once again I'm insulted and pushed out.  Adieu and I can't use the term mes amis as it looks like I have precious few on this section of the forum.  I'll be careful an confine my postings to the technical sections of LuLa for the short period that it lives on.

Have fun with the ongoing food fight.

Golly, Alan, you didn't stay off long, did you?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2019, 10:17:27 am
... I'll spare you the discussion of treatment of the indigenous Indians who are now largely confined to reservations...

You better (spare us). Because today nobody is confining them to the reservations but their own desire to stay there. They often get off the reservation and some even run for President.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 02, 2019, 10:32:36 am
The problem isn't taxes.  The problem is spending.  We're doing too much of it more than taxes can pay for.  Even if we raise taxes, Congress would still spend more then we take in.  They're like drunken sailors, no disrespect to the navy.  Both sides - Republicans and Democrats.  They;re no different.  So we issue bonds and print money to make up the difference.  So we have have huge deficits and debt.    We can not keep that up.  It's unsustainable. 

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on June 02, 2019, 10:43:32 am
The problem isn't taxes.  The problem is spending.  We're doing too much of it more than taxes can pay for.  Even if we raise taxes, Congress would still spend more then we take in.  They're like drunken sailors, no disrespect to the navy.  Both sides - Republicans and Democrats.  They;re no different.  So we issue bonds and print money to make up the difference.  So we have have huge deficits and debt.    We can not keep that up.  It's unsustainable.

Not a problem unique to the USA that’s certain.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 02, 2019, 10:50:20 am
Then you will have to be clear about what is meant by "earn" :-)


Fair enough: let's draw the initiation line at whatever annual earning it's worth the taxman's time collecting his ten percent. If it costs more to claw in ten percent of ten grand than the one grand it brings, but worth spending time on earnings of fifteen grand, then let the percentage kick in at fifteen Gs per year.

A million ten percents of an uneconomic starting rate will still cost a million unprofitable attempts at collection. I like to think so, at any rate.

Percent on what? On all your incomings. Share the misery!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2019, 10:59:09 am
Rob, that’s a brilliant approach!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 02, 2019, 11:19:59 am

Fair enough: let's draw the initiation line at whatever annual earning it's worth the taxman's time collecting his ten percent. If it costs more to claw in ten percent of ten grand than the one grand it brings, but worth spending time on earnings of fifteen grand, then let the percentage kick in at fifteen Gs per year.

A million ten percents of an uneconomic starting rate will still cost a million unprofitable attempts at collection. I like to think so, at any rate.

Percent on what? On all your incomings. Share the misery!

America is more successful at collecting taxes than Europe I believe.  First off, most people are employees.  The tax collector makes the employer responsible to pay upfront taxe of their employees.  So most of the Federal and State and Local tax payments are made by their employers and taken out of the regular salary check when the employees get paid.    Social Security and Medicare deduction are also made by the employer at the time he pays his employees.  There's not much "net" left.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 02, 2019, 11:27:47 am
Percent on what? On all your incomings. Share the misery!

Are incomings the same as earnings, then?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 02, 2019, 11:29:20 am
America is more successful at collecting taxes than Europe I believe. 

Yawn. Yes, Alan, we know America is Practically Perfect In Every Way. No need to remind us every post.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 02, 2019, 12:11:15 pm
Actually, Jeremy, America is more successful at a lot of things, including pulling other nations' butts out of the fire in wartime.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 02, 2019, 12:14:22 pm
You better (spare us). Because today nobody is confining them to the reservations but their own desire to stay there. They often get off the reservation and some even run for President.

Really, or is this more fake news?

In case you are referring to Senator Warren, she is not an indigenous Indian, she only made a claim to some sliver of Native American heritage, so maybe you are trying to make a (racist?) remark about someone else?

Trump also didn't back his promise on this one:
"I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian," Trump said. "I have a feeling she will say no but hold it for the debates."

He was wrong.

Sen. Elisabeth Warren revealed that an analysis of genetic testing confirmed her distant Native American ancestry. Trump shrugged off the news and denied he made the big dollar wager.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 02, 2019, 12:22:08 pm
He was wrong.

Sen. Elisabeth Warren revealed that an analysis of genetic testing confirmed her distant Native American ancestry. Trump shrugged off the news and denied he made the big dollar wager.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, give me a second to stop laughing and get up off the floor. Pocahontas's "Native American" ancestry turned out to be 1/1024%. I have more "Native American" ancestry than that, along with the vast majority of Americans. Trump won his bet.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2019, 12:24:19 pm
... she is not an indigenous Indian...

--- an analysis of genetic testing confirmed her distant Native American ancestry...

Which is it, Bart? Make up your mind.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2019, 12:26:50 pm
... Yes, Alan, we know America is Practically Perfect In Every Way...

And you will be able to enjoy it first-hand when you become our 51st state. Or 50th, if we kick-out California first.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 02, 2019, 12:30:19 pm
Actually, Jeremy, America is more successful at a lot of things, including pulling other nations' butts out of the fire in wartime.

Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.

Hey, we saved you from tyranny 70 years ago, so now you have to eat our poisoned GMO foods, spend your money as we see fit, especially on military, which btw you should purchase from us, because, you know, we saved you from tyranny.

saved you from tyranny.
saved you from tyranny.

The odd thing of course is that that republican camp of yours seems to have a propensity for draft dodging candidates that slander and ignore actual god honest war heros, only to subsequently send the entire army into irrational wars and then issuing congressional medals of honor like there is no tomorrow.

You of all people should see the irony in that, no?

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2019, 12:42:01 pm
... Hey, we saved you from tyranny 70 years ago, so now you have to... spend your money as we see fit, especially on military...

Well, Americans did save you 70 years ago. But also quite recently, saved your from the Soviets, gave you back half of Germany, and the whole Poland, Baltic states, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. You are welcome.

As for the military, by all means feel free to spend however little you want on your military, once you get out of NATO and form your all-European army.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 02, 2019, 12:48:35 pm
Actually, Jeremy, America is more successful at a lot of things, including pulling other nations' butts out of the fire in wartime.

With the help of Russian (!), Polish, Canadian, Brittish, soldiers from several other nations. After all, it was a World War. During World War II, the United States began to provide significant military supplies and other assistance to the Allies in September 1940, through a Lease-Lend deal, even though the United States officially only entered two years into the war, after the attack on Pearl Harbour. The USA formally maintained neutrality up until that moment. The American public generally resisted involving the United States in the European conflict.

But hey, nobody is complaining, also since the USA is now being led by the nose to a new war that Saudi Arabia wants your country to start on their behalf.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 02, 2019, 12:50:01 pm
Which is it, Bart? Make up your mind.

Which part of "indigenous" do you not understand?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 02, 2019, 12:52:28 pm
Where's the button to ignore threads?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 02, 2019, 01:00:15 pm
Well, Americans did save you 70 years ago.

No, the allies did. It's enormously disrespectful to a lot of people and several nations to continuously claim superiority in this regard. In fact, most wars that the US seems to enter on its own behalf do not seem to end well for them.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2019, 01:03:37 pm
No, the allies did...

You had Polish, Russian, etc. troops liberating Holland?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2019, 01:04:17 pm
Where's the button to ignore threads?

The one on your mouse. Just don't click.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2019, 01:10:34 pm
Which part of "indigenous" do you not understand?

Let me see which part  of "indigenous" I do not understand:



Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 02, 2019, 01:23:49 pm
Actually, Jeremy, America is more successful at a lot of things, including pulling other nations' butts out of the fire in wartime.

I am not sure what that has to do with anything under discussion.

But really, my question is this. Do you regret doing so? Was it a mistake? Would you have preferred a different outcome?  ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 02, 2019, 01:32:31 pm
Let me see which part  of "indigenous" I do not understand:

As I said, she is not an indigenous Indian, but has some distant traces of an ancestor who was. Which apparently means a lot to you, for some reason, since you brought it up (and apparently were referring to Sen. Warren, so much is clear now).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 02, 2019, 01:48:21 pm
As I said, she is not an indigenous Indian. . .

Cheers,
Bart

No, no, Bart. You don't understand. She's not an "Indian" at all, "indigenous" or otherwise.. 1/1024% native something or other pretty much is general throughout the population. YOU might be 1/1024% "indigenous" for all you know.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 02, 2019, 01:49:56 pm
But really, my question is this. Do you regret doing so? Was it a mistake? Would you have preferred a different outcome?  ;)

No, Robert. And it looks as if we may have to do it again if y'all keep on the way you're going. ;D ;D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 02, 2019, 01:56:29 pm
Good grief - internet's most moronic discussion.

"Two World Wars and one World Cup, doo dah, doo dah"
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2019, 02:36:08 pm
Good grief - internet's most moronic discussion...

Looks like this guy sidetracked it from the OP subject:


Yawn. Yes, Alan, we know America is Practically Perfect In Every Way. No need to remind us every post.

 ;)

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: DP on June 02, 2019, 02:57:22 pm
With the help of Russian (!), Polish, Canadian, Brittish, soldiers from several other nations.

and Chinese too...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 02, 2019, 03:09:45 pm
and Chinese too...

Absolutely, and many others, it was a World War, fought on many fronts.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 02, 2019, 03:32:54 pm
Absolutely, and many others, it was a World War, fought on many fronts.

Cheers,
Bart

Only problem with that is that the Russian, Polish, Canadian, British, Chinese, etc., etc., etc. were losing. The most important thing the US brought to the fight was the ability to produce the materiel it took to win. You guys need to go back and read Churchill’s second world war series.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2019, 03:36:50 pm
and Chinese too...

Yes, I remember the Chinese army marching through Paris.

Face it, it was Russians and Americans that saved your sorry asses. Dutch contribution was to unscrew air valves on German soldiers' bicycles.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 02, 2019, 03:41:16 pm
Instead off this, can we get back to my camera is better than yours.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Frans Waterlander on June 02, 2019, 03:53:54 pm
Dutch contribution was to unscrew air valves on German soldiers' bicycles.
As a former Dutchman I need to vehemently object to your misrepresentation of historic facts. >:( And you can't blame me; I was only 2 years old when WWII ended. >:(
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 02, 2019, 03:57:02 pm
I can't blame you Franz. You were too young to unscrew air valves.  8)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 02, 2019, 03:58:05 pm
As a former Dutchman I need to vehemently object to your misrepresentation of historic facts. >:( And you can't blame me; I was only 2 years old when WWII ended. >:(

Of course, we also sent the germans in the wrong direction. (https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9_en_Arie_Temmes)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on June 02, 2019, 04:14:56 pm
Actually, Jeremy, America is more successful at a lot of things, including pulling other nations' butts out of the fire in wartime.
As they say what happened in the past wil be no garantee for the future:
With Trump in charge there will be no support in times of war unless he sees a good deal for him and his USA-family. Me, Mom and Dad First.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2019, 04:41:19 pm
As they say what happened in the past wil be no garantee for the future:
With Trump in charge there will be no support in times of war unless he sees a good deal for him and his USA-family. Me, Mom and Dad First.

That’s why you should let him build a sufficient number of Trump Towers and golf courses throughout Europe, as your best line of defense.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2019, 04:41:59 pm
Of course, we also sent the germans in the wrong direction. (https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9_en_Arie_Temmes)

Big deal, my gps does that all the time.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 02, 2019, 04:47:03 pm
Big deal, my gps does that all the time.

Could be TomTom then...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 02, 2019, 04:51:41 pm
Face it, it was Russians and Americans that saved your sorry asses. Dutch contribution was to unscrew air valves on German soldiers' bicycles.

"Sorry asses" ?

"unscrewing air valves"?

This would be embarrassing in a children's school yard. I think the thread has devolved sufficiently.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 02, 2019, 05:25:32 pm
"Sorry asses" ?

"unscrewing air valves"?

This would be embarrassing in a children's school yard. I think the thread has devolved sufficiently.
Perhaps that is why discussion of politics was previously banned. It was a bad decision to allow it again. No good can come of it. It certainly doesn't add anything positive to LuLa. Except maybe post count. Which is a lousy metric for quality.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2019, 05:30:04 pm
Oh, come on Robert, we are just having fun and a friendly banter. We love you all guys, French, Dutch, Brits, even Canadians ❤️
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 02, 2019, 06:07:41 pm
Perhaps that is why discussion of politics was previously banned. It was a bad decision to allow it again. No good can come of it. It certainly doesn't add anything positive to LuLa. Except maybe post count. Which is a lousy metric for quality.
Yes. I agree with that
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2019, 06:21:25 pm
Why is it that everybody and his mother-in-law feels completely entitled to criticize, mock, and spit on America and its sitting President? None of us on the American side complained or started running for our British nanny’s skirt, wailing about locking the thread, banning political discussions, etc. But when we return the favor, mildly, everybody is offended? Grow up.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 02, 2019, 06:29:51 pm
Why is it that everybody and his mother-in-law feels completely entitled to criticize, mock, and spit on America and its sitting President?
Everybody? For better or worse, he and his views seem well represented here.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on June 02, 2019, 07:19:27 pm
just a tiny effort to give the subject its own space

See what you started?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 02, 2019, 07:28:04 pm
See what you started?

FWIW, it improved the Brexit thread. ;)

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 02, 2019, 08:16:37 pm
America is more successful at collecting taxes than Europe I believe.  First off, most people are employees.  The tax collector makes the employer responsible to pay upfront taxe of their employees.  So most of the Federal and State and Local tax payments are made by their employers and taken out of the regular salary check when the employees get paid.    Social Security and Medicare deduction are also made by the employer at the time he pays his employees.  There's not much "net" left.  :)
I am not sure that this is true.  There are probably more self-employed people in the US than in Europe and the chance for faking the books is much larger in that case (not reporting certain amounts of income, fake deductions, etc.).  A number of European countries have automatic income tax calculations by the government.  Perhaps Bart can weigh in on this but I've read that in The Netherlands it takes less than 10 minutes to do ones income tax.  Just look at what the government says you earned and confirm the number; that's it.  In our own case, the government knows every bit of my wife and my income and yet we have to get Turbo Tax every year and go through all the cumbersome data entry.  The IRS should be able to do the tax calculation for us for free!!!  Both of my daughters are in the same position as salaried workers.  It's just obscene that the tax code is bonkers in this regard.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 02, 2019, 08:59:15 pm
I am not sure that this is true.  There are probably more self-employed people in the US than in Europe and the chance for faking the books is much larger in that case (not reporting certain amounts of income, fake deductions, etc.).  A number of European countries have automatic income tax calculations by the government.  Perhaps Bart can weigh in on this but I've read that in The Netherlands it takes less than 10 minutes to do one's income tax.

Unfortunately (?  ;) ), for most, that's the case.


Well (depending on one's particular situation), 10 minutes is lightly on the short side of the time it takes, but that's mostly due to the time it takes to assure that one's prefilled tax statement is correct (in case something changed vs the prior year that they didn't already know about). We remain responsible for a correct statement. There are hardly any possibilities left for deductibles, so income and possessions are basically what remains to be stated/confirmed.

Quote
Just look at what the government says you earned and confirm the number; that's it.

Yes, that's basically what it boils down to.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 02, 2019, 10:28:16 pm
Why is it that everybody and his mother-in-law feels completely entitled to criticize, mock, and spit on America and its sitting President? None of us on the American side complained or started running for our British nanny’s skirt, wailing about locking the thread, banning political discussions, etc. But when we return the favor, mildly, everybody is offended? Grow up.

Don't be so sensitive.

As to why people make fun of your sitting president, you have to admit he kind of attracts attention to himself.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 02, 2019, 10:48:49 pm
I am not sure that this is true.  There are probably more self-employed people in the US than in Europe and the chance for faking the books is much larger in that case (not reporting certain amounts of income, fake deductions, etc.).  A number of European countries have automatic income tax calculations by the government.  Perhaps Bart can weigh in on this but I've read that in The Netherlands it takes less than 10 minutes to do ones income tax.  Just look at what the government says you earned and confirm the number; that's it.  In our own case, the government knows every bit of my wife and my income and yet we have to get Turbo Tax every year and go through all the cumbersome data entry.  The IRS should be able to do the tax calculation for us for free!!!  Both of my daughters are in the same position as salaried workers.  It's just obscene that the tax code is bonkers in this regard.

A little off-topic maybe, but this quick 22 min podcast about simplifying income tax from NPR Planet Money seemed relevant to this "sidebar": https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/03/22/521132960/episode-760-tax-hero (https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/03/22/521132960/episode-760-tax-hero).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 03, 2019, 02:55:52 am
Why is it that everybody and his mother-in-law feels completely entitled to criticize, mock, and spit on America and its sitting President? None of us on the American side complained or started running for our British nanny’s skirt, wailing about locking the thread, banning political discussions, etc. But when we return the favor, mildly, everybody is offended? Grow up.

Dry your eyes, blossom. Nobody is "spitting" on anyone, just pointing out that it is rather distasteful for the supporters of Private Bonespurs to belittle the victims of Nazi occupation.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 03, 2019, 03:56:09 am
Yes. I agree with that

You are not forced to take part; if it hurts, don't play.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 03, 2019, 03:57:17 am
Perhaps that is why discussion of politics was previously banned. It was a bad decision to allow it again. No good can come of it. It certainly doesn't add anything positive to LuLa. Except maybe post count. Which is a lousy metric for quality.


You are not forced to take part; if it hurts, don't play.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 03, 2019, 06:44:31 am
You are not forced to take part; if it hurts, don't play.

Rob

I'm sorry to say this but this is a common-commonplace.
But:
If you see a group of  adults you respect- say - as photographers (or philosophers or whatever) - behaving like children, it hurts even if you don't "play".
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 03, 2019, 07:06:28 am
Oh, come on Robert, we are just having fun and a friendly banter. We love you all guys, French, Dutch, Brits, even Canadians ❤️

Interestingly even if you have probably a US Citizenship, I perceive you as Serb.
That's OK with me, don't get me wrong.

“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone ...” said Jesus, I am told.
Wise sentence

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 03, 2019, 09:03:52 am
 
I am not sure that this is true.  There are probably more self-employed people in the US than in Europe and the chance for faking the books is much larger in that case (not reporting certain amounts of income, fake deductions, etc.).  A number of European countries have automatic income tax calculations by the government.  Perhaps Bart can weigh in on this but I've read that in The Netherlands it takes less than 10 minutes to do ones income tax.  Just look at what the government says you earned and confirm the number; that's it.  In our own case, the government knows every bit of my wife and my income and yet we have to get Turbo Tax every year and go through all the cumbersome data entry.  The IRS should be able to do the tax calculation for us for free!!!  Both of my daughters are in the same position as salaried workers.  It's just obscene that the tax code is bonkers in this regard.

I was responding to Rob C post regarding that it doesn;t pay to go after the ten percent of taxes due on people earning 10,000 or 15,000 per year.  Those people aren;t self-employed but rather get paid salaries where the employer deducts taxes due up front.  So there's little chance for those  cheating the IRS.  It is true that self-employed people or those who get paid cash cheat more.  The IRS estimated in 2010 that $400 billion in taxes were not paid that should have been. 

Filing taxes were pretty simple this year with the new Trump tax legislation.  It still cost me the accountant's fee.  I haven't switched to doing it myself.  Maybe next year.  Regarding the IRS knowing you and your wife's income, of course that's true.  But that's not the only income and deduction you make. YOu have mortgage payments, local property and state taxes, etc.  Your medical bills may be deductible if they exceed the minimum.   If you're over 70.5 years, you have to start taking out minimums on your tax deferred 401K plans.  The IRS can;t know those things. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 03, 2019, 10:06:05 am
Interestingly even if you have probably a US Citizenship, I perceive you as Serb...

What that has to do with anything? My statement you quoted still stands, whether I am a Serb, American, or both.

And the Jesus quote... care to elaborate?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 03, 2019, 10:39:56 am
What that has to do with anything? My statement you quoted still stands, whether I am a Serb, American, or both.

And the Jesus quote... care to elaborate?

Why is it that everybody and his mother-in-law feels completely entitled to criticize, mock, and spit on America and its sitting President? None of us on the American side complained or started running for our British nanny’s skirt, wailing about locking the thread, banning political discussions, etc. But when we return the favor, mildly, everybody is offended? Grow up.
Face it, it was Russians and Americans that saved your sorry asses. Dutch contribution was to unscrew air valves on German soldiers' bicycles.

As you can see, you are suggesting your American Citizenship all the time.
This is a great thing, make no mistake. I would also be proud of it.
Now read you statements quoted above.

I don't care to elaborate much on the Jesus quote. It's easy.
But I don't find right to mock the British, the French, the Dutch or even the Germans as a group.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 03, 2019, 10:55:00 am
...But I don't find right to mock the British, the French, the Dutch or even the Germans as a group.

Funny you didn’t include Americans in the above groups. As I already noted, it seems it goes without saying that America is a fair game for everyone.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 03, 2019, 11:10:25 am
Funny you didn’t include Americans in the above groups. As I already noted, it seems it goes without saying that America is a fair game for everyone.
You extrapolate wrongly.
I admire Americans for many reasons even if they're not "perfect"  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 03, 2019, 11:53:24 am

I was responding to Rob C post regarding that it doesn;t pay to go after the ten percent of taxes due on people earning 10,000 or 15,000 per year.  Those people aren;t self-employed but rather get paid salaries where the employer deducts taxes due up front.  So there's little chance for those  cheating the IRS.  It is true that self-employed people or those who get paid cash cheat more.  The IRS estimated in 2010 that $400 billion in taxes were not paid that should have been. 
The IRS has insufficient resources to do the number of required audits to recover all the taxes that should be paid.  Maybe if they quit spending so much time auditing the President (at least according to him his returns are always under audit which is why they cannot be released).

Quote
Filing taxes were pretty simple this year with the new Trump tax legislation.  It still cost me the accountant's fee.  I haven't switched to doing it myself.  Maybe next year.  Regarding the IRS knowing you and your wife's income, of course that's true.  But that's not the only income and deduction you make. YOu have mortgage payments, local property and state taxes, etc.  Your medical bills may be deductible if they exceed the minimum.   If you're over 70.5 years, you have to start taking out minimums on your tax deferred 401K plans.  The IRS can;t know those things.
You still have to go through the exercise to see if the standard deduction is all that you will be permitted.  In most cases it will be but those who want to be sure that they are paying the minimum amount of taxes will have to go through that exercise.

You are wrong about certain things reported to the IRS.  IRA earnings (along with all brokerage earnings) are reported to the IRS as both my wife and I are mandated to take this out now.  Mortgage interest payments are also reported on a form that is copied to the IRS IIRC (our mortgage was paid off 15 years ago so I cannot be sure).  State and local taxes are not reported to IRS but if the US were to move eliminating all tax preferences there would not be any need to deal with these with your Federal tax return.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 03, 2019, 02:40:01 pm
Can't speak for the States, of course, but I take exception to the throwaway that the self-employed cheat more than other people.

For a start, nobody paid me cash. Everything was invoiced and paid by cheque that was paid into the business account. I can't speak for those working for the general public, but I sure wouldn't trust a cheque from one of them! In the brief period where I let the great British public cross my humble threshold, I was on a rapid learning curve about just how uncommon is common decency. From clients who vanished with proofs, to those who simply never showed up to collect, it was an unmitigated disaster. Had I not had my Damascene moment described some time ago, I would just have shut the studio door and handed back the keys.

Apart from that, I took advice and used an accountant from year 1, the advice being that it was the one way to keep a friendly relationship with the taxman. Expensive, but also saved me a lot of grief and even more painful learning curves which, clearly, did not begin with digital photography.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 03, 2019, 03:34:00 pm
Can't speak for the States, of course, but I take exception to the throwaway that the self-employed cheat more than other people.

For a start, nobody paid me cash. Everything was invoiced and paid by cheque that was paid into the business account. I can't speak for those working for the general public, but I sure wouldn't trust a cheque from one of them! In the brief period where I let the great British public cross my humble threshold, I was on a rapid learning curve about just how uncommon is common decency. From clients who vanished with proofs, to those who simply never showed up to collect, it was an unmitigated disaster. Had I not had my Damascene moment described some time ago, I would just have shut the studio door and handed back the keys.

Apart from that, I took advice and used an accountant from year 1, the advice being that it was the one way to keep a friendly relationship with the taxman. Expensive, but also saved me a lot of grief and even more painful learning curves which, clearly, did not begin with digital photography.

Rob

Leet me give you a couple of anecdotes. Years ago, we helped a friend of ours move into her new house in Toronto. This was in mid-October. The brick fireplace in the house needed some work and she called in a specialist for a quote. She asked him if he could do a cash job, off books. He declined because it was October and his accountant had told him to put a few jobs on the books before year's end to avoid suspicion and tax audits.

Several people I know had summer jobs in small firms where we were young and still at school. We have compared notes over the years and every one of those firms had family members on the books as employees and consultants in "no-show" jobs.

I've also known barbers and hairdressers who spent their evenings doing off-books work at clients' homes.

I'll disclose to being a complete cynic, so take this next statement with that caveat in mind. I believe that in some sectors of the economy, where audits are next to impossible to do without expensive clandestine surveillance (so basically it never happens), doing work off-books for many businesses is the only way they can stay in business, because it's the only way to keep prices low enough to compete with all the other businesses that are dong the same thing.

And that's just businesses that are doing legal work, I'm not including the criminal sector. I'm sure most of them don't declare all their income either. :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 03, 2019, 04:26:08 pm
Leet me give you a couple of anecdotes. Years ago, we helped a friend of ours move into her new house in Toronto. This was in mid-October. The brick fireplace in the house needed some work and she called in a specialist for a quote. She asked him if he could do a cash job, off books. He declined because it was October and his accountant had told him to put a few jobs on the books before year's end to avoid suspicion and tax audits.

Several people I know had summer jobs in small firms where we were young and still at school. We have compared notes over the years and every one of those firms had family members on the books as employees and consultants in "no-show" jobs.

I've also known barbers and hairdressers who spent their evenings doing off-books work at clients' homes.

I'll disclose to being a complete cynic, so take this next statement with that caveat in mind. I believe that in some sectors of the economy, where audits are next to impossible to do without expensive clandestine surveillance (so basically it never happens), doing work off-books for many businesses is the only way they can stay in business, because it's the only way to keep prices low enough to compete with all the other businesses that are dong the same thing.

And that's just businesses that are doing legal work, I'm not including the criminal sector. I'm sure most of them don't declare all their income either. :)


I never heard of one of our accountants coming up with stuff like that. It would appear career-suicidal.

That Atlantic sure makes a difference!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 03, 2019, 04:46:59 pm
Leet me give you a couple of anecdotes. Years ago, we helped a friend of ours move into her new house in Toronto. This was in mid-October. The brick fireplace in the house needed some work and she called in a specialist for a quote. She asked him if he could do a cash job, off books. He declined because it was October and his accountant had told him to put a few jobs on the books before year's end to avoid suspicion and tax audits.

Several people I know had summer jobs in small firms where we were young and still at school. We have compared notes over the years and every one of those firms had family members on the books as employees and consultants in "no-show" jobs.

I've also known barbers and hairdressers who spent their evenings doing off-books work at clients' homes.

I'll disclose to being a complete cynic, so take this next statement with that caveat in mind. I believe that in some sectors of the economy, where audits are next to impossible to do without expensive clandestine surveillance (so basically it never happens), doing work off-books for many businesses is the only way they can stay in business, because it's the only way to keep prices low enough to compete with all the other businesses that are dong the same thing.

And that's just businesses that are doing legal work, I'm not including the criminal sector. I'm sure most of them don't declare all their income either. :)

My question with this is, there is only so much cash you can actually hold onto at once.  Eventually, when the sums get big enough, you need to put it into the bank, creating a paper trail. 

Not to mention, any commercial work is going to be a writen off and reported by the client. 

If I had a sudden influx of cash, regularly, I can't think of what I would spend it on without it eventually going into the bank.  Groceries, the occasional diner and show with my wife, etc., but how much does that add up to.  I mean eventually, if I wanted to use it for any kind of major purchase (mortgage, car, etc.), doing so would create some kind of paper trail.  Maybe I'm just boring; I don't gamble, go to strip clubs, drink in excess.

PS, not that I am saying you are wrong, just how do you manage large sums of cash without it eventually getting noted somewhere. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 03, 2019, 04:54:03 pm
My question with this is, there is only so much cash you can actually hold onto at once.  Eventually, when the sums get big enough, you need to put it into the bank, creating a paper trail. 

Not to mention, any commercial work is going to be a writen off and reported by the client. 

I just may be a boring guy, but if I had a sudden influx of cash, regularly, I can't think of what I would spend it on without it eventually going into the bank.  Groceries, the occasional diner and show with my wife, etc., but how much does that add up to.  I mean eventually, if I wanted to use it for any kind of major purchase (mortgage, car, etc.), doing so would create some kind of paper trail.

That's how they always fall. It's just not worth being greedy. If the work exists for you, do it, pay up and look good. Having an accountant encourage and collude means you'd be better changing accountants. A hunded to one, that paper trail won't end in his office. Like Atlas, he'll just shrug and deny any knowledge at all beyond the paperwork he produces for the fuzz.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 03, 2019, 05:33:35 pm
One word: Bitcoin.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 03, 2019, 05:44:05 pm
My question with this is, there is only so much cash you can actually hold onto at once.  Eventually, when the sums get big enough, you need to put it into the bank, creating a paper trail. 

Not to mention, any commercial work is going to be a writen off and reported by the client. 

If I had a sudden influx of cash, regularly, I can't think of what I would spend it on without it eventually going into the bank.  Groceries, the occasional diner and show with my wife, etc., but how much does that add up to.  I mean eventually, if I wanted to use it for any kind of major purchase (mortgage, car, etc.), doing so would create some kind of paper trail.  Maybe I'm just boring; I don't gamble, go to strip clubs, drink in excess.

PS, not that I am saying you are wrong, just how do you manage large sums of cash without it eventually getting noted somewhere.

Of course. It doesn't work for everyone, depends on the business, and if you go too far it becomes easier to get caught. If all the groceries you buy for your family over a 15 year period, say, was bought with cash from off book sources, that would be trivially easy to manage and would add up to a tidy amount. It's not millions, but it doesn't need to be. And it would require some effort for an investigator to discover, so they probably don't bother. Some recently disclosed (hit the news about a year ago) private papers show billions of dollars have escaped the Cdn tax man into offshore tax shelters. If they can't do anything about that, how are they going to track down some barber who doesn't report every 10th head of hair he cuts.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 04, 2019, 07:16:38 am
My question with this is, there is only so much cash you can actually hold onto at once.  Eventually, when the sums get big enough, you need to put it into the bank, creating a paper trail. 

Not to mention, any commercial work is going to be a writen off and reported by the client. 

If I had a sudden influx of cash, regularly, I can't think of what I would spend it on without it eventually going into the bank.  Groceries, the occasional diner and show with my wife, etc., but how much does that add up to.  I mean eventually, if I wanted to use it for any kind of major purchase (mortgage, car, etc.), doing so would create some kind of paper trail.  Maybe I'm just boring; I don't gamble, go to strip clubs, drink in excess.

PS, not that I am saying you are wrong, just how do you manage large sums of cash without it eventually getting noted somewhere.
Joe - the problem is that the IRS is doing far fewer audits these days because resource constraints.  Obviously banks will have records of deposits but what are the chances of an audit?  Look how long it takes authorities to uncover true money laundering that involves huge amounts of money.  I serve on a non-profit board and one of the members is a retired forensic accountant.  We were talking about this matter a couple of months ago and he noted how much time and effort it takes to uncover fraud at the corporate level.  Things can go on for years before malfeasance is discovered (good examples are Enron and Madoff at the macro level).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 04, 2019, 07:38:44 am
Of course. It doesn't work for everyone, depends on the business, and if you go too far it becomes easier to get caught. If all the groceries you buy for your family over a 15 year period, say, was bought with cash from off book sources, that would be trivially easy to manage and would add up to a tidy amount. It's not millions, but it doesn't need to be. And it would require some effort for an investigator to discover, so they probably don't bother. Some recently disclosed (hit the news about a year ago) private papers show billions of dollars have escaped the Cdn tax man into offshore tax shelters. If they can't do anything about that, how are they going to track down some barber who doesn't report every 10th head of hair he cuts.

Regarding that barber: I may have got a garbled account of it - I didn't want to pry - but I feel fairly confident that a local bar owner told me that when you have a small business such as his, there's a system where you opt for a given band of business activity/estimated earnings, and it gets resolved on a broad basis of a standard charge according to the expected grade. For the two years that I ran an offshoot of my photo business here, nothing like that applied, and I had to make official VAT/IVA returns every year, regardless of what did or did not come in.

Differently, in the UK, you only had to register for VAT if you were turning over in excess of 30 grand p.a., or, alternatively, if you weren't, you could register voluntarily in order to take advantage of its benefits.

Which, incidentally, puts the lie yet again to those who swallow the gospel of a European tryany that always trumps (oops!) national law.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 04, 2019, 08:07:21 am
Regarding that barber: I may have got a garbled account of it - I didn't want tp pry - but I feel fairly confident that a local bar owner told me that when you have a small business such as his, there's a system where you opt for a given band of business activity/estimated earnings, and it gets resolved on a broad basis of a standard charge according to the expected grade. For the two years that I ran an offshoot of my photo business here, nothing like that applied, and I had to make official VAT/IVA returns every year, regardless of what did or did not come in.

Differently, in the UK, you only had to register for VAT if you were turning over in excess of 30 grand p.a., or, alternatively, if you werenit, you could register voluntarily in order to take advantage of its benefits.

Which, incidentally, puts the lie yet again to those who swallow the gospel of a European tryany that always trumps (oops!) national law.

Rob

Maybe all those barbers should move their money to Ireland, like Apple does. :)

I can't remember the exact anecdote, or even if it was real, but wasn't there a story once about Warren Buffet paying less tax than his secretary. And I think I remember Trump bragging about not paying any tax. But I'm sure we're all better off for it. If we let the 1% keep more of their money, they will create jobs for the rest of us. Some economist said so. They've been saying that since 1980 or earlier. But now it takes two people working to pay for a house, and their kids are paying crippling tuition increases, but I'm sure it's all working out as it should.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 04, 2019, 08:32:19 am
Maybe all those barbers should move their money to Ireland, like Apple does. :)

I can't remember the exact anecdote, or even if it was real, but wasn't there a story once about Warren Buffet paying less tax than his secretary. And I think I remember Trump bragging about not paying any tax. But I'm sure we're all better off for it. If we let the 1% keep more of their money, they will create jobs for the rest of us. Some economist said so. They've been saying that since 1980 or earlier. But now it takes two people working to pay for a house, and their kids are paying crippling tuition increases, but I'm sure it's all working out as it should.


Valid points, all.

My own take on the double-incomes need is simple: when women were made to feel embarrassed about being "mere" housewives, despite a constantly present mother being the greatest influence on the bringing up of children (and thus our civilization), more so than a father in that respect, excluding, of course, his financial input to keeping the concept of family life afloat, it went pear-shaped - which is not a reference to a certain demographic of city people of a sedentary disposition - but to the result of the business truism: price expands in proportion to the budget available.

As family income grew, so did prices of everything. Stands to reason. Family earns almost double, where did anyone expect prices to head - downhill? The payoff is that singletons are screwed very hard, trying to make it on one paycheck. The resulting social upheavals are obvious and self-perpetuating unless the system changes back again. Equal rights for both sexes was not the issue; the issue was a strident feminism that failed to see that all women do not fit the same mould, and a women's magazine world that seized upon the new ethos as a splendid opportunity for creating an entirely new form of journalism. That's what led to the introduction of Cosmopolitan into the UK; I can't remember a trip where the models didn't head for the airport magazine kiosk and sit there on the 'plane with their noses deep in Cosmo. Forget Vogue or 'Bazaar, they never bought that stuff anyway.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 04, 2019, 09:44:02 am

Valid points, all.

My own take on the double-incomes need is simple: when women were made to feel embarrassed about being "mere" housewives, despite a constantly present mother being the greatest influence on the bringing up of children (and thus our civilization), more so than a father in that respect, excluding, of course, his financial input to keeping the concept of family life afloat, it went pear-shaped - which is not a reference to a certain demographic of city people of a sedentary disposition - but to the result of the business truism: price expands in proportion to the budget available.

As family income grew, so did prices of everything. Stands to reason. Family earns almost double, where did anyone expect prices to head - downhill? The payoff is that singletons are screwed very hard, trying to make it on one paycheck. The resulting social upheavals are obvious and self-perpetuating unless the system changes back again. Equal rights for both sexes was not the issue; the issue was a strident feminism that failed to see that all women do not fit the same mould, and a women's magazine world that seized upon the new ethos as a splendid opportunity for creating an entirely new form of journalism. That's what led to the introduction of Cosmopolitan into the UK; I can't remember a trip where the models didn't head for the airport magazine kiosk and sit there on the 'plane with their noses deep in Cosmo. Forget Vogue or 'Bazaar, they never bought that stuff anyway.

I think you left out an important component in the formula for pricing - women's production.   Doubling incomes for households when women went to work did not raise prices due to more income because the woman produces her share of the goods.  Her work adds to more production doubling the amount of goods a country produces which balances the prices.  (Assuming one to one man to woman production and the number of workers).  Otherwise, if you;re correct, when you double a country's population, prices would double also.  But that doesn't happen because the amount of goods a country produces doubles as well.  So the prices stay constant.


The problem of having to work harder today is because of the government, not private industry, not the rich.  It is that taxes have gone up enormously.  Additionally, deficit spending, debt, and money printing (inflation) raises prices.  Business owners are protected the quickest when this happens because they can raise prices.  Workers on the other hand have to wait for salary increases which follow much later.  So they feel inflation the worse. 


Regarding escalating high tuition mention by Roaldi, that's another government caused problem.  By guaranteeing college loans to every Tom, Dick and Harry, half who should be learning a trade rather than going to college, you have too much money chasing too little goods.  So naturally the price of tuition has gone up four fold compared to inflation for everything else.  Meanwhile, you have all these kids in debt who won;t be able to get a starter house and buy other things due to all the debt.  Another government boondoggle.   Same thing happened 15 years ago with government mandated loans to buy homes given to people who couldn't afford it.  Artificially raised the price of homes until the market collapsed and we had the 2008 worldwide recession.  Another clever government attempt at equalizing wealth and advantage that took the country off the rails. 





Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Ivo_B on June 04, 2019, 11:11:27 am
Oh, come on Robert, we are just having fun and a friendly banter. We love you all guys, French, Dutch, Brits, even Canadians ❤️

This a severe form of discrimination.




Ivo the Gaul from Belgica

(https://focusonbelgium.be/sites/default/files/styles/belgian_biography/public/ambiorix_bio_johan_neven.jpg?itok=CWeMKwTE)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 04, 2019, 11:17:08 am
That six-pack must be from the time before they invented beer in Belgica 😉
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Ivo_B on June 04, 2019, 11:22:00 am
That six-pack must be from the time before they invented beer in Belgica 😉

It is a kind of idealistic representation of an average Belgian Gaul, I admit.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 04, 2019, 11:37:17 am
It is a kind of idealistic representation of an average Belgian Gaul, I admit.
Axt, Sword...I'm missing the Magic Potion
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 04, 2019, 12:08:33 pm
1. I think you left out an important component in the formula for pricing - women's production.   Doubling incomes for households when women went to work did not raise prices due to more income because the woman produces her share of the goods.  Her work adds to more production doubling the amount of goods a country produces which balances the prices.  (Assuming one to one man to woman production and the number of workers).  Otherwise, if you;re correct, when you double a country's population, prices would double also.  But that doesn't happen because the amount of goods a country produces doubles as well.  So the prices stay constant.


2. The problem of having to work harder today is because of the government, not private industry, not the rich.  It is that taxes have gone up enormously.  Additionally, deficit spending, debt, and money printing (inflation) raises prices.  Business owners are protected the quickest when this happens because they can raise prices.  Workers on the other hand have to wait for salary increases which follow much later.  So they feel inflation the worse. 


3. Regarding escalating high tuition mention by Roaldi, that's another government caused problem.  By guaranteeing college loans to every Tom, Dick and Harry, half who should be learning a trade rather than going to college, you have too much money chasing too little goods.  So naturally the price of tuition has gone up four fold compared to inflation for everything else.  Meanwhile, you have all these kids in debt who won;t be able to get a starter house and buy other things due to all the debt.  Another government boondoggle.   Same thing happened 15 years ago with government mandated loans to buy homes given to people who couldn't afford it.  Artificially raised the price of homes until the market collapsed and we had the 2008 worldwide recession.  Another clever government attempt at equalizing wealth and advantage that took the country off the rails.

1. The world is full to capacity with overproduction; don't you read the papers, see the ads for Black Frdays, etc, etc.? There is more crap on sale today than ever. Steel production: China makes enough to supply the whole bloody world, at prices the west can't match, and it simply doesn't matter why that's the case: it just is. We don't need more production, we need less, and stable prices where value is tied to reality, not the screw ever variable pitch, of price based on ability of buyers to pay. Milk: there is so much around that our farmers can't get a decent price for it anymore. Our supermarkets are already filled with chicken, eggs, fruit-out-of-season, vegetables and on and on, never mind the threat of a post-Brexit world and us being forced to buy American food products filled with added chemicals nobody in Europe wants... Need a car? the dealers offer all sorts of incentives; why? It's obvious: they have too many. In Britain last month, car sales dropped over 40%, which is a measure of the crazy prices for basic cars, fiscal fears of job tenure if Brexit goes sour; the mess over fuel types and the promise of pie in the sky electric vehicles only the rich can afford. We have problems producing the electricity to service our daily lives as it is; imagine if cars suddenly switched to a total reliance on the plug in the wall! We couldn't service it. The problem is the opposite of what you state: we make too much stuff and so create what used to be referred to as mountains. More hands ensuring more production is the last thing this world needs, of any gender or sexual persuasion.

As for your neat equation of more production, more hands at work balancing the prices, we have more production since at any time, massively growing populations, and prices everywhere have rocketed: your theory is filled with blissful holes.

The work many women did back then was often secretarial and admin. and they seemed to be very capable at it, too! It's my experience from the females I have known that they genuinely are better at multitasking, whatever convenient new theories come along to dispute that. Just consider the busy women you know, and be honest in your appraisal of their abilities to organise. Women used to run a household, balance the domestic budget and keep that smile on every family face; all men did was try to do one job well enough not to get fired. Those essential women at work, those doctors, nurse, lawyers, teachers, they do their jobs well, too, and we could not do without them. But they are not the ones leading to overproduction of goods.

2. I am sure that the very rich will be the first to agree with you; especially those in politics.

Your differentiation between "workers" and business owners is mildly amusing. Both are hit hard. Those who skin the noses of the rest of us are the megas, the invisibles, the Googles of this world, the banks and the money lenders of all stripes; the financial gamblers who brought about the disaster of 2007/2008, where I found myself trying to switch banks as my wife was dying of cancer, trying to help her hold papers steady as she countersigned her name to enable the swapping of accounts in time. We, the little people, always end up in the shit. Those giving advice to governments, toothless, blind watchdogs of the institutions those are meant to oversee, seem to have retained their jobs in the Ivy League business colleges, haven't they; did any go to prison for neglect...? Those sub-primes had nothing to do with political social engineering and raising/lowering people to a common level: they had everything to do with poor surveillance that let them play the game, which was all pure, greedy, and recklessly irresponsible speculation on the part of the moneymen selling fantasies: they just passed the buck to the next guy in their chain. It was bound to crash.

3. Yes; higher education has been touted in Britain for a few years now, and anecdotal reports tell me of kids wanting to leave school earlier than allowed so that they can become plumbers or electricians like their older brothers or mates, and earn massive sums of money a week doing jobs for which there is ever a queue of waiting customers. Those cats don't give a fig for Hamlet. Shakespeare? That's a motorboat, innit? And if they want one, they will probably be able to buy it pretty damnd quickly. Instead, they have to waste a couple more years at school disturbing those who want to study and annoying the teachers. But, but, politicians aspire to being loved for providing higher education to all, even at the price of creating a sub-class of professional students wasting their parents' money or just getting laid. And even some of those who work, what do they study? Esoteric stuff that doesn't give them a snowball's of using the resulting degree to get a job. There's something far wrong with that. You don't need to fund departments that lead nowhere. If you want to do esoteric do it in your own time and wholely on your own buck.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 04, 2019, 12:16:50 pm
It is a kind of idealistic representation of an average Belgian Gaul, I admit.

With so much hanging below the belt, it's a miracle people didn't keep tripping over their bits and falling onto their faces. Or perhaps they did, but kept quiet about it. Brings to mind the fall of Rome; maybe they all did it at once.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 04, 2019, 01:41:31 pm
1. The world is full to capacity with overproduction; don't you read the papers, see the ads for Black Frdays, etc, etc.? There is more crap on sale today than ever. Steel production: China makes enough to supply the whole bloody world, at prices the west can't match, and it simply doesn't matter why that's the case: it just is. We don't need more production, we need less, and stable prices where value is tied to reality, not the screw ever variable pitch, of price based on ability of buyers to pay. Milk: there is so much around that our farmers can't get a decent price for it anymore. Our supermarkets are already filled with chicken, eggs, fruit-out-of-season, vegetables and on and on, never mind the threat of a post-Brexit world and us being forced to buy American food products filled with added chemicals nobody in Europe wants... Need a car? the dealers offer all sorts of incentives; why? It's obvious: they have too many. In Britain last month, car sales dropped over 40%, which is a measure of the crazy prices for basic cars, fiscal fears of job tenure if Brexit goes sour; the mess over fuel types and the promise of pie in the sky electric vehicles only the rich can afford. We have problems producing the electricity to service our daily lives as it is; imagine if cars suddenly switched to a total reliance on the plug in the wall! We couldn't service it. The problem is the opposite of what you state: we make too much stuff and so create what used to be referred to as mountains. More hands ensuring more production is the last thing this world needs, of any gender or sexual persuasion.

As for your neat equation of more production, more hands at work balancing the prices, we have more production since at any time, massively growing populations, and prices everywhere have rocketed: your theory is filled with blissful holes.

The work many women did back then was often secretarial and admin. and they seemed to be very capable at it, too! It's my experience from the females I have known that they genuinely are better at multitasking, whatever convenient new theories come along to dispute that. Just consider the busy women you know, and be honest in your appraisal of their abilities to organise. Women used to run a household, balance the domestic budget and keep that smile on every family face; all men did was try to do one job well enough not to get fired. Those essential women at work, those doctors, nurse, lawyers, teachers, they do their jobs well, too, and we could not do without them. But they are not the ones leading to overproduction of goods.

2. I am sure that the very rich will be the first to agree with you; especially those in politics.

Your differentiation between "workers" and business owners is mildly amusing. Both are hit hard. Those who skin the noses of the rest of us are the megas, the invisibles, the Googles of this world, the banks and the money lenders of all stripes; the financial gamblers who brought about the disaster of 2007/2008, where I found myself trying to switch banks as my wife was dying of cancer, trying to help her hold papers steady as she countersigned her name to enable the swapping of accounts in time. We, the little people, always end up in the shit. Those giving advice to governments, toothless, blind watchdogs of the institutions those are meant to oversee, seem to have retained their jobs in the Ivy League business colleges, haven't they; did any go to prison for neglect...? Those sub-primes had nothing to do with political social engineering and raising/lowering people to a common level: they had everything to do with poor surveillance that let them play the game, which was all pure, greedy, and recklessly irresponsible speculation on the part of the moneymen selling fantasies: they just passed the buck to the next guy in their chain. It was bound to crash.

3. Yes; higher education has been touted in Britain for a few years now, and anecdotal reports tell me of kids wanting to leave school earlier than allowed so that they can become plumbers or electricians like their older brothers or mates, and earn massive sums of money a week doing jobs for which there is ever a queue of waiting customers. Those cats don't give a fig for Hamlet. Shakespeare? That's a motorboat, innit? And if they want one, they will probably be able to buy it pretty damnd quickly. Instead, they have to waste a couple more years at school disturbing those who want to study and annoying the teachers. But, but, politicians aspire to being loved for providing higher education to all, even at the price of creating a sub-class of professional students wasting their parents' money or just getting laid. And even some of those who work, what do they study? Esoteric stuff that doesn't give them a snowball's of using the resulting degree to get a job. There's something far wrong with that. You don't need to fund departments that lead nowhere. If you want to do esoteric do it in your own time and wholely on your own buck.

Sorry, more production lowers prices and raises standards of living as money goes further.  Who argues for higher prices?  Do you shop for higher camera prices so you can pay more?  I don;t. 

If prices are going up it's due to inflation and taxes.  Both caused by stupid government practices of deficit spending and money printing.  They devalue the dollar, Euro, Pound, etc.  So what you earn doesn;t go as far as it use too.

We agree on college costs and value of higher education for many losers.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 04, 2019, 01:48:09 pm
The problem of having to work harder today is because of the government, not private industry, not the rich.  It is that taxes have gone up enormously.  Additionally, deficit spending, debt, and money printing (inflation) raises prices.  Business owners are protected the quickest when this happens because they can raise prices.  Workers on the other hand have to wait for salary increases which follow much later.  So they feel inflation the worse.   

Is it true that taxes have increased so much? How can they have with so many Republicans in office? I thought Reagan put a big stop to all that (especially high marginal rates) and that all subsequent administrations haven't tampered with the basic formula all that much. Are current tax rates higher than they were in the 1950s/1960s, a period of healthy growth at all income levels. It has been since the 1980s that middle incomes have stagnated and I find it hard to believe that's because of high taxes.

Which brings up another question. Why do Americans (in general) criticize the "socialism" of other countries if their own taxes are so high that it is crippling your economy? Are you socialists too then?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 04, 2019, 02:16:31 pm
Is it true that taxes have increased so much? How can they have with so many Republicans in office? I thought Reagan put a big stop to all that (especially high marginal rates) and that all subsequent administrations haven't tampered with the basic formula all that much. Are current tax rates higher than they were in the 1950s/1960s, a period of healthy growth at all income levels. It has been since the 1980s that middle incomes have stagnated and I find it hard to believe that's because of high taxes.

Which brings up another question. Why do Americans (in general) criticize the "socialism" of other countries if their own taxes are so high that it is crippling your economy? Are you socialists too then?

Republicans are just as bad as Democrats.  They also want to get re-elected.  God forbid Federal benefits are lowered.  So they spend more than they take in in taxes, and have to print money, issue bonds, etc.  Trump complains about the Fed, but then winks at them because he knows he needs them to print money and issue bonds to cover the bigger deficit caused by his new tax legislation. 

Regarding taxes, yes they have gone up.  When I was a teen and working at my first job in 1962, Social Security deduction from my salary was 3%.  There were no Medicare deductions.  Now, combined Social Security and Medicare deductions are 7.65% or 2 1/2 times as much.  Also, the employer has to match the 7.65%.  So the actual "tax" amount is really 15.30%. This really hurts low income people the most because these are mandatory deductions most felt by poorer people.  (Just like the VAT in Europe). Also, Federal taxes are only one component of taxes generally.  There are also State and Local taxes, sales taxes, property taxes.  All these have gone up by huge margins since the 1950's and 1960's.  I'm paying $10,000 in property taxes in New Jersey and I have an average house.  2/3's of those taxes go for local schools to educate kids I don;t have here.  ($18,000 per child)  Sales tax is around 7%, all much higher than it use to be.  So between foreign competition and all sorts of new and increasing taxes, the average worker is squeezed.  I'm sure it's similar in Europe and elsewhere where VAT taxes were added around 1985.  Frankly you can't blame the politicians.  The voters demand all sorts of "freebies" but don;t you dare raise my taxes to pay for them.  Now the Dems are demanding free college education for kids who can't read, $1.7 trillion for climate control, etc. So they'll issue more bonds and print more money.  Who pays for this stuff?  The chickens are coming home to roast.

Also, the 1950's and 1960's were very good for America.  We were the only country left standing after WWII.  We switched our dynamic war production to civilian use and the economy boomed.  Cars instead of tanks.  We were the world's biggest creditor nation producing 40% of the world's production.  Today we are the world's largest debtor nation. We owe everyone.   As nations throughout the world built up their post war economies, we started to have major competition.  Jobs fled overseas as did manufacturing. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 04, 2019, 02:26:31 pm
Republicans are just as bad as Democrats.  They also want to get re-elected.  God forbid Federal benefits are lowered.  So they spend more than they take in in taxes, and have to print money, issue bonds, etc.  Trump complains about the Fed, but then winks at them because he knows he needs them to print money and issue bonds to cover the bigger deficit caused by his new tax legislation. 

Regarding taxes, yes they have gone up.  When I was a teen and working at my first job in 1962, Social Security deduction from my salary was 3%.  There were no Medicare deductions.  Now, combined Social Security and Medicare deductions are 7.65% or 2 1/2 times as much.  Also, the employer has to match the 7.65%.  So the actual "tax" amount is really 15.30%. This really hurts low income people the most because these are mandatory deductions most felt by poorer people.  (Just like the VAT in Europe). Also, Federal taxes are only one component of taxes generally.  There are also State and Local taxes, sales taxes, property taxes.  All these have gone up by huge margins since the 1950's and 1960's.  I'm paying $10,000 in property taxes in New Jersey and I have an average house.  2/3's of those taxes go for local schools to educate kids I don;t have here.  ($18,000 per child)  Sales tax is around 7%, all much higher than it use to be.  So between foreign competition and all sorts of new and increasing taxes, the average worker is squeezed.  I'm sure it's similar in Europe and elsewhere where VAT taxes were added around 1985.  Frankly you can't blame the politicians.  The voters demand all sorts of "freebies" but don;t you dare raise my taxes to pay for them.  Now the Dems are demanding free college education for kids who can't read, $1.7 trillion for climate control, etc. So they'll issue more bonds and print more money.  Who pays for this stuff?  The chickens are coming home to roast.

Also, the 1950's and 1960's were very good for America.  We were the only country left standing after WWII.  We switched our dynamic war production to civilian use and the economy boomed.  Cars instead of tanks.  We were the world's biggest creditor nation producing 40% of the world's production.  Today we are the world's largest debtor nation. We owe everyone.   As nations throughout the world built up their post war economies, we started to have major competition.  Jobs fled overseas as did manufacturing.


Hang on a minute. You're saying that deductions have gone up to pay for all these additional services (Medicare, Social Security), so it's not as if the money is disappearing, you're just buying yourselves insurance for your old age. Are you saying that's a bad thing?

And I believe you when you say that your property taxes have gone up, but have they gone up relative to inflation?

You criticized deficit spending. How else can you build the interstate system, public transit, schools, laws, police, essentially all infrastructure. Those aren't costs, over the long run they return far more than what they cost, no different than any investment. Did you think Amazon could deliver stuff to your door so cheaply if they had to build their own private road system? Your categorizing of all government spending as "costs" is absurd. You need to account for the "costs" of NOT doing those things.




Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 04, 2019, 03:05:32 pm

Hang on a minute. You're saying that deductions have gone up to pay for all these additional services (Medicare, Social Security), so it's not as if the money is disappearing, you're just buying yourselves insurance for your old age. Are you saying that's a bad thing?

And I believe you when you say that your property taxes have gone up, but have they gone up relative to inflation?

You criticized deficit spending. How else can you build the interstate system, public transit, schools, laws, police, essentially all infrastructure. Those aren't costs, over the long run they return far more than what they cost, no different than any investment. Did you think Amazon could deliver stuff to your door so cheaply if they had to build their own private road system? Your categorizing of all government spending as "costs" is absurd. You need to account for the "costs" of NOT doing those things.

1. Whether it is a good or bad thing is utterly irrelevant for the initial question whether taxes went up: what matters is that they were doubled in Alan's example.

2. Yes.

3. You don't need a deficit for all those purposes. Just a (balanced) budget. Deficits increase interest rates.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 04, 2019, 03:44:27 pm

Hang on a minute. You're saying that deductions have gone up to pay for all these additional services (Medicare, Social Security), so it's not as if the money is disappearing, you're just buying yourselves insurance for your old age. Are you saying that's a bad thing?

And I believe you when you say that your property taxes have gone up, but have they gone up relative to inflation?

You criticized deficit spending. How else can you build the interstate system, public transit, schools, laws, police, essentially all infrastructure. Those aren't costs, over the long run they return far more than what they cost, no different than any investment. Did you think Amazon could deliver stuff to your door so cheaply if they had to build their own private road system? Your categorizing of all government spending as "costs" is absurd. You need to account for the "costs" of NOT doing those things.






To add to Slobo's succinct response, Medicare and Social Security are good thing for people who are collecting, like me.   I'm 74.  But if you're just a young, poor schnook, trying to raise a family, SS and Medicare deductions take a huge amount out of your disposable income, money you might rather have for your kid's education, or camp, or clothes, or whatever.  And the money has been disappearing.  The government has been taking the surplus of Social Security collections and spending it on other government expenditures rather than setting it aside for downstream Social Security payments.  So now, the program is going prematurely broke.  Good luck to those young schnooks paying in now when they get old enough to collect.  They'll be getting nothing back as I'm spending it all up with the payments the government is making to me now.

Also, I could of had a lot more if I was allowed to save the money on my own rather than giving all that money over the years to SS.  Plus, if you die before collecting, your heirs get nothing of what you gave all your life.  That happened to my mother and sister-in-law both who died in their 50's.  With private savings, you could leave your money to your children.  Also, Medicare payments do not end when you become a senior and collect.  You have to pay roughly $1500-$3500 annually for Medicare depending on your income.  They deduct it right out of your Social Security payment which by the way 85% of which gets taxed as regular income.    So you really don;t get the SS payments they promised you as it's taxed too. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 04, 2019, 04:05:03 pm
The problem of having to work harder today is because of the government, not private industry, not the rich.  It is that taxes have gone up enormously.  Additionally, deficit spending, debt, and money printing (inflation) raises prices.  Business owners are protected the quickest when this happens because they can raise prices.  Workers on the other hand have to wait for salary increases which follow much later.  So they feel inflation the worse. 
I believe the total tax burden has gone down since the Reagan years with the exception of a few states who raised their state and local taxes.  Our tax burden in Maryland has been pretty much constant for as many years as I have been doing my own tax returns.  Inflation has been non-existent since the housing collapse in 2008.

Quote
Regarding escalating high tuition mention by Roaldi, that's another government caused problem.  By guaranteeing college loans to every Tom, Dick and Harry, half who should be learning a trade rather than going to college, you have too much money chasing too little goods.  So naturally the price of tuition has gone up four fold compared to inflation for everything else.  Meanwhile, you have all these kids in debt.
The real problem is that there are too many students for too few places at the existing colleges.  This sparked a rise in the new on-line and "trade" schools many of which were just scams and the Department of Education just stood by not saying anything.  Take the eight Ivy League schools as a simplistic example; the number slots in their freshman class has been constant and applications are through the roof.  At my undergrad school, UC Santa Barbara which is public, it's the same story.  They can only admit about 20% of the qualified applicants.  Also, nobody is forcing any student to take out a loan.  there are ways to go to college cheaply - two years at a community college and then two years at the state college or university.

Quote
who won;t be able to get a starter house and buy other things due to all the debt.
In our area there is pretty much no such thing as a starter house.  One or two bedroom condos in the suburbs are the starter homes of today. 

Quote
Same thing happened 15 years ago with government mandated loans to buy homes given to people who couldn't afford it.  Artificially raised the price of homes until the market collapsed and we had the 2008 worldwide recession.  Another clever government attempt at equalizing wealth and advantage that took the country off the rails.
this is a total misreading of history.  What happened is the shadow banking industry made NINJA loans to lots of people and then used Wall Street to package these into collateralize securities which few people other than those documented by Michael Lewis in "The Big Short" could understand.  The same thing is happen today as loans to dicey corporations are now being packaged in the same manner and nobody seems to care as they are all chasing yield.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 04, 2019, 04:24:16 pm
And the money has been disappearing.  The government has been taking the surplus of Social Security collections and spending it on other government expenditures rather than setting it aside for downstream Social Security payments.  So now, the program is going prematurely broke.
You are wrong.  Social Security can only invest in special interest bearing government securities.  It is not going prematurely broke.  I think you are confusing Medicare which has more immediate solvency problems but could be easily corrected if the US moved to some form of national health care be it single payor or government regulated private insurance as is the case in several European countries.  Social Security can also be fixed in a number of ways as well.

Quote
Also, I could of had a lot more if I was allowed to save the money on my own rather than giving all that money over the years to SS.  Plus, if you die before collecting, your heirs get nothing of what you gave all your life.  That happened to my mother and sister-in-law both who died in their 50's.
You are presuming that you are a knowledgeable investor, perhaps you are; the vast majority of American are not.  the number of people who rely 100% on Social Security is extremely high.  Also, if you have other retirement income up 85% of your Social Security income is taxed and goes back into the trust fund (we pay such a tax).  I don't know the particular case that you cite, but there are survivor benefits under Medicare for both spouse and children.

Quote
Also, Medicare payments do not end when you become a senior and collect.  You have to pay roughly $1500-$3500 annually for Medicare depending on your income.  They deduct it right out of your Social Security payment which by the way 85% of which gets taxed as regular income.    So you really don;t get the SS payments they promised you as it's taxed too.
As I noted above, you only pay tax on your Social Security earnings if you have additional retirement income.  People who only have Social Security are not taxed at all.  Yes, there is a Medicare premium you have to pay for both Part B and D, what's the big deal.  If Medicare did not exist, you would have to get private insurance and think about what the market rate for a private policy for someone in there 70s would be!!!  Most of us also have Medigap insurance to cover the Medicare co-pays and deductibles; this adds additional cost in retirement.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 04, 2019, 04:38:03 pm
When it comes to the housing crisis, both Alans are using a binary approach, that is the extremes. It is neither exclusively Clinton's housing initiative to push banks to lend to less qualified buyers, nor exclusively collateralized securities, but both, on top of several other reasons.

However, the chain reaction could not possibly start at the end of the chain (collateralized securities) but at the beginning, at the colletteral level (people unable to pay off their mortgage they shouldn't have gotten in the first place). The securities just multiplied the effect and spread the initial ignition across the world like a wildfire.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 04, 2019, 07:41:17 pm
1. You are wrong.  Social Security can only invest in special interest bearing government securities.  It is not going prematurely broke.  I think you are confusing Medicare which has more immediate solvency problems but could be easily corrected if the US moved to some form of national health care be it single payor or government regulated private insurance as is the case in several European countries.  Social Security can also be fixed in a number of ways as well.
2. You are presuming that you are a knowledgeable investor, perhaps you are; the vast majority of American are not.  the number of people who rely 100% on Social Security is extremely high.  Also, if you have other retirement income up 85% of your Social Security income is taxed and goes back into the trust fund (we pay such a tax).  I don't know the particular case that you cite, but there are survivor benefits under Medicare for both spouse and children.
 3. As I noted above, you only pay tax on your Social Security earnings if you have additional retirement income.  People who only have Social Security are not taxed at all.  Yes, there is a Medicare premium you have to pay for both Part B and D, what's the big deal.  If Medicare did not exist, you would have to get private insurance and think about what the market rate for a private policy for someone in there 70s would be!!!  Most of us also have Medigap insurance to cover the Medicare co-pays and deductibles; this adds additional cost in retirement.
1. I am right.  Money is fungible.  The government investing in secial government securities still means the government has to come up with the money.  They still owe it and will have to print it, raise taxes or issue more bonds to get the money.  Yes, they can fix it.  One way is to reduce the payout or start paying out when you get older.  That was my point.  The youngsters today will never see full payments made to them.

2. Relying on SS 100% means you are going to live poorly in retirement.  You can't get enough from SS to live on.  Investing in simple and risk free 2-3% insured bank account over your life would probably double what you would get from SS.  And if you die, unlike SS which the government keeps, your estate and savings go to your family.  Survivor benefits would only help your spouse if they make less from SS then you do.  Then they get the additional difference.  But the rest of the dead person;s SS goes back to the government.  They keep the SS money you and your employers contributed all your life.  How's that fair? 

3. Also, 85% of my SS is taxed and goes back to the government.  What sense does that make? 
  So my wife and I pay over $5000 to Medicare although we're retired and do not work.   Me and my employers have also contributed to Medicare since Medicare was conceived decades ago.  Most people think Medicare is free.  It's not.    That's the main point I was making.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 04, 2019, 07:46:09 pm
You are wrong.  Social Security can only invest in special interest bearing government securities.

Securities secured by the taxpayers, who will have to cough up the money when these "securities" are cashed in.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 04, 2019, 07:53:15 pm
When it comes to the housing crisis, both Alans are using a binary approach, that is the extremes. It is neither exclusively Clinton's housing initiative to push banks to lend to less qualified buyers, nor exclusively collateralized securities, but both, on top of several other reasons.

However, the chain reaction could not possibly start at the end of the chain (collateralized securities) but at the beginning, at the colletteral level (people unable to pay off their mortgage they shouldn't have gotten in the first place). The securities just multiplied the effect and spread the initial ignition across the world like a wildfire.


That was my point. Another government boondoggle, all with good intentions, started by the government that caused a world-wide recession.  Wasn't it Pogo in the comic strip who said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 05, 2019, 04:54:44 am
What it all boils down to, then, is that your health care is woefully inadequate, and to be worth squat, is confined to the rich who don't feel the pinch of the annual cost of buying it.

I don't see it so much as a political issue of left v. right, but as a total lack of moral, civic responsibility. A state unwilling to consider its people's health a primary concern is not fit for purpose; it's the single most important thing upon which depends everything else about the nation. Far from showing some sense of justice, some vaunting of self-reliance as guiding principle, it reveals an absolute lack of it or of respect for one's fellow human beings.

Self-reliance is all fine and good, but sick people are not in any position to play that game. To be self-reliant, to strike out into the world in some meaningful way and mark your territory requires that you be fit and able to fight the many fights you will inevitably face.

One could touch upon the hypocrisy of nations driving propaganda about tobacco and cancer, fast food and sweet drinks and other rubbish that both fattens into obesity and deprives kids of their natural teeth before they hit their teens, but does absolutely nothing to ban that shit, just keeps on collecting the sales tax on the one hand and putting more and more pressure on health services to cope with governmental cowardice to do the right thing. Why doesn't it do anything? Popularity! The great television charade that politics has become.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 05, 2019, 07:12:28 am
That was my point. Another government boondoggle, all with good intentions, started by the government that caused a world-wide recession.  Wasn't it Pogo in the comic strip who said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
That is really not true as anyone who has read in depth about the financial crisis knows.  Adam Tooze in his fine book on the financial meltdown and aftermath, "Crashed:  How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World" that is well worth reading.  Well known investment manager and Bloomberg columnist, Barry Ritholz, skewers the idea (https://ritholtz.com/2016/06/no-cra-not-cause-financial-crisis/) that the Community Reinvestment Act had anything much to do with the meltdown.  Unlike the Tooze book, this will only take you about three minutes to read.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 05, 2019, 07:13:43 am
What it all boils down to, then, is that your health care is woefully inadequate, and to be worth squat, is confined to the rich who don't feel the pinch of the annual cost of buying it.

I don't see it so much as a political issue of left v. right, but as a total lack of moral, civic responsibility. A state unwilling to consider its people's health a primary concern is not fit for purpose; it's the single most important thing upon which depends everything else about the nation. Far from showing some sense of justice, some vaunting of self-reliance as guiding principle, it reveals an absolute lack of it or of respect for one's fellow human beings.

Self-reliance is all fine and good, but sick people are not in any position to play that game. To be self-reliant, to strike out into the world in some meaningful way and mark your territory requires that you be fit and able to fight the many fights you will inevitably face.

One could touch upon the hypocrisy of nations driving propaganda about tobacco and cancer, fast food and sweet drinks and other rubbish that both fattens into obesity and deprives kids of their natural teeth before they hit their teens, but does absolutely nothing to ban that shit, just keeps on collecting the sales tax on the one hand and putting more and more pressure more on health services to cope with governmental cowardice to do the right thing. Why doesn't it do anything? Popularity! The great television charade that politics has become.
I would hope that all can agree with this fine, thoughtful, post.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 05, 2019, 07:37:44 am
I would hope that all can agree with this fine, thoughtful, post.


It reads better when I remove the third, irrelevant "more" which I have now done!

Thanks, anyway.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2019, 09:57:24 am
That is really not true as anyone who has read in depth about the financial crisis knows.  Adam Tooze in his fine book on the financial meltdown and aftermath, "Crashed:  How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World" that is well worth reading.  Well known investment manager and Bloomberg columnist, Barry Ritholz, skewers the idea (https://ritholtz.com/2016/06/no-cra-not-cause-financial-crisis/) that the Community Reinvestment Act had anything much to do with the meltdown.  Unlike the Tooze book, this will only take you about three minutes to read.
My wife and I just happened to be looking to buy a home around 2003 when all of this was going strong a few years before the housing market collapsed.  When I asked my broker what papers he needed to prove we were creditable borrowers, expecting him to ask for our bank and investment statements, tax returns, and payroll stubs, he told us we don't need anything.  Nothing! I was astounded.  He said all we need is to sign the mortgage loan agreement and we'd get the money.  Incredible!

The CRE along with the cancellation of the Glass Steagall Act during the Democrat Clinton administration led to this bizarre arrangement. No one cared.  Everyone was greedy and hoped to get rich buying in April and selling the house 6 months later in October at huge profits.  Greedy deadbeats earning $30,000 a year purchasing a $600,000 home hoping to sell it for $800,000 the following year.  It was like the Tulip boom in the 1600's.   Everyone was at fault.  Greedy deadbeat buyers, crooked banks who didn;t want to get stuck with bad loans, rating agencies who didn;t want to lose their customers the banks, and Congress and the Presidency who pushed these loans and removed regulations that worked for 70 years.  Of course the politicians didn't want to take any of the blame.  Similar things are happening now - the Fed's printing has made it worse today.  The Debt, deficit spending, etc.  When the next recession hits, the Fed, the politicians, etc will again blame private industry when it's the government that always gets the ball rolling.


By the way, the S&L (Savings and Loan)  crisis was also caused by the government although your author Ritholz didn't blame them for that either.  Congress set it up so investments in real estate could be written off for tax purposes in 19 years rather than the usual much longer period.  So real estate investors build strip malls not because there was a business demand for them.  Rather, they build them to write off their costs against profits they made in other real estate ventures.  So there again, the government and Congress created the crisis, not private industry.  Its the government that distorts the economy and drives private business to invest poorly, whether in malls or homes.  Neither would have happened without the government being the catalyst.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 05, 2019, 10:08:19 am
My wife and I just happened to be looking to buy a home around 2003 when all of this was going strong a few years before the housing market collapsed.  When I asked my broker what papers he needed to prove we were creditable borrowers, expecting him to ask for our bank and investment statements, tax returns, and payroll stubs, he told us we don't need anything.  Nothing! I was astounded.  He said all we need is to sign the mortgage loan agreement and we'd get the money.  Incredible!
Correct, these were NINJA loans - no documentation required.  I don't know if they even required private mortgage insurance.  When we bought our home we could only put 15% down based on the purchase price.  The lender required us to take out PMI that cost about $90/month and was not tax deductible.  Once the equity in the home had increased so that our value was above the 20% threshold of the mortgage we could cancel PMI.

Quote
The CRE along with the cancellation of the Glass Steagall Act during the Democrat Clinton administration led to this bizarre arrangement. No one cared.  Everyone was greedy and hoped to get rich buying in April and selling the house 6 months later in October at huge profits.  Greedy deadbeats earning $30,000 a year purchasing a $600,000 home hoping to sell it for $800,000 the following year.  It was like the Tulip boom in the 1600's.   Everyone was at fault.  Greedy deadbeat buyers, crooked banks who didn;t want to get stuck with bad loans, rating agencies who didn;t want to lose their customers the banks, and Congress and the Presidency who pushed these loans and removed regulations that worked for 70 years.  Of course the politicians didn't want to take any of the blame.  Similar things are happening now - the Fed's printing has made it worse today.  The Debt, deficit spending, etc.  When the next recession hits, the Fed, the politicians, etc will again blame private industry when it's the government that always gets the ball rolling.
CRA played little or no role in the meltdown so I would wish you stop citing it.  Glass-Steagall repeal was impactful but much of the damage was done by the shadow banking industry, the financiers who created the collatoralized debt instruments, and the ratings agencies that gave these ratings that stated they were safe for investment.  The federal government had a minor role in this whole enterprise.  As I already pointed out there were a group of investors who saw through this whole phony house of cards.

Quote
By the way, the S&L (Savings and Loan)  crisis was also caused by the government although your author Ritholz didn't blame them for that either.  Congress set it up so investments in real estate could be written off for tax purposes in 19 years rather than the usual much longer period.  So real estate investors build strip malls not because there was a business demand for them.  Rather, they build them to write off their costs against profits they made in other real estate ventures.  So there again, the government and Congress created the crisis, not private industry.  Its the government that distorts the economy and drives private business to invest poorly, whether in malls or homes.  Neither would have happened without the government being the catalyst.
He was not writing about the S&L crisis.  One thing to remember is that the S&Ls were highly regulated and when interest rates started to wildly fluctuate their business model would no longer work.  They were making loans for 30 years that were below the prevailing rates of the time and could not possibly be profitable.  they also had to keep these loans on the books.  The financial industry in this country has difficulty adapting to rapidly changing conditions and as a result there are lots of bankruptcies and consolidation.

EDIT:  I forgot to add that it's also very difficult to read bank balance sheets to assess how stable they are.  Most banks do not retain enough capital to weather a downturn.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 05, 2019, 10:12:17 am
I would hope that all can agree with this fine, thoughtful, post.

Nope.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 05, 2019, 10:14:24 am
+1 Nope
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2019, 10:24:59 am
The S&L's went broke when the real estate builders stopped paying them for the loans they received because they couldn't rent out the malls because there was overbuilding due to governmental tax write-offs.  Again, the government started the problem by distorting business investment criteria, same as the 2008 housing recession.   When the next crisis hits, you'll see it was the government that started it.  It will be worse.  Since 2008, we've more than doubled our debt.  The Fed's balance sheet has gone from $800 billion to over $4 trillion in printed money.  Our deficit is pushing another trillion this year.  It's going to be a mess.   

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on June 05, 2019, 11:04:01 am
A state unwilling to consider its people's health a primary concern ...... it reveals an absolute lack of it or of respect for one's fellow human beings.


i think that hits the nail on the head for the difference in inclinations between "European" governments and the government in the US -a government that is more about facilitating business  than social welfare. Hence the continuous attempt by some to reverse the social safety net set up by Roosevelt in the '30s and Johnson in the '60s.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2019, 11:20:09 am
i think that hits the nail on the head for the difference in inclinations between "European" governments and the government in the US -a government that is more about facilitating business  than social welfare. Hence the continuous attempt by some to reverse the social safety net set up by Roosevelt in the '30s and Johnson in the '60s.

I'm sure you didn't realize the irony in your comparison denigrating America.  While America was setting up Social Security in the 1930's, Europe was getting ready to start WWII. 

Until Obamacare single handedly is destroying medical care in the US, Americans had good health care privately or through their places of employment.  When I ran my little business twenty years ago, all of my employees had health coverage paid for by my company.  That was standard practice.  America also has Medicare and Medicaid.  I recently had heart surgery paid for by Medicare.  In my semi private room, the fellow next to me was a young, homeless person who just had major heart surgery paid for by the government.  He got all the same excellent care that I got.   We still have issues with medical care that will get resolved. But it's still pretty good here. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on June 05, 2019, 11:25:50 am
You are making assumptions. i am not kicking the US. Just stating the difference in attitude that leads to the results.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 05, 2019, 11:44:24 am
I'm sure you didn't realize the irony in your comparison denigrating America.  While America was setting up Social Security in the 1930's, Europe was getting ready to start WWII. 
Remember that Bismark established a social net in late 19th century Germany that included health insurance and a pension.

Quote
Until Obamacare single handedly is destroying medical care in the US, Americans had good health care privately or through their places of employment.  We still have issues with medical care that will get resolved. But it's still pretty good here.
Please tell me how Obamacare is destroying medical care in the US.  Tell me why insurance premiums for businesses and individuals are going up.  I serve on a non-profit that offers health insurance to research fellows and serve on the committee that reviews the policy and makes decisions about coverage.  In almost all areas that we have looked at from a comparison point of view organizations are raising rates, and increasing co-pays and deductibles.  The only reason that companies offer health insurance these days is because they get a tax write off.  Eliminate that and you would quickly see all of them exit and throw everyone into the private market.  HR departments hate health insurance more than almost anything else.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 05, 2019, 12:14:01 pm
America also has Medicare and Medicaid.  I recently had heart surgery paid for by Medicare.  In my semi private room, the fellow next to me was a young, homeless person who just had major heart surgery paid for by the government.  He got all the same excellent care that I got.   We still have issues with medical care that will get resolved. But it's still pretty good here.
As long as you and your spouse are 65 or older and can afford a Medicare supplement policy.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 05, 2019, 12:23:50 pm
As long as you and your spouse are 65 or older and can afford a Medicare supplement policy.

And then there is Medicaid, for the poor.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 05, 2019, 02:03:23 pm
Why is there a need for two bodies to do the work of one? I always imagined that was the trade-unionist attitude to competitiveness and efficiency.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 05, 2019, 02:24:52 pm
A state unwilling to consider its people's health a primary concern is not fit for purpose; it's the single most important thing upon which depends everything else about the nation.

I don't agree. A healthcare system to which access is decided by illness rather than by means is hugely desirable; but it's the rule of law on which a nation depends for its existence. Whether that's law imposed by dictators, laws passed by a parliament or something in between is less important than that institutions of the state exist. If they don't, there's no chance for healthcare.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 05, 2019, 02:37:16 pm
Why is there a need for two bodies to do the work of one?...

There are data-backs for the rich, and p&s for the poor. And anything in between. Would you prefer one for all? Like a Canon Rebel for everyone? Even the Soviets had a choice: Zorkiy or Zenit.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 05, 2019, 02:48:43 pm
but it's the rule of law on which a nation depends for its existence.

LoL, occupational deformation obv, easily demonstrated by the following question: what rule of law determines a nation's border?



Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 05, 2019, 02:50:10 pm
+1 vote for the rule of law.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 05, 2019, 03:06:20 pm
+1 vote for the rule of law.

Nonsense, we already had the following observation. Think about this: how is access to the legal system available in your country for the poor and needy? And don't give me that pro bono crap, you first need legal advice to even know whether the law can be of assistance and then you actually need to win the case to potentially have the cost returned.


Perhaps I'm getting more cynical in my dotage, but it seems that constitutions and bills of rights, while fine aspirational (and inspirational) documents, are increasingly becoming works of fiction. Was it always that way?
By this I mean that in many countries the constitution is simply ignored by the rich, by corporations, and by governments when it gets in the way of their power. I include all of North and South America, and much of Europe. Can't speak for Asia or the Middle East.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2019, 03:10:03 pm
Nonsense, we already had the following observation. Think about this: how is access to the legal system available in your country for the poor and needy? And don't give me that pro bono crap, you first need legal advice to even know whether the law can be of assistance and then you actually need to win the case to potentially have the cost returned.



Lawyers take cases with no cost to their clients by taking 1/3 of any monies they win in settlement or trial.  Happens all the time in injury cases.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 05, 2019, 03:15:56 pm
Lawyers take cases with no cost to their clients by taking 1/3 of any monies they win in settlement or trial.  Happens all the time in injury cases.

Yes, I know that, and if you are detained you have the right to proper defense and all that crap. But what if you feel mistreated and think the law should protect you, but you have no moneys? What if you're evicted from your home? What if some faceless giant corp poisons your proverbial backyard ?

Rule of law!? Don't make me laugh...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 05, 2019, 03:16:46 pm
Nonsense, we already had the following observation. Think about this: how is access to the legal system available in your country for the poor and needy? And don't give me that pro bono crap, you first need legal advice to even know whether the law can be of assistance and then you actually need to win the case to potentially have the cost returned.

That may be the case in the Netherlands, Oscar, but in the U.S. there are stables of public defenders provided by the state to defend against criminal charges, and there always are attorneys willing to take a case on contingency, provided the case makes sense.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2019, 03:25:09 pm
Yes, I know that, and if you are detained you have the right to proper defense and all that crap. But what if you feel mistreated and think the law should protect you, but you have no moneys? What if you're evicted from your home? What if some faceless giant corp poisons your proverbial backyard ?

Rule of law!? Don't make me laugh...

Well, it is true that nothing's perfect.  And sometimes, the legal system works against you.  But there are many avenues to get help in most cases.  There is Small Claims court for smaller disagreements.  There's renter's court.  You can;t be evicted from you home without a court decision.  So you can appear before a court to make your case known.  Judges usually protect tenants from unreasonable landlords.  There are also strong State and Federal regulations that protect the public from pollution.  You could use them to stop it.  If it already happened, you and your neighbors could find a law firm that will represent you for the 1/3 settlement.  Since 1/3 would be substantial, many firms would be interested in representing you.    Frankly, many of the infractions are caused by an over-zealous government implementing regulations that are too burdensome.  Now they're hard to sue.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 05, 2019, 03:28:30 pm
That may be the case in the Netherlands, Oscar, but in the U.S. there are stables of public defenders provided by the state to defend against criminal charges, and there always are attorneys willing to take a case on contingency, provided the case makes sense.

See my previous remark. I don't mean the case where you've entered "the legal system" involuntarily. That's mostly covered.

In NL they try to overcome the barrier of (voluntary) entry by a free or very cheap legal desk where you can go for advice. But that still doesn't equalize the money balance when eventually having to face the deep pockets of a large, faceless corp with top lawyers on the payroll, or perhaps worse, the government itself.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2019, 03:30:35 pm
See my previous remark. I don't mean the case where you've entered "the legal system" involuntarily. That's mostly covered.

In NL they try to overcome the barrier of (voluntary) entry by a free or very cheap legal desk where you can go for advice. But that still doesn't equalize the money balance when eventually having to face the deep pockets of a large, faceless corp with top lawyers on the payroll, or perhaps worse, the government itself.
What do you suggest?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 05, 2019, 03:30:51 pm
Yes, I know that, and if you are detained you have the right to proper defense and all that crap. But what if you feel mistreated and think the law should protect you, but you have no moneys? What if you're evicted from your home? What if some faceless giant corp poisons your proverbial backyard ?

Exactly the point, Oscar. If you're feeling "mistreated" you can go to an attorney and see if he (I know that's not politically correct) will take your case on contingency. First he's going to want to know WHY you were evicted, or HOW the "giant corp" poisoned your yard. That keeps a lot of crap from going to court. But in the end, if you have a valid case -- often even if you haven't -- you're gonna get representation.-
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 05, 2019, 03:35:05 pm
At this point, Oscar has gone off the deep end. Let him be.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 05, 2019, 03:40:31 pm
for the 1/3 settlement.  Since 1/3 would be substantial, many firms would be interested in representing you.   

Settlements are also a good indication that the law is ruling nothing. If you think about it carefully, it's an exchange of money so the law doesn't have to rule and nothing has to change.

Reminder: this is the original assessment that I'm arguing against:
Quote
but it's the rule of law on which a nation depends for its existence.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 05, 2019, 03:50:14 pm
This legal stuff avoids the issue: health aid free at the point of supply, for all a country's nationals.

Having to go to lawyers hardly forms part of what normal health experience is. Do you have to be hit by a truck in order to get attention? What if you just break a leg at home, do you go to a lawyer and sue yourself to get help? Do you hire a lawyer to find some other patsy you can milk or blame for your own stupidity? Bringing in the concept of claims against somebody because of injury is a separate subject, in this context the reddest of red herrings.

What we are - or should be talking about - is access to a medical service in case of illness, not necessarily of accident. Different concepts and situations, but in either case one should expect medical help without a credit card or a legal eagle. That many look for those commissions is not surprising, as equally unsurprising the fact that health insurance is so high just to protect insurance companies from marauding legal sharks looking for somebody's disaster to convert into their Bentley.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 05, 2019, 03:53:22 pm
This legal stuff avoids the issue: health aid free at the point of supply, for all a country's nationals.

But health aid ISN'T free, Rob. NOTHING that has to be produced is free.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2019, 03:54:55 pm
Settlements are also a good indication that the law is ruling nothing. If you think about it carefully, it's an exchange of money so the law doesn't have to rule and nothing has to change.

Reminder: this is the original assessment that I'm arguing against:

Civil courts are only necessary when people can't agree when there are disputes.  If both parties can reach an agreement, then there is a settlement.  Happens all the time.  In fact, most disagreements are settled out of court through a process of negotiation and then settlement without even a thought of going to trial.   Lawyers and courts cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to reach a conclusion.  Most people prefer settlements.   Trusting a civil jury even when you think you are right is fraught with risk.  I know.  Believe me. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2019, 04:04:48 pm
This legal stuff avoids the issue: health aid free at the point of supply, for all a country's nationals.
...



It's really tiring how Europeans constantly criticize America as being unfeeling.  In America, illegals get "free" health care.  They also have a right to send their children to taxpayer supported schools and get other benefits from the rest of us "nationals" who pay for all this support with our taxes.   

How are illegals handled in Europe?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 05, 2019, 04:10:20 pm
Civil courts are only necessary when people can't agree when there are disputes.  If both parties can reach an agreement, then there is a settlement.  Happens all the time.  In fact, most disagreements are settled out of court through a process of negotiation and then settlement without even a thought of going to trial.   Lawyers and courts cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to reach a conclusion.  Most people prefer settlements.   Trusting a civil jury even when you think you are right is fraught with risk.  I know.  Believe me.

I understand.

And to answer your previous question: I wouldn't have an idea for an alternative, or a way for even lower barrier to entry. One thing in this context always fascinated me. In several countries (from South Americas, to China) there have existed for thousands of years, communal and individual landproperty rights based on ancestry. It's fascinating that this has worked without the extensive legal systems we know today. It's based on agreement, maybe not much different from settlements except for the post-agreement legal stuff that keeps all the lawyers busy and fed.

Just recently read an article that apparently there is a Dutch company helping out some South American government with documenting property borders using a phone app. The app simply documents the border and accumulates the agreement acknowledgement between neighbours. Not a lawyer in sight...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 05, 2019, 04:19:56 pm
More info: https://tierraenpaz.com/home
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 05, 2019, 04:33:37 pm
Right, Oscar: "...executed by the Dutch Kadaster, the Colombian Land Agency and the Dutch embassy." Must be one of those FREE projects that doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. The money comes directly from Heaven.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 05, 2019, 04:44:24 pm
We're all adults here. Can we please stop criticizing these systems because they're not "free". Of course they're not free, everyone knows this. They are national insurance policies, everyone understands this. We use the word free in informal conversations as a shorthand.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 05, 2019, 04:44:37 pm
Right, Oscar: "...executed by the Dutch Kadaster, the Colombian Land Agency and the Dutch embassy." Must be one of those FREE projects that doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. The money comes directly from Heaven.

I wasn't arguing that it was or has to be free. In fact, I would argue that the dependency for the existence of a nation is based on the stability of its monetary system. The fact that the US has at one time managed to couple its monetary unit to the prime global energysource was a rather brilliant move on their part, except that now oil is quickly running out.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 05, 2019, 04:48:45 pm
As in: money represents productivity which obviously requires energy. Especially with deficits which can be thought of as "future productivity".
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 05, 2019, 05:05:13 pm
Lawyers take cases with no cost to their clients by taking 1/3 of any monies they win in settlement or trial.  Happens all the time in injury cases.

Not in England.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 05, 2019, 05:07:59 pm
Nonsense, we already had the following observation. Think about this: how is access to the legal system available in your country for the poor and needy? And don't give me that pro bono crap, you first need legal advice to even know whether the law can be of assistance and then you actually need to win the case to potentially have the cost returned.

You are confused. I wrote that a system of rules must be in place for any country to function at all. How well that system might work in particular instances is irrelevant to the principle.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 05, 2019, 05:20:04 pm
... The app simply documents the border and accumulates the agreement acknowledgement between neighbours. Not a lawyer in sight...

Back in the day, in my home country, land disputes were also handled without a lawyer. One party would leave the dispute vertically, the other horizontally.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 05, 2019, 05:24:04 pm
You are confused. I wrote that a system of rules must be in place for any country to function at all. How well that system might work in particular instances is irrelevant to the principle.

Jeremy

No, I'm fairly certain that I'm merely derailed but not confused. If, hypothetically, a system doesn't work in the majority of the cases, then the country is dysfunctional, and the nation existence in turmoil. The guarantee of borders then depends largely on agreement with surrounding nations. That said: Tibet, Taiwan, HK , and the South China sea seem to be good examples where rules of law apparently are easily superseded by what perhaps could be considered foreign rule of law. A result btw of monetary windfall.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 05, 2019, 05:25:46 pm
Back in the day, in my home country, land disputes were also handled without a lawyer. One party would leave the dispute vertically, the other horizontally.

Depending on who had the larger family, no doubt. ;-)
(Would explain the large families in underdeveloped nations...)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 05, 2019, 05:25:53 pm
But health aid ISN'T free, Rob. NOTHING that has to be produced is free.

Of course not, Russ, that has never been imagined! The point is, it's free at the point of delivery, where and when you need it most,

Of course it's paid for via a mixture of taxation and social security payments, but those are deducted from your earnings and when you have no work or make too little for it to count, you still get exactly the same service, regardless.

And yes, Britain and Spain, in my experience, both offer separate, private insurance if you want it; in Spain, the same docs often work in both systems and hospitals, public and private. We paid private insurance for years, until Ann discovered in an emergency that the treatment she got in the state system was every bit as good - if not better - than we bought privately on top of that; some ops that are diagnosed in private hospitals are sent straight to the state institutions for the doing.

The massively important thing is this: nobody is left lying on the floor whilst their insurance is checked out, which is how I believe the great jazz singer Bessie Smith was allowed to run out of blood. You are simply not under any obligation to go private at any stage, however rich or poor you may be.

Apart from some impossibly expensive drugs that are probably too expensive for private patients too, cost of medication is not a problem.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2019, 05:26:37 pm
We're all adults here. Can we please stop criticizing these systems because they're not "free". Of course they're not free, everyone knows this. They are national insurance policies, everyone understands this. We use the word free in informal conversations as a shorthand.

Not true.   Supporters of national health programs tell everyone it's "free" to gain support for these very expensive programs.  If you keep repeating "free", people will think it really is free when it's not.    We know what's going on.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2019, 05:27:58 pm
Back in the day, in my home country, land disputes were also handled without a lawyer. One party would leave the dispute vertically, the other horizontally.
Where did they bury the horizontal one since he had no land any more?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 05, 2019, 05:36:17 pm
Not true.   Supporters of national health programs tell everyone it's "free" to gain support for these very expensive programs.  If you keep repeating "free", people will think it really is free when it's not.    We know what's going on.

That's bullshit. Do you imagine nobody inspects their wage slip to see where the money has gone? Perhaps you did that, but not anybody I worked beside when I worked beside other wage slaves.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2019, 05:37:00 pm
Of course not, Russ, that has never been imagined! The point is, it's free at the point of delivery, where and when you need it most,

Of course it's paid for via a mixture of taxation and social security payments, but those are deducted from your earnings and when you have no work or make too little for it to count, you still get exactly the same service, regardless.

And yes, Britain and Spain, in my experience, both offer separate, private insurance if you want it; in Spain, the same docs often work in both systems and hospitals, public and private. We paid private insurance for years, until Ann discovered in an emergency that the treatment she got in the state system was every bit as good - if not better - than we bought privately on top of that; some ops that are diagnosed in private hospitals are sent straight to the state institutions for the doing.

The massively important thing is this: nobody is left lying on the floor whilst their insurance is checked out, which is how I believe the great jazz singer Bessie Smith was allowed to run out of blood. You are simply not under any obligation to go private at any stage, however rich or poor you may be.

Apart from some impossibly expensive drugs that are probably too expensive for private patients too, cost of medication is not a problem.


In the USA, many doctors have opted out of Medicare, the government program for seniors.  They will not accept the lower Medicare payments.  If you want their services, you have to pay their much higher charges out of pocket.  There's no reimbursement from insurance or Medicare.   Since it's the best doctors who opt out, you can't get the best care unless you're well-off.   If we go to a national program, doctors will opt out of care for non-seniors.  Our medical system will have worse results.  If they force doctors to accept these lower payments, many who wanted to go into the medical field will decide to go into other more lucrative fields.   The quality of doctors will diminish.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2019, 05:40:21 pm
That's bullshit. Do you imagine nobody inspects their wage slip to see where the money has gone? Perhaps you did that, but not anybody I worked beside when I worked beside other wage slaves.

Rob
Rob, In America, we don;t yet have national healthcare except for the elderly and indigent.  So many politicians repeat "free" to gain support for these programs.  So it may be different here than in countries like yours where it's already be implemented.  In any case, your wage slip doesn't show all the costs.  How much of health care is paid with the VAT sales taxes?  They wouldn't show on wage slips. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 05, 2019, 05:40:50 pm
In the USA, many doctors have opted out of Medicare, the government program for seniors.  They will not accept the lower Medicare payments.  If you want their services, you have to pay their much higher charges out of pocket.  There's no reimbursement from insurance or Medicare.   Since it's the best doctors who opt out, you can't get the best care unless you're well-off.   If we go to a national program, doctors will opt out of care for non-seniors.  Our medical system will have worse results.  If they force doctors to accept these lower payments, many who wanted to go into the medical field will decide to go into other more lucrative fields.   The quality of doctors will diminish.
So you had a substandard doctor do your heart procedure under Medicare? I'm surprised. You spoke so positively about the quality of your treatment.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 05, 2019, 05:42:02 pm
It's really tiring how Europeans constantly criticize America as being unfeeling.

How are illegals handled in Europe?

They’re kept in cages at the border. No ... hang on a mo ...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 05, 2019, 05:44:16 pm
Back in the day, in my home country, land disputes were also handled without a lawyer. One party would leave the dispute vertically, the other horizontally.


Ah! How the west was won! I'm sure John Wayne rode to some of the rescues or funerals. As for the Sioux, the Comanche et al. I bet they were thrilled by the rule of law and the Constitution.

Reminds me of Norman Parkinson speaking of women and fur coats: he claimed that the women he photographed looked as if they had earned them vertically. I liked that.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 05, 2019, 05:46:40 pm
In the USA, many doctors have opted out of Medicare, the government program for seniors.  They will not accept the lower Medicare payments.  If you want their services, you have to pay their much higher charges out of pocket.  There's no reimbursement from insurance or Medicare.   Since it's the best doctors who opt out, you can't get the best care unless you're well-off.   If we go to a national program, doctors will opt out of care for non-seniors.  Our medical system will have worse results.  If they force doctors to accept these lower payments, many who wanted to go into the medical field will decide to go into other more lucrative fields.   The quality of doctors will diminish.

Did you read that back before posting it? You do know it makes no sense at all, right?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 05, 2019, 05:46:53 pm
Civil courts are only necessary when people can't agree when there are disputes.  If both parties can reach an agreement, then there is a settlement.  Happens all the time.  In fact, most disagreements are settled out of court through a process of negotiation and then settlement without even a thought of going to trial.   Lawyers and courts cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to reach a conclusion.  Most people prefer settlements.   Trusting a civil jury even when you think you are right is fraught with risk.  I know.  Believe me.
It's interesting that all the major credit card companies are now sending out notices that if there is a dispute it must be settled by binding arbitration rather than the legal system.  One can opt out if you read the whole notice by sending a letter by some date in August.  More things are being pushed into arbitration these days.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 05, 2019, 05:50:36 pm

Ah! How the west was won! I'm sure John Wayne rode to some of the rescues or funerals. As for the Sioux, the Comanche et al. I bet they were thrilled by the rule of law and the Constitution...

Hold your horses, Rob, I was talking about my old home country, Serbia.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 05, 2019, 05:50:51 pm
Rob, In America, we don;t yet have national healthcare except for the elderly and indigent.  So many politicians repeat "free" to gain support for these programs.  So it may be different here than in countries like yours where it's already be implemented.  In any case, your wage slip doesn't show all the costs.  How much of health care is paid with the VAT sales taxes?  They wouldn't show on wage slips.

VAT isn't part of your wage slip; it's a tax levied on services and goods, sometimes at different rates and with some exceptions. It was introduced into the UK with the advent of joining Europe. Or at least, that's how I remember it and the fresh dose of paperwork that came with it entering my life.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 05, 2019, 05:53:04 pm
Hold your horses, Rob, I was talking about my old home country, Serbia.


I understood that; I was extending the concept to your present nirvana, where it is no less real.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2019, 05:54:20 pm
So you had a substandard doctor do your heart procedure under Medicare? I'm surprised. You spoke so positively about the quality of your treatment.

Good question.  Was there a better surgeon available.  Truth is, I don;t know.  I used him because my cardiologist, who accepts Medicare, recommended him as being the best.  He was Japanese.  I thanked him in Japanese, the only few words I learned when I was stationed in Japan in the 1960's.   "domo arigatou gozaimasu"   Fortunately, I'm still alive and kicking so I guess he did a good job.  Check back in a few years to see how I'm doing.

In a different medical situation, my urology surgeon, top in his field,  has opted out of Medicare.  But I had that surgery years ago when my insurance paid for it.  When I see him for followup checkups now that I'm on Medicare, I have to pay his full charge out of pocket.  Neither Medicare nor my secondary nor tertiary insurance covers his charges.  90% of Americans don't realize this is going on with Medicare.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2019, 05:57:24 pm
VAT isn't part of your wage slip; it's a tax levied on services and goods, sometimes at different rates and with some exceptions. It was introduced into the UK with the advent of joining Europe. Or at least, that's how I remember it and the fresh dose of paperwork that came with it entering my life.
I said the VAT wasn;t part of your wage slip.  Since VAT pays for some of the medical costs, then a person wouldn't see what medical costs are costing them by just looking at their wage slip. SO they might think it's free or cheap. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 05, 2019, 06:00:07 pm
Where did they bury the horizontal one since he had no land any more?

It's what rivers and concrete mixers are for doing: taking problems elsewhere and burying the evidence in deep foundations that only terrorists or earthquakes will reveal.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2019, 06:01:27 pm
It's interesting that all the major credit card companies are now sending out notices that if there is a dispute it must be settled by binding arbitration rather than the legal system.  One can opt out if you read the whole notice by sending a letter by some date in August.  More things are being pushed into arbitration these days.
Arbitration is a good idea in many cases.  It can avoid high legal costs.  It can end disputes much more quickly.  If you go the legal route, you might be dead before they finish the case.  That will only be good for your wife's next husband. :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 05, 2019, 06:02:24 pm
Good grief! It's just turned into Thursday! Both my bar and restaurant options are closed this new today, but I did buy myself the makings of paella for lunch!

Night night!

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 05, 2019, 06:08:28 pm
...    How are illegals handled in Europe?

For example (emphasis mine):

Quote
Denmark has some of the most aggressive anti-immigrant policies in Europe. That has included taking out foreign-newspaper adverts warning potential migrants that they are not welcome, and authorizing police to seize cash and valuables from arriving asylum seekers to offset the cost of their maintenance...

... In the past year, the center-right government has passed a so-called burqa ban, even though fewer than 0.1% of Muslim women in Denmark wear veils, and a law requiring parents in neighborhoods designated as “ghettos” to submit their children to extra schooling in “Danish values.” From January, new citizens are required to shake hands with the official conducting the naturalization ceremony, regardless of their beliefs about physical contact with members of the opposite sex—a law perceived as targeting conservative Muslims...

...The DF’s Henriksen, who believes Trump’s policies on immigration are “too weak,” echoes Holtug’s point. “America is a country founded on migration, but Denmark is not. We’re a small country, and what binds us is a common language, and a common set of traditions and values. If we let in a large number of foreigners with their own cultures, ours will be overwhelmed.”...

"An Island for ‘Unwanted’ Migrants Is Denmark’s Latest Aggressive Anti-Immigrant Policy"

https://time.com/5504331/denmark-migrants-lindholm-island/

Good news there is a bipartisanship in Denmark:

"Denmark's centre-left set to win election with anti-immigration shift
Social Democrats expected to return to power this week after backing once far-right policies"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/04/denmark-centre-left-predicted-win-election-social-democrats-anti-immigration-policies



Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 05, 2019, 06:20:41 pm
Arbitration is a good idea in many cases.  It can avoid high legal costs.  It can end disputes much more quickly.  If you go the legal route, you might be dead before they finish the case. 
That will only be good for your wife's next husband. :)

Or for the lawyer's wife or husband.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 05, 2019, 08:49:05 pm
They’re kept in cages at the border. No ... hang on a mo ...

In Europe, I thought it was on ships?  ???
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on June 05, 2019, 08:57:58 pm
Hold your horses, Rob, I was talking about my old home country, Serbia.

Okay, now I understand.  I thought for a moment you were telling us you were from Texas.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on June 05, 2019, 09:00:16 pm
Rob, In America, we don;t yet have national healthcare except for the elderly and indigent.

Also military veterans.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 06, 2019, 12:45:42 am
VAT isn't part of your wage slip; it's a tax levied on services and goods, sometimes at different rates and with some exceptions. It was introduced into the UK with the advent of joining Europe. Or at least, that's how I remember it and the fresh dose of paperwork that came with it entering my life.

Rob - for some reason Alan has become obsessed by VAT. I haven't yet worked out why - maybe he thinks it's part of some evil plot to take away the guns that have kept the American public safe. He is also under the illlusion that we all think the NHS is free. Good luck with making him understand that even the most ignorant Brexiteer knows very well that it isn't.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 06, 2019, 05:01:05 am
For example (emphasis mine):

"An Island for ‘Unwanted’ Migrants Is Denmark’s Latest Aggressive Anti-Immigrant Policy"

https://time.com/5504331/denmark-migrants-lindholm-island/

Good news there is a bipartisanship in Denmark:

"Denmark's centre-left set to win election with anti-immigration shift
Social Democrats expected to return to power this week after backing once far-right policies"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/04/denmark-centre-left-predicted-win-election-social-democrats-anti-immigration-policies


Again, we wander far from the topic, but as it happens, it's an interesting problem - amd problem it sure is.

People flee for many reasons: some out of fear for their lives as those of their family; others out of curiosity and yet more for economic improvement. Not all of those need become illegal migrants, but if you start from the basis of being penniless and/or unskilled in any relevantly useful way, illegality is probably your only means to travel, and your feet your new best friends.

Those who flee war at home may or may not have the same concept of country and nationality as do we in the west; if they live in the desert, in the Rift Valley or deep in central Africa, does - can - nationality mean the same thing to them as to western people? Does religion replace nationality? Have they any idea of how different and alien they are going to appear to us, and how difficult if not impossible it will be to get legal, paid work that will let them survive in a place with such a relatively higher cost of living? I'd guess the chances are that, should they make it here, wherever in the west here happens to be, the only chance of a new survival will be found in crime, which the diaspora will help them turn to like a foot into a perfectly fitted shoe. The ghetto becomes the new country, leading to what folks already experience in France and Belgium and parts of Britain. Who has the slightest idea who lives there, how accurate any census that may have been collected?

How should the unwilling or unwitting host react? There are established laws governing such matters, but again, as with the old American one about carrying arms, designed for the problems of a different age, where none of today's modern weapons existed and a single man's mass shootings a physical impossibility, these are mainly no longer fit for purpose.

A country has to decide: does it want to retain its national identity as a white, nominally Christian land where, already, the two broader brands have led to wars of religion and today still cause deep conflicts and division in several areas or, perhaps, does it perceive advantages in introducing yet more variables that can realistically only make matters more complicated and thus inevitably worse?

I believe that the only way to preserving the status quo prior to mass immigration is in preventing that immigration from happening. Whether through interventions abroad in one form or another - preferably not our own military - I don't know; that's what thinking politicians are supposed to know, and why politicians with no idea of foreign affairs are also unfit for purpose. Letting people in en masse as an emotional response is madness, one that if not instantly suicidal, is getting pretty close to creating that time bomb. You think that exaggeration? It's what much of Brexit is about, and those newcomers are mostly other Europeans, for heaven's sake, sharing the same religion - if any! The migration problems and ghettos Britain has are painted with the colours black and brown, not white. Which is not to suggest that the white ones will make you feel any the safer, should you wander there by mistake. Glasgow had/has? its own distinct ganglands, with slogans on the walls: Fleet, Toon etc. and to somebody from out of town, how could they possibly know since everybody looked the same? Even my own little town up here in northern Mallorca has graffiti everywhere, with repeated tags. The arches of bridges over the motorways are as festooned with such decorations as anywhere in a big city. More diversity is no friggin' help in these matters, just a further complication to be avoided at all costs.

How to treat those who do get in? How can anyone possibly vet them to know who they really are, from whence they come or why? Before we had modern terrorism and the volumes, it might have been permissible just to let 'em stay; in today's climate that would be a huge abdication of duty, so I guess the European idea of returning them to the point of entry makes sense, and then we have to help that point of entry turn back the tides through repatriation to whichever land from which those migrants claim to come. It's a humanistically tough call for anyone to have to make, but to avoid our own disaster, we have to make that call, one way or the other.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 06, 2019, 05:53:02 am

"Denmark's centre-left set to win election with anti-immigration shift
Social Democrats expected to return to power this week after backing once far-right policies"


This is interesting, especially as it now turned out to be correct. Intriguingly, Denmark has previously negotiated a special deal within EU regarding their migration policies. That seems to raise an interesting question. What if the Brexit referendum was about the choice between leaving the EU entirely, or leaving just the migration policy of the EU?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 06, 2019, 08:13:58 am
This is interesting, especially as it now turned out to be correct. Intriguingly, Denmark has previously negotiated a special deal within EU regarding their migration policies. That seems to raise an interesting question. What if the Brexit referendum was about the choice between leaving the EU entirely, or leaving just the migration policy of the EU?

Well of course that was always possible and from the beginning the UK had the option to control immigration much more than it chose to.

Denmark is an interesting case - the right wing DFP have always had a significant following but probably be so they mix up the racist elements with softer policies about being nice to kittens etc.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Ivo_B on June 06, 2019, 11:00:12 am
With so much hanging below the belt, it's a miracle people didn't keep tripping over their bits and falling onto their faces. Or perhaps they did, but kept quiet about it. Brings to mind the fall of Rome; maybe they all did it at once.

I think, Rob, the secret of the Roman legion was the particular short sword.This could declare the initial invincibility.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 06, 2019, 11:05:37 am
Many non-Americans here sound like Trump when it comes to immigration.  Interesting.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 06, 2019, 11:16:45 am
There was a time when the American Left still had a few brain cells left:
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 06, 2019, 11:43:41 am
There was a time when the American Left still had a few brain cells left:

And what do you suggest has changed since then?

It's not like a wall is going to make a difference, does it? Which incidentally doesn't bode well for the number of braincells on the right, comparatively.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 06, 2019, 11:48:23 am
And what do you suggest has changed since then?...

They lost those few remaining brain cells. They now want open borders and to abolish ICE.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 06, 2019, 01:04:36 pm
They lost those few remaining brain cells. They now want open borders and to abolish ICE.
 


So where's the problem? So does Trump want to abolish ice. And flood out Florida with the results. That will see his votes surge!

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 06, 2019, 01:56:15 pm
  So where's the problem? So does Trump want to abolish ice. And flood out Florida with the results. That will see his votes surge!

Monty Python humor, Rob? I like it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 06, 2019, 02:31:30 pm
...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 06, 2019, 02:47:13 pm
Monty Python humor, Rob? I like it.

Not unless you move to The Rockies in time! And don't holiday in the Maldives.

:-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 06, 2019, 03:11:17 pm
... And don't holiday in the Maldives.

Ah, the proverbial Maldives. The butt of all global warming alarmists' jokes:

"DUD PREDICTION: MALDIVES SUNK BY 2018"

Quote
The Canberra Times 30 years ago:

MALE, Maldives: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 small islands within the next 30 years, according to authorities.

The Environmental Affairs Director, Mr Hussein Shihab, said an estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next 20 to 40 years could be "catastrophic" for most of the islands, which were no more than a metre above sea level.

The United Nations Environment Project was planning a study of the problem.

But the end of the Maldives and its 200,000 people could come sooner if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 06, 2019, 03:33:43 pm
To a leftist the sky always is falling.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 06, 2019, 03:55:34 pm
Ah, the proverbial Maldives. The butt of all global warming alarmists' jokes:

"DUD PREDICTION: MALDIVES SUNK BY 2018"

Ah, back to spreading fake news.

For those interested in what science did say:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41TCWEl-x_g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aQqTFGxrmg

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 06, 2019, 04:26:06 pm
Ah, back to spreading fake news...

Ah, poor government bureaucrats and journalists. Scapegoated again for fake news. And where did they get their ideas from? Thin air? And where were rigorous and outraged denials from the scientific community THEN, not only when the predictions didn’t pan out?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 06, 2019, 05:33:25 pm
A lovely Trump portrait in The Economist magazine 😊
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: BobShaw on June 06, 2019, 08:41:32 pm
Well actually the Maldives came up with an engineering solution of spraying sand onto the islands to reclaim them and also build new ones.
(A bit like Waikiki Beach spraying sand onto the beach so that it looks pretty.)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2125198-on-front-line-of-climate-change-as-maldives-fights-rising-seas/

When I bought my first house in 1980 it was a converted boat shed that was actually over the water. The highest tides recorded at that time in Sydney were 2.0 metres. The house next door would go under water at that level.

We now have high recorded tides of 2.2metres. So it is not just the average sea level you need to worry about, it is the highest tides.

Buried in this 19 pages report which seems to deny sea level rise is a simple statement "Notwithstanding this, the indicated sea level rise trend at Fort Denison (Sydney) of 1 to 3 mm per year is consistent with the geocentric global average sea level change (IPCC, 2013)." That confirms what I have seen over the last 40 years.

https://www.mhl.nsw.gov.au/docs/tide/AHA_Conference_2014_Sea_Level_Trends.pdf
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 06, 2019, 08:47:32 pm
A lovely Trump portrait in The Economist magazine 😊

It's not inaccurate.  But it's tragic that some Americans think it's a compliment.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 06, 2019, 09:24:48 pm
A lovely Trump portrait in The Economist magazine 😊

A bigger airship could be painted in orange and adorned with the following titles:
- Grandiosity
- Entitlement
- Lies
- Bulls**t
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 06, 2019, 09:28:11 pm
The biggest lies the president ever said were "you can keep your doctor" and "the cost of health insurance will go down."

Oh wait.....
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 06, 2019, 09:33:39 pm
The biggest lies the president ever said were "you can keep your doctor" and "the cost of health insurance will go down."

Oh wait.....

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 06, 2019, 09:35:10 pm
The biggest lies the president ever said were "you can keep your doctor" and "the cost of health insurance will go down."

Oh wait.....

The former was (sometimes) wrong, but anyone who deals with insurance on a regular basis knows that doctors move in and out of insurance plans and networks all the time - this isn't a fault of the ACA, merely a choice on the doctor's part.  I've had the same doctors for over a decade, as has my wife.

As for the latter, in my experience the *rate of increase* has slowed measurably.  Again, a lie?  I'd be hesitant to call it that, and if I were a Trump defender I'd have to be neck deep in my own hypocrisy to stick on these old tropes as evidence of deceit when giving Trump a pass daily.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 06, 2019, 09:39:27 pm


The quote in context:

Quote
"...if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage"

Basically, if you're transparent selfish people will refuse to allow for the general health and welfare of their fellow Americans.  And you know what?  He is and was right.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 06, 2019, 09:40:38 pm
The former was (sometimes) wrong, but anyone who deals with insurance on a regular basis knows that doctors move in and out of insurance plans and networks all the time - this isn't a fault of the ACA, merely a choice on the doctor's part.  I've had the same doctors for over a decade, as has my wife.

As for the latter, in my experience the *rate of increase* has slowed measurably.  Again, a lie?  I'd be hesitant to call it that, and if I were a Trump defender I'd have to be neck deep in my own hypocrisy to stick on these old tropes as evidence of deceit when giving Trump a pass daily.

Sorry, but Gruber specifically stated that Obama knew, undoubtedly, that when he said, " if you like your doctor ..." he was lying.  It is on the record. 

Insofar as my increases, I saw 40%+ increases three years in a row when the law went into effect.  I had good coverage too, with no life time limits on service.  I did not get coverage for things like prostate exams, or other 50+ years of age issues, but then again I did not need them.  I also did not have a prescription plans, but the two times I paid for prescriptions out of pocket, it cost me $20, max, so whats the point.  Now I have no choice. 

Look on the bright I guess, that $65 extra dollars per month I am paying just covered a $100 tetanus shot and a $85 MMR booster shot, first prescriptions I've filled in at least 8 years.  In another 10 years I guess, they'll cover it again. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 06, 2019, 09:42:01 pm
The quote in context:

Basically, if you're transparent selfish people will refuse to allow for the general health and welfare of their fellow Americans.  And you know what?  He is and was right.

Would you care to continue the quote to "... the stupidity of the American voter?" 

Anyway, so what you are saying is, it is okay to blatantly lie to people to get your way?  Very Machiavellian of you James. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 06, 2019, 09:47:46 pm
The former was (sometimes) wrong, but anyone who deals with insurance on a regular basis knows that doctors move in and out of insurance plans and networks all the time - this isn't a fault of the ACA, merely a choice on the doctor's part.  I've had the same doctors for over a decade, as has my wife.

As for the latter, in my experience the *rate of increase* has slowed measurably.  Again, a lie?  I'd be hesitant to call it that, and if I were a Trump defender I'd have to be neck deep in my own hypocrisy to stick on these old tropes as evidence of deceit when giving Trump a pass daily.
Obama's lie and the Democrats unilateral support of Obamacare effects 20% of the American economy.  Now THAT's a lie. The liberal press, about 90% of it,  ignores lies and spin by Democrats and politicians they favor.  They get a pass.  They spend all their time looking at Trump.  The media is so biased against Trump and Republicans, the public is being misled.  Certainly they were misled about Obamacare, major and very consequential legislation. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 06, 2019, 09:52:26 pm
To a leftist the sky always is falling.

Fortunately, the sky is not falling, but methane clouds are rising.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 06, 2019, 09:53:48 pm
The quote in context:

Basically, if you're transparent selfish people will refuse to allow for the general health and welfare of their fellow Americans.  And you know what?  He is and was right.

Wow.  You support politicians lying when you agree with the result they want.  But the issue is not that politicians lie.  The issue is when the press hides it from the public because they support the results.  The press is suppose to protect us from deceitful politicians.  That's why the Constitution felt is was so important to have Freedom of the Press in the Bill of RIghts.  But that means the press has to act responsibly by letting the public know the BS on all sides.  When they fail to do that you got "fake news", biased news, and government that in the end will hurt the people. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 06, 2019, 10:26:31 pm
Sorry, but Gruber specifically stated that Obama knew, undoubtedly, that when he said, " if you like your doctor ..." he was lying.  It is on the record.

Is it?  I can't find any record of that, but I'm open to correction.  Nevertheless, again, there's nothing in the ACA that forces people to change doctors, or forces doctors to leave plans.  Plans and doctors can and do, and always have, changed organically.  The fact that some doctors or plans changed after the ACA was was implement is not, in and of itself, any indication that a deliberate "lie" was told, or that the ACA caused this at all.

Insofar as my increases, I saw 40%+ increases three years in a row when the law went into effect.  I had good coverage too, with no life time limits on service.  I did not get coverage for things like prostate exams, or other 50+ years of age issues, but then again I did not need them.  I also did not have a prescription plans, but the two times I paid for prescriptions out of pocket, it cost me $20, max, so whats the point.  Now I have no choice.

Look on the bright I guess, that $65 extra dollars per month I am paying just covered a $100 tetanus shot and a $85 MMR booster shot, first prescriptions I've filled in at least 8 years.  In another 10 years I guess, they'll cover it again.

...and millions more people have coverage.   Does that matter to you?  If not, what Grueber said is prescient.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 06, 2019, 10:29:03 pm
Would you care to continue the quote to "... the stupidity of the American voter?" 

Anyway, so what you are saying is, it is okay to blatantly lie to people to get your way?  Very Machiavellian of you James.

Actually, no, I don't believe that, and I don't approve of what he said.   It's not a black and white question, though, much as I'd like it to be.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 06, 2019, 10:30:13 pm
Wow.  You support politicians lying when you agree with the result they want.  But the issue is not that politicians lie.  The issue is when the press hides it from the public because they support the results.  The press is suppose to protect us from deceitful politicians.  That's why the Constitution felt is was so important to have Freedom of the Press in the Bill of RIghts.  But that means the press has to act responsibly by letting the public know the BS on all sides.  When they fail to do that you got "fake news", biased news, and government that in the end will hurt the people.

You must absolutely loathe Fox News.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 07, 2019, 07:41:39 am
Is it?  I can't find any record of that, but I'm open to correction.  Nevertheless, again, there's nothing in the ACA that forces people to change doctors, or forces doctors to leave plans.  Plans and doctors can and do, and always have, changed organically.  The fact that some doctors or plans changed after the ACA was was implement is not, in and of itself, any indication that a deliberate "lie" was told, or that the ACA caused this at all.

...and millions more people have coverage.   Does that matter to you?  If not, what Grueber said is prescient.

The vast majority of those covered by the ACA had insurance previously.  The vast majority of the uninsured prior to the ACA are still uninsured.  The actual number of people using the exchanges is vastly lower than what we were told would be on it by now.  The premiums, especially on the exchanges, grow at a vastly higher rate (in some instances 100%+ a few years in a row) then what we were promised. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 07, 2019, 08:49:37 am
The vast majority of those covered by the ACA had insurance previously.  The vast majority of the uninsured prior to the ACA are still uninsured.  The actual number of people using the exchanges is vastly lower than what we were told would be on it by now.  The premiums, especially on the exchanges, grow at a vastly higher rate (in some instances 100%+ a few years in a row) then what we were promised.

Nice dodge.  But how about answering the question?  Does the fact that an additional x people have coverage, and that people that were previously uninsurable can now be covered, matter to you?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Manoli on June 07, 2019, 09:15:54 am
The vast majority of those covered by the ACA had insurance previously. 
The vast majority of the uninsured prior to the ACA are still uninsured. 

20 million people gained Medical Insurance under the ACA
Of those 20 million, over 7 million have since lost insurance (under Trump)

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Kkb6HfN6067d4Sok6WNilIcrtgc=/0x0:1400x806/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1400x806):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13708354/ssv1le24uuapzir9ocd6pq.png)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on June 07, 2019, 09:18:02 am
the fundamental fact about insurance of any kind is that those who do not have "disasters" or "needs" pay for those who do. It is called sharing the risk. It is how it works. The companies providing the coverage early in ACA had problems pricing the coverage. The price charged had to go up as this was not a fully tax payer funded operation and the companies providing the insurance and the companies providing re-insurance to insurance companies (spreading the risk around) have to make a net profit and maintain reserves.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 07, 2019, 09:32:22 am
20 million people gained Medical Insurance under the ACA
Of those 20 million, over 7 million have since lost insurance (under Trump)

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Kkb6HfN6067d4Sok6WNilIcrtgc=/0x0:1400x806/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1400x806):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13708354/ssv1le24uuapzir9ocd6pq.png)

So prior to Obama, we had about 14.5% uninsured.  It then dropped to 10.9%, but is now back to almost 14%.  Aside from taking away the individual mandate, I really dont see what Trump did to make to the percentage higher. 

The price on the exchanges were going up greatly prior to Trump coming into office, and perhaps people just could not afford it.  Then when the mandate was taken away, the decided why not just drop it, especially since you can sign up even if your sick.  So, I'll not have insurance and if anything happens, I'll just sign up then. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 07, 2019, 09:35:49 am
Nice dodge.  But how about answering the question?  Does the fact that an additional x people have coverage, and that people that were previously uninsurable can now be covered, matter to you?

I am a libertarian; I don't engage in using empathy when looking at things logically.  Plus, my level empathy for the uninsured has no baring what so ever on the effectiveness of the program, which is what I am more concerned with. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 07, 2019, 09:47:23 am
Then when the mandate was taken away, the decided why not just drop it, especially since you can sign up even if your sick.  So, I'll not have insurance and if anything happens, I'll just sign up then.
Of course, you won't be covered for charges you incur prior to signing up. Usually the big ones are when you are involved in an accident. I fell off a ladder and broke my humerus at the shoulder joint. Within twelve hours I had a plate and nine screws in my arm and a $30,000 bill. No time to call and sign up. Fortunately, I had insurance.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 07, 2019, 09:48:30 am
So prior to Obama, we had about 14.5% uninsured.  It then dropped to 10.9%, but is now back to almost 14%.  Aside from taking away the individual mandate, I really dont see what Trump did to make to the percentage higher. 

The price on the exchanges were going up greatly prior to Trump coming into office, and perhaps people just could not afford it.  Then when the mandate was taken away, the decided why not just drop it, especially since you can sign up even if your sick.  So, I'll not have insurance and if anything happens, I'll just sign up then.

You serious??   "Aside from the terminal cancer, you're perfectly healthy!"  Besides, it's not just Trump. It's (R) governerments in states like mine that refuse to take the ACA money to expand Medicaid, and the federal government deliberately cutting information that would direct people to signup.  Killing the mandate is just the most obvious ploy, but like the right's incessant "voter fraud" nonsense, there are all sorts of subtleties designed to torpedo the program.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 07, 2019, 09:50:23 am
I am a libertarian; I don't engage in using empathy when looking at things logically.  Plus, my level empathy for the uninsured has no baring what so ever on the effectiveness of the program, which is what I am more concerned with.

It's not empathy.  It's a straight calculation.  Is the incremental cost to you worth it if it means other citizens will be healthier.  So is it?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 07, 2019, 09:53:07 am
It's not empathy.  It's a straight calculation.  Is the incremental cost to you worth it if it means other citizens will be healthier.  So is it?

No.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 07, 2019, 09:54:21 am
No.

An honest man.

Edit:  Not necessarily a *consistent* man, but an honest one ;). I've never understood why my right-leaning friends are so eager to pay billions to defend lives from terrorists, but so unwilling spend money to save lives from much more pernicious enemies.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 07, 2019, 10:04:31 am
An honest man.

Edit:  Not necessarily a *consistent* man, but an honest one ;). I've never understood why my right-leaning friends are so eager to pay billions to defend lives from terrorists, but so unwilling spend money to save lives from much more pernicious enemies.

Because terrorists could kill ME or MY family, however slight the chance is, while I couldn’t care less if a whale dies for eating like a pig. Honest enough?

Besides, insurance is a textbook example for a moral hazard. It eliminates one incentive to live a healthy lifestyle.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 07, 2019, 10:23:53 am
Besides, insurance is a textbook example for a moral hazard. It eliminates one incentive to live a healthy lifestyle.

Au contraire, insurance allows you to create those incentives. If the price of admission is the same for everyone (either non-existent or horribly expensive), there is no instrument.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 07, 2019, 10:26:55 am
It's not empathy.  It's a straight calculation.  Is the incremental cost to you worth it if it means other citizens will be healthier.  So is it?

No. 

More medical coverage does not make someone healthier.  People are not going to suddenly eat better and exercise, stop inhaling smoke into their lungs just because they have more coverage.  All it means is that they have more coverage.  I don't see the overall cost savings. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 07, 2019, 10:31:38 am
Of course, you won't be covered for charges you incur prior to signing up. Usually the big ones are when you are involved in an accident. I fell off a ladder and broke my humerus at the shoulder joint. Within twelve hours I had a plate and nine screws in my arm and a $30,000 bill. No time to call and sign up. Fortunately, I had insurance.

Good point, insofar as accidents are concerned. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 07, 2019, 10:36:47 am
Besides, insurance is a textbook example for a moral hazard. It eliminates one incentive to live a healthy lifestyle.

Sharing risk is one of the things that makes capitalism and modern industrial society possible. It and the rule of law are cornerstones of modern culture.

We find ways to manage free riders and moral hazard because we're all better off for it. You owe it to yourself to read something other than Ayn Rand, humanity didn't stop thinking when she died (or even when she was alive for that matter). Start with Joseph Heath's Filthy Lucre. Then re-read Adam Smith, not just the two paragraphs you like though, this time read the other 2000 pages.

Libertarianism is as discredited as communism. It is only slightly better because it never actually took hold anywhere so we have no historical record of its failures. Yet.



Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 07, 2019, 11:03:23 am
...You owe it to yourself to read something other than Ayn Rand...

Never read a single page. Read Marx though, all three tomes of Das Kapital, probably close to 2000 pages.

P.S. I never claimed I am a libertarian.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 07, 2019, 11:19:32 am
Good point, insofar as accidents are concerned.
That is the point. You buy health insurance so an accident doesn't bankrupt you. It is for the unexpected. That's why they call it insurance.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 07, 2019, 11:21:40 am
That is the point. You buy health insurance so an accident doesn't bankrupt you. It is for the unexpected. That's why they call it insurance.

Of course, I have insurance, for that reason.  But that does not take away from the fact that some people don't think like this. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 07, 2019, 11:29:40 am
Of course, I have insurance, for that reason.  But that does not take away from the fact that some people don't think like this.
I'll grant you that some people aren't that bright, and don't manage their lives prudently. There is a bell curve.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 07, 2019, 03:06:47 pm
Nice dodge.  But how about answering the question?  Does the fact that an additional x people have coverage, and that people that were previously uninsurable can now be covered, matter to you?
Obamacare was a lousy way to do it.  90% of Americans were happy before.  And they don;t want to change to a single payer plan.  Competition is good in any business.  It keeps providers working harder to satisfy their customers.

Now it's a mess.  Rather than changing the entire health system, why not just figure out a way to help people who need it?  It's already being done to a large degree with Medicare and Medicaid and other payments the government makes. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 07, 2019, 03:22:33 pm
Libertarianism is as discredited as communism. It is only slightly better because it never actually took hold anywhere so we have no historical record of its failures. Yet.

Somalia seems to be a good example of a place where there is no government influence on anything.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 07, 2019, 03:33:51 pm
Of course, you won't be covered for charges you incur prior to signing up. Usually the big ones are when you are involved in an accident. I fell off a ladder and broke my humerus at the shoulder joint. Within twelve hours I had a plate and nine screws in my arm and a $30,000 bill. No time to call and sign up. Fortunately, I had insurance.


I like the returns; better than photography ever was for me, and much, much better than my old-age pension is. Do you think it's too late for me to begin another career in medicine?

:-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 07, 2019, 03:42:30 pm
You must absolutely loathe Fox News.
Fox news has two outlets.  One is for cable talking heads and is conservative.  The other is mainly news and is center right.  But the problem is Fox is the only major conservative outlet.  ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, washington Post, capture 90%+ of the news distribution throughout the world, never mind the USA.  They all push liberal news and are anti Trump and never give both sides of an issue.  So average Americans and other readers in the world don't really understand what's going on.  They've always been liberal.  But now they're unabashedly so and take strong positions that they would never do before.  It really is fake news. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on June 07, 2019, 05:27:48 pm
you forgot WSJ, NPR, IHT,  & The Economist.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: D Fuller on June 08, 2019, 01:14:25 am
Since it's the best doctors who opt out, you can't get the best care unless you're well-off.   If we go to a I national program, doctors will opt out of care for non-seniors.  Our medical system will have worse results.  If they force doctors to accept these lower payments, many who wanted to go into the medical field will decide to go into other more lucrative fields.   The quality of doctors will diminish.

Really? I thought it was the greediest doctors who opted out.

Our medical system already has worse results by several measures than many (most?) of the rest of the industrialized world. And yet we pay more. Doesn’t it seem like something is amiss?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: D Fuller on June 08, 2019, 01:23:11 am
The biggest lies the president ever said were "you can keep your doctor" and "the cost of health insurance will go down."

Oh wait.....

Well, for my wife and myself, the first year under the ACA, we saved $8,000 on our health insurance, and more than that on out total health care costs. And no one asked us to change our doctors. YMMV
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 08, 2019, 07:39:19 am
Really? I thought it was the greediest doctors who opted out.

Our medical system already has worse results by several measures than many (most?) of the rest of the industrialized world. And yet we pay more. Doesn’t it seem like something is amiss?

I said if the government forces all doctors to accept lower payments and not allow them to opt out, something that is not currently done, many excellent prospective doctors will decide not to go into medicine.  So the overall quality of doctors doing medicine will diminish. 


Regarding results in America compared to other countries, I suspect this has a lot to do with variables due to DNA, racial, ethnic and cultural differences as America is an immigrant nation.  So some groups fare better than others, but the overall results does not show that most Americans actually get very good medical care that saves lives and makes them more productive.  Other countries have a more homogenized populace.  Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find medical result statistics in America broken out by these variables.  I think they're deliberately hidden to politically press for single payer medicine.  I'd like to see statistics broken out by race, ancestry, geographic area of the country (ie southern vs eastern vs plains states, etc).  By each of the 50 States. etc.  I think the statistics would be quite revealing and results quite variable than a single number for the whole country. .
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 08, 2019, 07:58:39 am
I said if the government forces all doctors to accept lower payments and not allow them to opt out, something that is not currently done, many excellent prospective doctors will decide not to go into medicine.  So the overall quality of doctors doing medicine will diminish. 


Regarding results in America compared to other countries, I suspect this has a lot to do with variables due to DNA, racial, ethnic and cultural differences as America is an immigrant nation.  So some groups fare better than others, but the overall results does not show that most Americans actually get very good medical care that saves lives and makes them more productive.  Other countries have a more homogenized populace.  Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find medical result statistics in America broken out by these variables.  I think they're deliberately hidden to politically press for single payer medicine.  I'd like to see statistics broken out by race, ancestry, geographic area of the country (ie southern vs eastern vs plains states, etc).  By each of the 50 States. etc.  I think the statistics would be quite revealing and results quite variable than a single number for the whole country. .


Doctors are both socially and locationally mobile; we have a Cuban girl here in the local health centre who picked up English from tv and music; with the lingua franca you can go anywhere you are in deep demand. Some of my wife's oncologists were American-trained as was the Spanish heart one who stuck me my first stent; he came replete with a sense if humour. As I lay there, gazing at the monitor, I felt a bit faint and as they asked, thought it best to mention it. He instantly gave me some nitroglycerine and that fixed it. I suggested that might be explosive, and he sad no, not unless you wanna smoke right now.

That was on private medicine; I don't try jokes with the public cats. Maybe I should?

And that's the problem with our olde rustbelt Brexit guys: they mostly have but one lingua and sometimes that's pretty poor too; no additional abilities means no viable alternatives in your life, so relative isolation figures. Ask Slobodan if that isn't a fact? Hence the great divide between the urban south and the sticks oop north.

Does anyone know if Big Donald has other languages?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 08, 2019, 08:23:50 am
Rob, why is it that the British socialized medicine doesn’t have enough own doctors and nurses? You guys are that dumbed down by Benny Hill or beer to graduate in medical fields? Or is it that, when medicine is socialized, the state determines how much is enough pay*? And for that much (or rather little) only third-world medical staff finds it attractive?

* added “pay” to avoid confusion
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 08, 2019, 08:27:26 am

Doctors are both socially and locationally mobile; we have a Cuban girl here in the local health centre who picked up English from tv and music; with the lingua franca you can go anywhere you are in deep demand. Some of my wife's oncologists were American-trained as was the Spanish heart one who stuck me my first stent; he came replete with a sense if humour. As I lay there, gazing at the monitor, I felt a bit faint and as they asked, thought it best to mention it. He instantly gave me some nitroglycerine and that fixed it. I suggested that might be explosive, and he sad no, not unless you wanna smoke right now.

That was on private medicine; I don't try jokes with the public cats. Maybe I should?

And that's the problem with our olde rustbelt Brexit guys: they mostly have but one lingua and sometimes that's pretty poor too; no additional abilities means no viable alternatives in your life, so relative isolation figures. Ask Slobodan if that isn't a fact? Hence the great divide between the urban south and the sticks oop north.

Does anyone know if Big Donald has other languages?

Doctors in America are transitioning to more and different ethnic groups.  My heart surgeon of Japanese background was rated one of the tops in one of the top rated hospitals in NYC.  So not only do different groups of patients in the US effect medical results.  It would be interesting to see how different doctor groups effect that number.   Many doctors in the US have gotten their training in other countries.  That's a rather new statistic.  Where I live in central New Jersey, there are huge numbers of doctors of Indian descent.  As we go to more government control of medicine, this change will increase. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 08, 2019, 08:53:58 am
Same thing here in Florida, Alan. Vast numbers of Indian doctors, and they're excellent doctors. My endodontist is Indian, and he saved a tooth the supposedly best endodontist in Colorado Springs said would have to be extracted and replaced with an implant. My crack dermatologist is Chinese, well known as the best in the area.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 08, 2019, 08:58:47 am
Same thing here in Florida, Alan. Vast numbers of Indian doctors, and they're excellent doctors. My endodontist is Indian, and he saved a tooth the supposedly best endodontist in Colorado Springs said would have to be extracted and replaced with an implant. My crack dermatologist is Chinese, well known as the best in the area.

Eh? Slobo says that getting foreign doctors is due to poor planning. Is he getting it wrong, again?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 08, 2019, 09:00:02 am
... And that's the problem with our olde rustbelt Brexit guys: they mostly have but one lingua and sometimes that's pretty poor too...

Ah, the benefits of the splendid isolation on an island!

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 08, 2019, 09:01:00 am
To continue:
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 08, 2019, 09:03:22 am
Ah, the benefits of the splendid isolation on an island!

That's why the people of Hartlepool are affectionately known as "Monkeyhangers".  Unfortunately their outlook does not seem to have improved since that incident.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 08, 2019, 09:14:18 am
That poor monkey! Imagine picking Hartlepool for your first visit! Imagine picking Hartlepool.

Just kidding.

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 08, 2019, 09:18:55 am
That poor monkey! Imagine picking Hartlepool for your first visit! Imagine picking Hartlepool.

Just kidding.

;-)

I guess he saw Middlesbrough and thought that Hartlepool was relatively picturesque :-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 08, 2019, 09:30:57 am
Eh? Slobo says that getting foreign doctors is due to poor planning. Is he getting it wrong, again?

I said poor paying, not poor planning (though that probably too).

Two possible explanations:

1. My own team scored an autogol (own goal). I'll have to bench Alan and Russ for the next couple of games, it seems.

2. America is a land of immigrants, so it stands to reason that some of them will be doctors. We also educate a lot of foreign students, some of them will stay as doctors as well. We do not have many foreign nurses, though. Doctors are highly paid here, probably the highest in the world, and that attracts immigrants. America is also known to attract the best talent from the rest of the world. The hurdle to get American medical recertification is extremely hard and takes a long time, only the best will get through. Those who fail, end up in Britain, I guess.

 ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 08, 2019, 09:33:24 am
Does anyone know if Big Donald has other languages?
He can barely speak English and has an extremely limited vocabulary. Something on the order of fifth grade. Probably the reason he appeals to his base - order white men without a college education.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 08, 2019, 09:34:05 am

2. America is a land of immigrants,

Shhh... Don't tell Trump !!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 08, 2019, 09:38:12 am
Shhh... Don't tell Trump !!

He married one.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 08, 2019, 10:11:07 am
He married one.

I guess when you're busy grabbing pussy, you don't worry about a passport.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: PeterAit on June 08, 2019, 10:44:26 am
He married one.

Melania? The hairdo with legs?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 08, 2019, 11:38:19 am
Rob, why is it that the British socialized medicine doesn’t have enough own doctors and nurses? You guys are that dumbed down by Benny Hill or beer to graduate in medical fields? Or is it that, when medicine is socialized, the state determines how much is enough? And for that much (or rather little) only third-world medical staff finds it attractive?

AFAIK, the problems start in school, with the public (I know, not in the posh sense of public which, perversely, means private) offering being held down due to money, lack of good parenting in many cases - usually connected problems, but not always - and the general greyness of spirit that came into its own post-war, except for that brief window of the 60s, where those who could made the best of it, and the rest just carried on watching tv and feeling more and more out of it.

Throw in a strong labour union movement that was often communist-powered, if denied (I was in industry for some years and had first-hand confrontations), and incentives to throw out and change the lowly status quo are few and far between if folks are true believers in it. So, the base from which to pick the better brains is not overly huge. Then there's the cost of university if you don't happen to be Scottish. The educational services are there, but prohibitively expensive for many. Watching my granddaughters' graduation ceremonies, it's an eye-opener to see how many Chinese students there are, how many picking up advanced degrees. I have heard that those kids are very hard-working and that much sacrifice has often been made back home to offer them the chance to study, so they do. Good for them! As with in America, some stay and others do not. Opportunity is not only in the West, and increasingly, neither is all the big money.

Lower down the ranks, but as vital in their rôles, are the nurses as well as the cleaners, but again, the NHS has not got unlimited funds, and faced with an ever more self-induced incidence of food-realted illnesses, demand on the sevices grows faster than the money coming in, and pay packets have to be kept low in comparison to some others. Throw in a society where it can sometimes pay you more not to work, and there you go. I had a brief - very - chat with my new doctor on this; she wanted to go to Australia but, according to her, she'd have had to work for free for two years. She told me that medical salaries are far lower in Spain than in Britain, but hey, the lifestyle is better. She spoke as a doctor, so probably had a comfortable background just to get there. Not always the case with the nurses, many of whom work in Britain, but relatively fewer are making the trip, Brexit making them afraid, not just physically, but long-term, career-wise. As I've mentioned  before, one granddaghter is a doc and works in a hospital in Manchester: she tells me that without the foreign input, the British system will have to call in the Automobile Association to fix it. Or to haul it to the scrapyard.

And think of it: less than 4% unemployment in Britain, I believe. Doesn't compute sensibly.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 08, 2019, 01:53:43 pm
I had a brief - very - chat with my new doctor on this; she wanted to go to Australia but, according to her, she'd have had to work for free for two years.

Rob, either she was misinformed or you misunderstood. My eldest daughter moved to Australia about a year ago, first to Perth and now, as a psychiatric trainee, Melbourne. Neither she nor any of her British colleagues has worked for free; in fact, her pay, hours and conditions would be the envy of any equivalent junior doctor in the NHS (unless, like my middle daughter, rather better-paid by the Forces).

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 08, 2019, 01:55:19 pm
Melania? The hairdo with legs?

That is as unhelpful, not to say as misogynistically discourteous, a comment as has appeared in this thread to date, and it oversteps the mark. Consider yourself warned.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 08, 2019, 01:58:46 pm
Rob, either she was misinformed or you misunderstood. My eldest daughter moved to Australia about a year ago, first to Perth and now, as a psychiatric trainee, Melbourne. Neither she nor any of her British colleagues has worked for free; in fact, her pay, hours and conditions would be the envy of any equivalent junior doctor in the NHS (unless, like my middle daughter, rather better-paid by the Forces).

Jeremy

Could it be the English language and education system is the difference? I assume Rob was talking about a Spanish doctor. They would need to recertify their degree, and that is where "working for free" comes. Not really working for free, but spending two years on recertification, while not working, i.e., not receiving a salary. I heard a similar reason for my Serbian doctor friends thinking about immigrating to Canada.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 08, 2019, 02:05:39 pm
That is as unhelpful, not to say as misogynistically discourteous, a comment as has appeared in this thread to date, and it oversteps the mark. Consider yourself warned...

In the interests of gender equality, I suggest that women should have equal rights to be insulted as men. If her husband can be freely referred to as "orange buffoon," surely we can call his wife anything we want. She should not have a free pass just because she is a woman. That would be sexist, no?

Not that I condone that jerkish remark about my (former) compatriot, but rather against characterizing it as misogynistic.

If one wants to joke about Melania, at least do it with some class, intelligence, and humor, like this foreign language school in Croatia:
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: D Fuller on June 08, 2019, 05:09:06 pm
I said if the government forces all doctors to accept lower payments and not allow them to opt out, something that is not currently done, many excellent prospective doctors will decide not to go into medicine.  So the overall quality of doctors doing medicine will diminish. 

I'm sure some will find other ways to make a living, but many? Well, that's pure speculation, and it ignores any reason for choosing a career in medecine other than the salary.


Regarding results in America compared to other countries, I suspect this has a lot to do with variables due to DNA, racial, ethnic and cultural differences as America is an immigrant nation.  So some groups fare better than others, but the overall results does not show that most Americans actually get very good medical care that saves lives and makes them more productive.  Other countries have a more homogenized populace.  Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find medical result statistics in America broken out by these variables.  I think they're deliberately hidden to politically press for single payer medicine.  I'd like to see statistics broken out by race, ancestry, geographic area of the country (ie southern vs eastern vs plains states, etc).  By each of the 50 States. etc.  I think the statistics would be quite revealing and results quite variable than a single number for the whole country. .

I suspect that the results depend on poverty rates, obesity, and teen-age pregnancy, which are much higher in the US than in other wealthy nations. All three of those contribute to early death and/or poorer health. Health care is expensive in the US—roughly twice as expensive as in the next 11 wealthy nations, and that keeps people from going to the doctor when they need to. Our insurance system is designed so that primary care is expensive because deductibles have increased tenfold in the past two decades, and the majority of Americans have very little cash reserves so primary care gets put on a credit card.

As you write here, "most Americans actually get very good medical care that saves lives and makes them more productive." Why in the world would you not favor all Americans being more productive, even if you don't care about extending their lives?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Tony Jay on June 08, 2019, 06:00:00 pm
I had a brief - very - chat with my new doctor on this; she wanted to go to Australia but, according to her, she'd have had to work for free for two years.
This statement is fundamentally false!
Nobody works for free in Australia...

She may have been referring to the fact that her qualifications would not be directly recognised in Australia and that she would need to undergo a period of supervised training before being able to practise independently.

However, during this time, depending on the level of seniority that she was given she would be paid EXACTLY the same as any other doctor working at that level of seniority!

So, let's cut out the misinformation shall we...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 08, 2019, 06:19:16 pm
This statement is fundamentally false!
Nobody works for free in Australia...

She may have been referring to the fact that her qualifications would not be directly recognised in Australia and that she would need to undergo a period of supervised training before being able to practise independently.

However, during this time, depending on the level of seniority that she was given she would be paid EXACTLY the same as any other doctor working at that level of seniority!

So, let's cut out the misinformation shall we...


Well, I can only tell you what she told me.

I have no agenda to knock Australia.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 08, 2019, 06:24:12 pm
Rob, either she was misinformed or you misunderstood. My eldest daughter moved to Australia about a year ago, first to Perth and now, as a psychiatric trainee, Melbourne. Neither she nor any of her British colleagues has worked for free; in fact, her pay, hours and conditions would be the envy of any equivalent junior doctor in the NHS (unless, like my middle daughter, rather better-paid by the Forces).

Jeremy

Could be; but I wonder if being Spanish, i.e. non-British has something to do with it. Might be a language problem - can't tell you. My own granddaughter had a brief spell there last year, I think it was, but I think she was on some kind of exchange or like that. At any rate, she's supposedly returning there at the end of summer. I envy her her mobility.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 08, 2019, 06:29:35 pm
Could it be the English language and education system is the difference? I assume Rob was talking about a Spanish doctor. They would need to recertify their degree, and that is where "working for free" comes. Not really working for free, but spending two years on recertification, while not working, i.e., not receiving a salary. I heard a similar reason for my Serbian doctor friends thinking about immigrating to Canada.

Yes, of course she's Spanish - I thought that was clear. I don't think she'd have misunderstood - she is a highly educated lady, after all. Your parallel with your Serbian doc friends makes sense. Perhaps it's an internationally accepted system of safety checks, which can't be a bad thing for anyone. The two-year time scale fits perfectly. So yeah, no earnings for two years, which kinda puts the kibosh on anyone but the independently wealthy.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 08, 2019, 08:56:11 pm
I'm sure some will find other ways to make a living, but many? Well, that's pure speculation, and it ignores any reason for choosing a career in medecine other than the salary.


I suspect that the results depend on poverty rates, obesity, and teen-age pregnancy, which are much higher in the US than in other wealthy nations. All three of those contribute to early death and/or poorer health. Health care is expensive in the US—roughly twice as expensive as in the next 11 wealthy nations, and that keeps people from going to the doctor when they need to. Our insurance system is designed so that primary care is expensive because deductibles have increased tenfold in the past two decades, and the majority of Americans have very little cash reserves so primary care gets put on a credit card.

As you write here, "most Americans actually get very good medical care that saves lives and makes them more productive." Why in the world would you not favor all Americans being more productive, even if you don't care about extending their lives?

Sure, some people will go into medicine anyway even if earnings are projected to decrease.  But isn't that true of people who want to become photographers today despite how more difficult it is to make a living? Frankly, in both cases, people will select other fields.  It's the laws of economics.  As salaries decrease, less people want to make the sacrifice. 

Sure, medical care and all sorts of other social services would be great to increase.  Let's spread the money around.  But America has a $1 trillion dollar deficit this year.  We've got a $22 trillion debt.  The Federal government is broke. The states are broke too.  Where does the money come from?  Maybe we can take it from the $1.7 trillion Biden plans to spend on infrastructure.  Oh wait.  Where is that money coming from?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Tony Jay on June 08, 2019, 09:03:02 pm
Yes, of course she's Spanish - I thought that was clear. I don't think she'd have misunderstood - she is a highly educated lady, after all. Your parallel with your Serbian doc friends makes sense. Perhaps it's an internationally accepted system of safety checks, which can't be a bad thing for anyone. The two-year time scale fits perfectly. So yeah, no earnings for two years, which kinda puts the kibosh on anyone but the independently wealthy.
With due respect to Slobodan he is no expert here, certainly not to comment about requirements for foreign medical graduates to practise in Australia!

As someone who is a medical doctor (originally qualified in South Africa) and therefore needed to go through the process of getting full registration in Australia - exactly the process your Spanish doctor was talking about - I have some real knowledge and insight here!

There is no unpaid work in Australia - simply does not happen!

Sometimes medical graduates come from countries (but really it is the specific medical school that counts) where their qualifications have no recognition in Australia at all. In this situation prospective doctors MUST pass the equivalent of a medical school exit examination in Australia before they practise at all - even under supervision...

I doubt this applies to your Spanish doctor since I am not aware of any Spanish medical school that does not enjoy provisional recognition in Australia...

So, I suggest desisting from commenting and speculating about issues with which you are all wholly unfamiliar - and, dare I say it, ignorant!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 08, 2019, 09:52:32 pm
Tony, i have a prescription for you as a medical professional: take a chill pill.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 08, 2019, 10:30:21 pm
Melania? The hairdo with legs?

FWIW, my parents’ social circle and hers overlap slightly, and she’s thought to be a decent woman whose main concern seems to be keeping her son out of the Trump circus.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Tony Jay on June 08, 2019, 11:49:50 pm
Tony, i have a prescription for you as a medical professional: take a chill pill.
You are hardly the person to dish out advice to anyone...
It doesn't stop you of course - stick to photography: at least you do know something about that...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 09, 2019, 02:15:07 am
He can barely speak English and has an extremely limited vocabulary. Something on the order of fifth grade. Probably the reason he appeals to his base - order white men without a college education.
he is effective with Twitter, but that doesn't require coherent writing.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 09, 2019, 02:25:59 am
You are hardly the person to dish out advice to anyone...
It doesn't stop you of course - stick to photography: at least you do know something about that...
It is really easy to ignore mindless rambling from those who have pictures of themselves with their profile.  I am certain that they are grateful that I have one but they don't ignore me but rather digess into inane commentary. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 09, 2019, 03:02:14 am
In the interests of gender equality, I suggest that women should have equal rights to be insulted as men. If her husband can be freely referred to as "orange buffoon," surely we can call his wife anything we want. She should not have a free pass just because she is a woman. That would be sexist, no?

First, he is your president, who chose to enter public life, and she is not; and secondly, those who use playground abuse such as "orange buffoon" illustrate more about their own infantility than about him.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 09, 2019, 03:04:43 am
I'm sure some will find other ways to make a living, but many? Well, that's pure speculation, and it ignores any reason for choosing a career in medicine other than the salary.

There's a variety of reasons doctors might choose to earn a living from something other than medicine. Money is but one of them. It played no part in my decision.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 09, 2019, 03:55:36 am
With due respect to Slobodan he is no expert here, certainly not to comment about requirements for foreign medical graduates to practise in Australia!

As someone who is a medical doctor (originally qualified in South Africa) and therefore needed to go through the process of getting full registration in Australia - exactly the process your Spanish doctor was talking about - I have some real knowledge and insight here!

There is no unpaid work in Australia - simply does not happen!

Sometimes medical graduates come from countries (but really it is the specific medical school that counts) where their qualifications have no recognition in Australia at all. In this situation prospective doctors MUST pass the equivalent of a medical school exit examination in Australia before they practise at all - even under supervision...

I doubt this applies to your Spanish doctor since I am not aware of any Spanish medical school that does not enjoy provisional recognition in Australia...

So, I suggest desisting from commenting and speculating about issues with which you are all wholly unfamiliar - and, dare I say it, ignorant!

So, are you stating that there is no measurable probationary period where a newcomer, fully qualified as doctor in his/her own European - in this case Spanish - environment, will be working within a hospital or private practice, without collecting payment in return for time there? I would assume it's fair to think that that period involves working under supervision, but that constitutes performing skilled, trained work, does it not?

If you can come up with some official reference to that effect, covering the situation of a fully qualified (in their own country) doctor arriving in Australia with the wish to find a job in their present line of work, that allows them to be paid whilst they are working their way into the Australian system (which I'd think could only be done by spending actual work time on the job in Australia as against sitting at home n Australia reading up on it), please don't be shy about posting it: I will be happy to make a hard copy and give it to my new doctor. If she doesn't take it up, at least it may gain me a brownie point or two! You wouldn't grudge me that, would you?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 09, 2019, 04:01:25 am

So, I suggest desisting from commenting and speculating about issues with which you are all wholly unfamiliar - and, dare I say it, ignorant!

That would be pretty much the end of the coffee corner!!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 09, 2019, 04:09:43 am
Melania? The hairdo with legs?

Hey, she was the best thing to look at during the inauguration ceremony that attracted the largest street crowds ever, ever ever!

As with the previous French head honcho with Carla Bruni (acually of Italian stock!), Trump's best bit is his other half. Exactly as was mine, now that I think of it.

Her hair is actually not bad at all, for a model - and the abuse that subjected it to - it's just that with all those goddam Boeings and choppers she has to use, she also has to use too much hair spray to keep it in place and avoid being caught up in those whirling scythes; like Carla, she instinctively manages to look elegant, something which defeats many.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 09, 2019, 04:12:31 am
That would be pretty much the end of the coffee corner!!

And of Spanish lady doctors who know nothing.

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 09, 2019, 04:19:31 am
It is really easy to ignore mindless rambling from those who have pictures of themselves with their profile.  I am certain that they are grateful that I have one but they don't ignore me but rather digess into inane commentary.

I'm not pretty enough - or vain enough? - to post an avatar or portrait that's seen every time my words crop up; who needs it? Who needs the words, any of it, from almost anybody here?

Although some of us strike up relationships we cherish, mostly, I'd guess, we are here because we can't think of anything better to do at the times that we are here. Why else, now that we are all experts in everything?

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Tony Jay on June 09, 2019, 05:46:16 am
So, are you stating that there is no measurable probationary period where a newcomer, fully qualified as doctor in his/her own European - in this case Spanish - environment, will be working within a hospital or private practice, without collecting payment in return for time there? I would assume it's fair to think that that period involves working under supervision, but that constitutes performing skilled, trained work, does it not?

If you can come up with some official reference to that effect, covering the situation of a fully qualified (in their own country) doctor arriving in Australia with the wish to find a job in their present line of work, that allows them to be paid whilst they are working their way into the Australian system (which I'd think could only be done by spending actual work time on the job in Australia as against sitting at home n Australia reading up on it), please don't be shy about posting it: I will be happy to make a hard copy and give it to my new doctor. If she doesn't take it up, at least it may gain me a brownie point or two! You wouldn't grudge me that, would you?
There is no mystery here - one just goes to the AMC (Australian Medical Council) website...

Just remember that there are two issues in play here...
Firstly one needs to registered to practise - without some form of registration one will not be allowed to work. It is true that proficiency in English needs to be demonstrated in order to be registered, but this evidence ideally should be gathered before leaving one's home country - not after. Basically, for a Spanish national passing an International English Language Testing System "IELTS" (in Spain) would be required.
This registration would likely only be a provisional registration which means that practise under supervision is required.
Whether provisional registration is extended also depends on the medical school from which one has graduated. In the case of Spain I do not believe that any Spanish medical school is excluded by the AMC.

If individuals are trained as specialists in their home country they will be registered provisionally as senior trainees in the appropriate speciality.

Having registration is not a guarantee of a job...one will still need to apply and compete for training jobs.

If one is successful in applying for a job then one will earn EXACTLY the same as any other trainee of the same level of seniority. Individuals are also taxed at the same rate as Australian citizens. (I am not aware of ANY jurisdiction in the Western world where one would or could be forced to work without remuneration in this context.)

How long one needs to practise (and perhaps train) under supervision does depend to some degree on where (which country) one has trained and how experienced one is. Sometimes only six months is required, but sometimes several years may be required as well as fulfilling all the requirements of the local colleges (of Surgeons, Physicians etc) which may also include exams and clinicals.

After one has successfully completed whatever requirements the AMC and relevant college is demanding then one will be awarded a fellowship in the relevant speciality allowing one to practise independently in Australia, which may also include private practise.

None of this applies if one qualifications are NOT recognised by the AMC. In this case no registration will be extended and one will not be allowed to work (as a doctor). I personally know of doctors who ended up in Australia as refugees (and occasionally for other reasons) who hail from countries where the AMC will not recognise their qualifications. In these cases the AMC accepts and understands that they are doctors and will allow them to try and pass the AMC certificate (this is a combination of written and clinical exams that represent the exit standard of Australian medical schools) along with the IELTS. My experience with these individuals is that the AMC certificate is much more a test of one's ability and facility with the English language as opposed to one's medical knowledge - in other words the best predictor of success in the 'medical' exam is actually an excellent standard of English! My personal experience of these kinds of exams in Australia was that they were relatively trivial as far as medical knowledge went.

Passing the AMC certificate in individuals who could not get an initial provisional registration allows them to apply for an internship in Australia. An internship is also a paid position although it also the most junior position that a doctor can occupy.

Bottom line: If one has either provisional or full registration in Australia then one can   practise medicine and potentially be employed. If one is employed then one WILL be paid. In fact, the only way one could get an unpaid position (say with MSF or Mercy Ships) is with full registration. These organisations will not accept those doctors with only provisional registration since they can only be employed to supervised (and paid) positions within Australian hospitals.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 09, 2019, 06:17:47 am
There is no mystery here - one just goes to the AMC (Australian Medical Council) website...

Just remember that there are two issues in play here...
Firstly one needs to registered to practise - without some form of registration one will not be allowed to work. It is true that proficiency in English needs to be demonstrated in order to be registered, but this evidence ideally should be gathered before leaving one's home country - not after. Basically, for a Spanish national passing an International English Language Testing System "IELTS" (in Spain) would be required.
This registration would likely only be a provisional registration which means that practise under supervision is required.
Whether provisional registration is extended also depends on the medical school from which one has graduated. In the case of Spain I do not believe that any Spanish medical school is excluded by the AMC.

If individuals are trained as specialists in their home country they will be registered provisionally as senior trainees in the appropriate speciality.

Having registration is not a guarantee of a job...one will still need to apply and compete for training jobs.

If one is successful in applying for a job then one will earn EXACTLY the same as any other trainee of the same level of seniority. Individuals are also taxed at the same rate as Australian citizens. (I am not aware of ANY jurisdiction in the Western world where one would or could be forced to work without remuneration in this context.)

How long one needs to practise (and perhaps train) under supervision does depend to some degree on where (which country) one has trained and how experienced one is. Sometimes only six months is required, but sometimes several years may be required as well as fulfilling all the requirements of the local colleges (of Surgeons, Physicians etc) which may also include exams and clinicals.

After one has successfully completed whatever requirements the AMC and relevant college is demanding then one will be awarded a fellowship in the relevant speciality allowing one to practise independently in Australia, which may also include private practise.

None of this applies if one qualifications are NOT recognised by the AMC. In this case no registration will be extended and one will not be allowed to work (as a doctor). I personally know of doctors who ended up in Australia as refugees (and occasionally for other reasons) who hail from countries where the AMC will not recognise their qualifications. In these cases the AMC accepts and understands that they are doctors and will allow them to try and pass the AMC certificate (this is a combination of written and clinical exams that represent the exit standard of Australian medical schools) along with the IELTS. My experience with these individuals is that the AMC certificate is much more a test of one's ability and facility with the English language as opposed to one's medical knowledge - in other words the best predictor of success in the 'medical' exam is actually an excellent standard of English! My personal experience of these kinds of exams in Australia was that they were relatively trivial as far as medical knowledge went.

Passing the AMC certificate in individuals who could not get an initial provisional registration allows them to apply for an internship in Australia. An internship is also a paid position although it also the most junior position that a doctor can occupy.

Bottom line: If one has either provisional or full registration in Australia then one can   practise medicine and potentially be employed. If one is employed then one WILL be paid. In fact, the only way one could get an unpaid position (say with MSF or Mercy Ships) is with full registration. These organisations will not accept those doctors with only provisional registration since they can only be employed to supervised (and paid) positions within Australian hospitals.

Thank you very much!

That makes everything pretty clear to me, and I will make a paper copy and pass it along.

Rob


P.S.

Copied; tomorow morning I'll try to get it to the lady in question without having to go through the rigmarole of an appointment! It can be done.

Thanks again
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 09, 2019, 07:14:54 am
I'm not pretty enough - or vain enough? - to post an avatar or portrait that's seen every time my words crop up; who needs it? Who needs the words, any of it, from almost anybody here?

Although some of us strike up relationships we cherish, mostly, I'd guess, we are here because we can't think of anything better to do at the times that we are here. Why else, now that we are all experts in everything?

;-)
I think personal pictures makes it easier to find specific posts of others and myself when I'm going through a thread.  It also adds a personal touch to our relations.  Despite our often antagonistic posts to each other, I think I speak more often to others here than my wife. :)  So a picture helps defray some animosity and hopeful makes us more friendly to each other - which we should be.  Don;t you agree with that part? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 09, 2019, 07:21:25 am
There's a variety of reasons doctors might choose to earn a living from something other than medicine. Money is but one of them. It played no part in my decision.

Jeremy
I'm pleased you took up medicine.  And my post was in no way trying to besmirch any doctor.  I was just trying to explain that economics will effect which careers people go into.  Of course not everyone.  There's is a very long training period for doctors as you well know.  That requires a lot of dedication.   Some may feel that if the government is going to limit a person's success at the end, they may choose another career.   If that happens, and maybe I'm wrong that it will, then the public will lose some really good potential medical experts in the future. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 09, 2019, 07:27:03 am
He can barely speak English and has an extremely limited vocabulary. Something on the order of fifth grade. Probably the reason he appeals to his base - order white men without a college education.

Looking down on people and your feeling of superiority is one of the reasons Hillary lost the election.  Keep it up. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 09, 2019, 07:42:21 am
Just a thought brought about by looking at my own link to Eve Arnold: do the Guardian Angels still exist on the NY subway system - are they relevant today?

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 09, 2019, 08:13:45 am
Just a thought brought about by looking at my own link to Eve Arnold: do the Guardian Angels still exist on the NY subway system - are they relevant today?

Rob

They're active in 130 cities and 13 countries around the world including the UK.  Curtis Sliwa, the founder, is a NYC icon.  I met him once on the street.  He has his own radio program and is tough as nails. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Angels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Angels)
http://guardianangels.org/ (http://guardianangels.org/)
The Mafia tried to kill him.  He escape out of the cab they shot him in climbing out the window with three bullets in him.  Incredibly he survived.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/nyregion/testifying-against-gotti-sliwa-describes-how-he-was-shot-in-a-taxi.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/nyregion/testifying-against-gotti-sliwa-describes-how-he-was-shot-in-a-taxi.html)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 09, 2019, 08:36:54 am

Although some of us strike up relationships we cherish, mostly, I'd guess, we are here because we can't think of anything better to do at the times that we are here. Why else, now that we are all experts in everything?

;-)

Scary thought - maybe despite differences of opinion, we are actually quite like each other, at least in how we choose to spend our leisure time :-(
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 09, 2019, 08:55:52 am
Scary thought - maybe despite differences of opinion, we are actually quite like each other, at least in how we choose to spend our leisure time :-(


It's like I suggested elsewhere on LuLa: there are few absolutes in life...

What's with the :-( ? We should celebrate our differences instead! (I write celebrate, but it's become a dumb word these days, applied to all manner of things that defy any real ability to be celebrated; just another slip on the downwards slide of language. Nonetheless, applicable or not, we have come to understand what people mean...)

:)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 09, 2019, 11:32:55 am
First, he is your president, who chose to enter public life, and she is not; and secondly, those who use playground abuse such as "orange buffoon" illustrate more about their own infantility than about him.

1. Not exactly true. FLOTUS is a public figure (emphasis mine):

Quote
Although the First Lady's role has never been codified or officially defined, she figures prominently in the political and social life of the nation.[1] Since the early 20th century, the First Lady has been assisted by official staff, now known as the Office of the First Lady and headquartered in the East Wing of the White House.

... Since the 1790s, the role of First Lady has changed considerably. It has come to include involvement in political campaigns, management of the White House, championship of social causes, and representation of the president at official and ceremonial occasions.

2. Agree. By the same token, the post about Melania speaks more about the poster than about her.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 09, 2019, 12:05:05 pm
With due respect to Slobodan he is no expert here, certainly not to comment about requirements for foreign medical graduates to practise in Australia!...

Nor I claimed to be. I simply tried to offer a possible explanation for what Rob heard his doctor saying.

I said:

Quote
Not really working for free, but spending two years on recertification, while not working, i.e., not receiving a salary.

Which you then confirmed:

Quote
Sometimes medical graduates come from countries (but really it is the specific medical school that counts) where their qualifications have no recognition in Australia at all. In this situation prospective doctors MUST pass the equivalent of a medical school exit examination in Australia before they practise at all - even under supervision...

So, where is the disagreement?

The subject that Rob initiated was international mobility of medical staff. He merely mentioned Australia, with no intention to disparage it, let alone claim that it still practices slavery. I thought that was obvious even to the most casual observer.

This being an international forum, I think it might be of interest where my observations (cited above) come from. I have a friend who underwent a medical certification program in America. Had a chat with her this morning. She said that the process might take 2-3 years. She also said that the medical part is hardly trivial.

Here is a transcript from our chat, so see for yourself (pardon her typos, she was at work, and generally not caring about typos):
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 09, 2019, 12:16:44 pm
1. Not exactly true. FLOTUS is a public figure (emphasis mine):

2. Agree. By the same token, the post about Melania speaks more about the poster than about her.

1. She's not an elected official, though; 2. certainly true; and my warning stands. Political discussions have proved remarkably tame and generally well-behaved since I re-enabled them, which is pleasing. They will stay that way.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 09, 2019, 05:13:51 pm
There's a variety of reasons doctors might choose to earn a living from something other than medicine. Money is but one of them. It played no part in my decision.

Jeremy
Quite right.   There will never be a shortage of doctors in the US but there can be a poor distribution.   More worrisome are the closing of lots of small rural hospitals.

Addressing some points raised by Joe and Alan about Obamacare,  it is not to blame.  Premiums and co-pays are going up for everyone.   I am on the board of a non- profit with a large endowment that provides health insurance to research fellows at a major biomedical research institution.   I serve on both the insurance and investment committees.   I have first hand knowledge about the rate of premium increases and utilization.   All it takes is a couple of premature births to put the program in trouble and increase premiums in subsequent years.   It is a complicated issue.

There are also a number of physicians groups that support some form of universal insurance coverage here in the US.  Medicare for all is not the only possible model.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Tony Jay on June 09, 2019, 07:25:26 pm
So, where is the disagreement?
There is absolutely no unpaid remuneration!
You tried to make out that there was...

You seem to have a problem with short-term memory!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 09, 2019, 07:41:37 pm
There is absolutely no unpaid remuneration!
You tried to make out that there was...

Please quote where I said that.

I said the exact opposite, and I repeat:

... Not really working for free, but spending two years on recertification, while not working, i.e., not receiving a salary...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 09, 2019, 08:06:25 pm
Quite right.   There will never be a shortage of doctors in the US but there can be a poor distribution.   More worrisome are the closing of lots of small rural hospitals.

Addressing some points raised by Joe and Alan about Obamacare,  it is not to blame.  Premiums and co-pays are going up for everyone.   I am on the board of a non- profit with a large endowment that provides health insurance to research fellows at a major biomedical research institution.   I serve on both the insurance and investment committees.   I have first hand knowledge about the rate of premium increases and utilization.   All it takes is a couple of premature births to put the program in trouble and increase premiums in subsequent years.   It is a complicated issue.

There are also a number of physicians groups that support some form of universal insurance coverage here in the US.  Medicare for all is not the only possible model.


What other models?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Tony Jay on June 09, 2019, 09:07:41 pm
I have a friend who underwent a medical certification program in America. Had a chat with her this morning. She said that the process might take 2-3 years. She also said that the medical part is hardly trivial.

Here is a transcript from our chat, so see for yourself (pardon her typos, she was at work, and generally not caring about typos):
What your friend is referring to is the United States Medical Licensing Exam also known as the USMLE's.
No one, under ANY circumstances, can practise medicine in the US without passing this exam. This applies to domestic medical school graduates as well as international graduates...

If your friend was silly enough to travel to the US FIRST before writing this exam and then complain about having to sit around not earning while preparing for and writing these exams then they only have themselves to blame!

I know plenty of people who have written, and passed, the USMLE's. In every case they stayed at home and worked locally while preparing and writing these exams. One is NOT required to go to the USA to either prepare or write these exams.

As for the content that is examined the USMLE's concentrate a lot on cell biology and genetics - these topics are often not well covered in undergraduate medical courses that are located outside Western Europe, Canada, and Oceania. So, yes, it may take time to adequately prepare for these exams...

However, all you have done is move the goalposts! It still has nothing to do with your assertion that doctors are required to work without pay... No doctor can work in a particular jurisdiction until they have fulfilled the conditions for registration!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 09, 2019, 10:05:09 pm
...your assertion that doctors are required to work without pay...

Oh, for God's sake Tony, stop it!!!

Prove it or stop it! Please quote where I "asserted that doctors are required to work without pay"

If you do not quote me, and do not apologize, I will report you to the moderator for harassment, something I have rarely, or ever, done. But enough is enough.

EDITED to remove inappropriate language, with my apologies for it. I regret the strikethrough part.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 09, 2019, 10:57:27 pm

What other models?
regulated  insurance markets as they have in Germany,  Switzerland,  and Holland.   TR Reid, a former Washington Post correspondent,  wrote a nice book on this topic about a decade ago.   When he was posted abroad he and his family had experience with a number of heath systems with positive results.

One can also do a voucher system where everyone buys a basic insurance policy.   You can also buy secondary coverage if desired.   This eliminates all corporate sponsored plans as well as Medicare and Medicaid.   HR departments would love this as it gets them out of the healthcare business.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 10, 2019, 03:07:05 am
Slobodan, watch your language.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 10, 2019, 07:28:26 am
I read that the ambassador - or some other guy with a title - from the States said that if the UK leaves Europe, trade negotiations with that country - America - will be expected to include the health sytem. Where do some of these guys think they are coming from, to almost end a sentence with a proposition, which I narrowly avoided doing.

Hands off! Don't mess with a better way than the one you have at home. You know, like the little fox wot lost its tail and wanted the rest to have theirs chopped of too?

Yet, yet, his buddy (if he has one) Farage may say it will save us an additional 350 million pounds a week. Be sure the blonde one will not be out of tune either. Bad politics is infectious, it seems: one shaken pair of hands, and away we go.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 10, 2019, 07:46:56 am
I read that the ambassador - or some other guy with a title - from the States said that if the UK leaves Europe, trade negotiations with that country - America - will be expected to include the health sytem. Where do some of these guys think they are coming from, to almost end a sentence with a proposition, which I narrowly avoided doing.

Hands off! Don't mess with a better way than the one you have at home. You know, like the little fox wot lost its tail and wanted the rest to have theirs chopped of too?

Yet, yet, his buddy (if he has one) Farage may say it will save us an additional 350 million pounds a week. Be sure the blonde one will not be out of tune either. Bad politics is infectious, it seems: one shaken pair of hands, and away we go.

Rob

There's no health care rules in the new USMCA trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada.  Why do you assume there will be between America and the UK?  I can't imagine Britain giving up its healthcare system or America insisting they do.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 10, 2019, 08:10:00 am
I read that the ambassador - or some other guy with a title - from the States said that if the UK leaves Europe, trade negotiations with that country - America - will be expected to include the health sytem.

Yes, the ambassador. Also Trump said the same thing.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 10, 2019, 08:40:19 am
There's no health care rules in the new USMCA trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada.  Why do you assume there will be between America and the UK?  I can't imagine Britain giving up its healthcare system or America insisting they do.

Simply because your man over here said that was his country's position. You couldn't make these things up without fearing being taken for a raving lunatic.

But hey, just like the current spat with Mexico: yesterday we say we hit you today, today we say we won't. Cool stuff designed to impress a very red neck into thinking positive thoughts about imminent domestic salvation. Russia must be pouring out the champagne, unable to believe its luck.

International diplomacy was not invented just for fun; it's the language that ensures co-existence will result in mutual survival; riding roughshod over it means one thing: you lose international respect and credibility and put yourself outwith civilised, common rules of behaviour. A good way for a pariah to be born.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 10, 2019, 08:59:57 am
Simply because your man over here said that was his country's position. You couldn't make these things up without fearing being taken for a raving lunatic.

But hey, just like the current spat with Mexico: yesterday we say we hit you today, today we say we won't. Cool stuff designed to impress a very red neck into thinking positive thoughts about imminent domestic salvation. Russia must be pouring out the champagne, unable to believe its luck.

International diplomacy was not invented just for fun; it's the language that ensures co-existence will result in mutual survival; riding roughshod over it means one thing: you lose international respect and credibility and put yourself outwith covilized, common rules of behaviour. A good way for a pariah to be born.


Haven;t people figured out that Trump is always negotiating?  He's always looking for an edge.  He always asks for more than he expects to get in the end.  The problem is Europeans aren't use to it.  Previous presidents rolled over and were weak, feckless. They gave away the store.     They're not use to a strong president.  Yes, even nasty at times. 

Look at the problems we have with China.  They're stealing us (and you) blind.  They follow no rules. 

Mexico is allowing illegals to pass through their country to invade our land.  They could stop that overnight as they do with illegals who want to stay in Mexico.  They put those people in their jails.  So Trump is squeezing them.  Rightfully so.  Don't European countries stop illegals?  International diplomacy is a two-way street. You can't expect America to play by rules that you don;t play by.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on June 10, 2019, 09:14:16 am
the Chinese do follow a rule - work for themselves for the benefit of greater China.
We made decisions to not place certain technology in PRC because of that rule.
A business working in PRC ignores that at their peril.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 10, 2019, 09:27:06 am
the Chinese do follow a rule - work for themselves for the benefit of greater China.
We made decisions to not place certain technology in PRC because of that rule.
A business working in PRC ignores that at their peril.

Good for you.  What country are you in?

Of course, China often insists that companies have to give them their technology to work or sell in China.  So you have only certain ways to limit.  But China also outright steals intellectual property.  Then they manufacture those products at less cost.  Why do business with thieves.  I don;t know if tariffs will work, but we have to do something to stop the stealing.   It's not right and no way to do business. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 10, 2019, 09:30:42 am
Good for you.  What country are you in?

Of course, China often insists that companies have to give them their technology to work or sell in China.  So you have only certain ways to limit.  But China also outright steals intellectual property.  Then they manufacture those products at less cost.  Why do business with thieves.  I don;t know if tariffs will work, but we have to do something to stop the stealing.   It's not right and no way to do business.

How is that not right?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on June 10, 2019, 09:35:53 am
US. It is not just the Chinese though. We had a fun case once - a Japanese company manufacturing materials in PRC stole one of our processes outside of PRC, came to us and basically said - either do a JV with us or we will beat you on price world wide". They were after getting into the US market because of certain restrictions they could not breach. We couldn't afford to loose the  global market so we did the JV. But we were able to keep them out of the US market by withholding a few technology tricks they could not figure out that would have allowed them to meet the import restrictions.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 10, 2019, 09:47:16 am
How is that not right?

Well, they can do whatever they want.  But we don't have to do business with them if they do or challenge them with other measures.  When I was in business, there were people and companies I refused to do business with because they were lousy payers or were plain cheats.  Trade is a two-way street.  If one side has its thumb on the scale, why would you want to business with them?

How did you treat your customers and business partners? Sure, you can negotiate hard.  That happens all the time.  But,  I'm sure you were forthright and honest.   Well, countries should be too. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on June 10, 2019, 11:20:41 am
unfortunately, that is not always the working assumption in Asia. It is more "how can i take advantage of this without being obvious" rather than "honest" and straightforward. A significant cultural difference to western  values.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 10, 2019, 11:46:38 am
unfortunately, that is not always the working assumption in Asia. It is more "how can i take advantage of this without being obvious" rather than "honest" and straightforward. A significant cultural difference to western  values.
So because the other guy cheats, we should lower ourselves and cheat too to even it up?   Here's a magazine cover relating to that kind of thumb on the scale approach to business.
https://www.google.com/search?q=thumb+on+the+scale&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS746US746&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=a6zNIVxgNP3PEM%252CzbOPNv8I5HNY_M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTmjWwX_s5Mk57tz8kbHWRvS9SLHw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjT5pW4oN_iAhWRd98KHcxxBgwQ_h0wDXoECAwQBA&biw=1745&bih=961#imgrc=a6zNIVxgNP3PEM:&vet=1
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on June 10, 2019, 11:52:14 am
didn't say that.
Love the cover though.
Just that a westerner has to be more conscious of the differences and not assume it is "just like here".
We all have our blind spots.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 10, 2019, 11:57:38 am
Just because someone does something as their cultural custom, doesn;t mean you have to accept it.  IF they restrict it to their country, fine.  But they want to sell products here and do business with us.  We have to agree upon a set of standards or it won't work if there's not an equal and fair playing field. 

You can't play soccer if each side has different rules. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 10, 2019, 12:16:20 pm
Just because someone does something as their cultural custom, doesn;t mean you have to accept it.  IF they restrict it to their country, fine.  But they want to sell products here and do business with us.  We have to agree upon a set of standards or it won't work if there's not an equal and fair playing field. 

You can't play soccer if each side has different rules. 

But Alan, who's going to do the arbitrage? If you presume democratic vote, you'll be outnumbered 2:1...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 10, 2019, 12:30:24 pm
Just because someone does something as their cultural custom, doesn;t mean you have to accept it.  IF they restrict it to their country, fine.  But they want to sell products here and do business with us.  We have to agree upon a set of standards or it won't work if there's not an equal and fair playing field.  You can't play soccer if each side has different rules.
There doesn't need to be an equal and fair playing field. If you want the product, buy it. If you don't want it, don't buy it. If you want to make a political statement, have at it. Live life according to your principles.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 10, 2019, 12:51:20 pm
But Alan, who's going to do the arbitrage? If you presume democratic vote, you'll be outnumbered 2:1...

That's why we have a strong army ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 10, 2019, 02:26:13 pm
Haven;t people figured out that Trump is always negotiating?  He's always looking for an edge.  He always asks for more than he expects to get in the end.  The problem is Europeans aren't use to it.  Previous presidents rolled over and were weak, feckless. They gave away the store.     They're not use to a strong president.  Yes, even nasty at times. 

Look at the problems we have with China.  They're stealing us (and you) blind.  They follow no rules. 

Mexico is allowing illegals to pass through their country to invade our land.  They could stop that overnight as they do with illegals who want to stay in Mexico.  They put those people in their jails.  So Trump is squeezing them.  Rightfully so.  Don't European countries stop illegals?  International diplomacy is a two-way street. You can't expect America to play by rules that you don;t play by.   

I don't think you have a strong president. I think you have a maverick who confuses his own team. From the outside looking in, which we didn't have to do much of some years ago until Sky News brought US elections onto our screens with such saturation that one might have thought them our own, we were happy to let the US get on with its domestic travails in peace and relative privacy. That's now impossible for us to do, and consequently, we find ourselves wasting much time online debating things that some of us see as absurd, and over which we have no control, not that we should have, of course.

That exposure has made it as clear as a pikestaff that your system is even worse than our own which, until a few year ago, rumbled on quite well, if slowly. Now, it has followed your lead and turned into tv entertainment, but with real life consequences.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 10, 2019, 03:22:05 pm
I don't think you have a strong president. I think you have a maverick who confuses his own team. From the outside looking in, which we didn't have to do much of some years ago until Sky News brought US elections onto our screens with such saturation that one might have thought them our own, we were happy to let the US get on with its domestic travails in peace and relative privacy. That's now impossible for us to do, and consequently, we find ourselves wasting much time online debating things that some of us see as absurd, and over which we have no control, not that we should have, of course.

That exposure has made it as clear as a pikestaff that your system is even worse than our own which, until a few year ago, rumbled on quite well, if slowly. Now, it has followed your lead and turned into tv entertainment, but with real life consequences.

Rob

Brexit vote occurred 5 months before Trump was elected.  Why blame him for what's going on there? 

It is true that he ignores his staff and departments at times.  Previous presidents liked to use them so they can have some form of deniability if things go awry.  He's not like that.  He's a stand up guy who takes responsibility for his actions and administration.  He's willing to stick his neck out and make decisions, even unpopular ones.  He shakes things up - one of the reasons people voted for him.  He doesn;t go along to get along.  He presses for advantages - American advantages.  That's what an American president is suppose to do.  If your leaders did not protect the UK, I wouldn't have any respect for them.  I expect them to press for your advantages. Would you hire a lawyer who takes your adversary's position? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 10, 2019, 03:37:43 pm
I agree, Alan. Trump isn’t somebody I’d like to know personally, and Rob’s right that he’s not a team player. But that’s exactly what we need at the moment. We’ve had team player after team player coming together to produce the “establishment.” The results of Trump’s refusal to be a team player are visible in the jump in the economy, reduction in unemployment, and raises in pay for workers at the bottom of the ladder. He’s receiving the results of those efforts in an ever rising expected vote percentage. Sensible Democrats (there may be some left) now realize they’re going to have a hell of a job trying to beat him. As long as AOC, Bernie, and the other dozens of Democrat candidates keep pumping out stupidities the situation’s going to get worse and worse for them. Things can change, but at the moment I’d bet the Republicans are going to reelect Trump, hang on to the Senate, and take back the House in 2020.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 10, 2019, 03:41:26 pm
"California to be first state to provide healthcare to undocumented immigrants"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48585037

Quote
To help pay for the plan, which is part of the latest state budget, lawmakers have proposed taxing people who do not have health insurance.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 10, 2019, 03:47:24 pm
"California to be first state to provide healthcare to undocumented immigrants"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48585037


Good.  All the illegals will move from my state of New Jersey to California and we'll save on costs to support our illegals. Thank you California. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 10, 2019, 03:52:28 pm
Instead of saying that the state will provide healthcare for undocumented immigrants, the statement should say: “The California establishment has decided that California taxpayers will be required to hand over part of their incomes to make healthcare available to illegal immigrants.”
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 10, 2019, 03:58:26 pm
Instead of saying that the state will provide healthcare for undocumented immigrants, the statement should say: “The California establishment has decided that California taxpayers will be required to hand over part of their incomes to make healthcare available to illegal immigrants.”

You know the American media is in favor of illegals.  They would never say it that way.  In any case, if it becomes an issue, they'll say they'll get the rich and corporations to pay for it  by raising their taxes.  You know how the game is played.   Meanwhile, dumb socialist voters who salivate like Pavlov's dogs to these redistribution whistles wonder why there's less net money in their pay stubs.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 10, 2019, 03:59:03 pm
What's Brexit voting got to do with it, Alan? What it has to do with it is his chatting with Farage, endorsing various political opinions and otherwise giving the impression that the USA is all for it, a hard Brexit, and just bursting its panties to get into bed with Britain. Yeah, right. The two countries already have big business ties - always have had - with cross-investment a very important issue. Trump offers nothing new, other than even greater possible dependency if the other deals abroad come to little, but our guys in the sticks may not know that, and salivate like wannabe GI brides during WW2, dreaming of that house everybody has in Beverly Hills.

His problem, for us who don't think he sleeps in a golden bed - please, don't tell me he does! - and is the source of all wisdom, is his dangerous influence as well as his interference, as outlined, in publicly favouring particular politician at critical elections which, I hope you know, is not done in polite political relationships. But wait, Russia! Now I see why he does it abroad too!

As for the rest of the points you imagine you have made, you haven't: you produced a series of apologist non sequitors.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 10, 2019, 04:05:05 pm
My guess, it's to the advantage of America if we can negotiate trade agreements with individual countries rather than the EU as a whole.  That way we can play off one country against the other to get the best deals.  So helping to break GB away from the pack is a good start.  But you can't blame him for the original Brexit vote.  That was your politicians doing. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 10, 2019, 05:04:55 pm
My guess, it's to the advantage of America if we can negotiate trade agreements with individual countries rather than the EU as a whole.  That way we can play off one country against the other to get the best deals.  So helping to break GB away from the pack is a good start.  But you can't blame him for the original Brexit vote.  That was your politicians doing.


You insist in overlooking his influence. Oh well, so be it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 10, 2019, 05:46:40 pm
Meanwhile, dumb socialist voters who salivate like Pavlov's dogs to these redistribution whistles wonder why there's less net money in their pay stubs.
There are plenty of Pavlov's dog salivating on both sides of these issues.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 10, 2019, 06:17:09 pm
"California to be first state to provide healthcare to undocumented immigrants"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48585037

Please note the the plan is to provide health care benefits to adults 19-25, *some of whom* will be undocumented residents.  Note that these same people are often paying income taxes, are *definitely* paying sales and usage taxes, and that the state has a compelling interest in having healthy, working, residents.

Note also that, as per USA Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/10/california-health-care-immigrants-insurance/1406629001/), California is currently projecting a 20BN budget surplus.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 10, 2019, 06:19:59 pm
He doesn;t go along to get along.  He presses for advantages - American advantages.  That's what an American president is suppose to do.  If your leaders did not protect the UK, I wouldn't have any respect for them.  I expect them to press for your advantages. Would you hire a lawyer who takes your adversary's position?

I would (and do) hire lawyers to start from a win/win supposition when I'm dealing with a business dispute (if it even gets that far.  If I've done my job I'm never in a place where I need to threaten to blow up the world).  I don't view conflict as a zero-sum game like Trump does.  Along with his unfounded arrogance, it's his fatal flaw, and we all pay the price. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 10, 2019, 06:24:04 pm
You know the American media is in favor of illegals. 

What does this even mean? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 10, 2019, 06:31:16 pm
What does this even mean?
He forgets that there is a large conservative media which advances the other point of view. I'm not sure how since he spends his time reading and watching it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 10, 2019, 07:42:11 pm
... the state has a compelling interest in having healthy, working, residents...

Yes, legal residents. It boggles the mind that any states would have a “compelling interest” in having illegal residents, let alone provide social services for them.

Also,  note the irony: legal citizens who do not themselves have insurance will be paying for illegal residents to have one. O tempora, o mores!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 10, 2019, 07:47:06 pm
Please note the the plan is to provide health care benefits to adults 19-25, *some of whom* will be undocumented residents.  Note that these same people are often paying income taxes, are *definitely* paying sales and usage taxes, and that the state has a compelling interest in having healthy, working, residents.

Note also that, as per USA Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/10/california-health-care-immigrants-insurance/1406629001/), California is currently projecting a 20BN budget surplus.

Personally I think it might be better PR if CA handles it's homelessness issue, or at least gets them to stop defecating on the sidewalks, before it starts giving out freebies to non-citizens. 

CA, the most taxed state in the USA and the one with the largest homeless population, and growing I might add. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 10, 2019, 07:52:41 pm
Personally I think it might be better PR if CA handles it's homelessness issue, or at least gets them to stop defecating on the sidewalks, before it starts giving out freebies to non-citizens. 

CA, the most taxed states in the USA and the one with the largest homeless population, and growing I might add. 

It is growing. Note where: in Democrat-run states. It is in decline in Republican-run states:
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 10, 2019, 08:03:05 pm
It is growing. Note where: in Democrat-run states. It is in decline in Republican-run states:

My personal favorite (and not for a good reason) about this crisis is how the homeless encampments on the levees are actually making them weaker.  I was watching a news story on this and they interviewed a politician.  His solution was to create a pamphlet explaining how camping on the levees weakens them and then to pass them out to those camping on them.  His thought was that after they were shown the harm they were doing, they would recognize their wrong doing and voluntarily decided to leave. 

First, he was completely serious in thinking this would actually work.  Second, the idea that maybe they would need to make it illegal to camp on the levees and then forcibly arrest and remove those doing so was not even a thought. 

Meanwhile, those citizens interviewed living near the levees and in the flood zone were a little more then worried and did not think to kindly of this proposed idea. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 10, 2019, 09:30:37 pm
My guess, it's to the advantage of America if we can negotiate trade agreements with individual countries rather than the EU as a whole.  That way we can play off one country against the other to get the best deals.  So helping to break GB away from the pack is a good start.  But you can't blame him for the original Brexit vote.  That was your politicians doing.
Is it a good idea for the US to advocate destroying the economy of Britain?  Banks are already relocating, the European Medecines Agency (the FDA for all of the EU) is leaving London with a couple of thousand good paying jobs, auto manufacturers will be next alone with other industries that rely on customs free delivery of parts from the EU.  Negotiating anything with Britain is not going to change the US relationship with the EU which is a far bigger trading partner.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 10, 2019, 09:35:06 pm
Personally I think it might be better PR if CA handles it's homelessness issue, or at least gets them to stop defecating on the sidewalks, before it starts giving out freebies to non-citizens. 

CA, the most taxed state in the USA and the one with the largest homeless population, and growing I might add.
We were in Oakland this weekend visiting our daughter and there is a large homeless population there.  I didn't see any poop on the sidewalks when I was out walking.  One reason is likely the good year around climate.  Little chance of freezing to death.  Washington DC also has a large homeless population as well and perhaps other big cities do too.  I doubt the CA homeless population is any greater as a percent of total population than anywhere else.  I would be interested to know if there are any state by state statistics.  I would assume the climate in Texas is good for the homeless also.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 10, 2019, 10:37:23 pm

You insist in overlooking his influence. Oh well, so be it.
Curious that you think Trump has so much influence in GB and Europe too.  Why do you think that is?  And what influence are you referring too?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 10, 2019, 10:50:28 pm

First, he was completely serious in thinking this would actually work.  Second, the idea that maybe they would need to make it illegal to camp on the levees and then forcibly arrest and remove those doing so was not even a thought. 


The pamphlet idea seems a little silly, I agree. But I can see some problems with forcibly arresting them all too. So they're arrested, then what.

As for weakening the levees, I wouldn't worry. They probably weren't built properly in the first place, they probably haven't been maintained, and there is no climate change, so why worry. :)



The graph above (Slobodan's post, I believe) about there being more homeless in Democratic states is interesting, but would be more convincing if it showed data for more than just 4 or 5 states. For all I know, this is cherry-picked information. Is there a more complete data set?

It raises some questions. Did they migrate to those states because the benefits are better or is it that Democratic-run states create more homeless because the economies there are worse? Because it's hard to picture California having a bad economy. But if they did migrate to those states, how did they get there? Did they hitch hike?

If, as Russ and others are predicting, more and more states will vote Republican, what happens to their homeless? If all the states end up run by Republicans, will there be no homeless left?

The more nagging question I have is if the economy is doing so much better, as has been doing better for about 6-7 years now (as measured by new jobs statistics that come out every month that show steady month over month job growth since about 2009-2010), why do you have all these homeless?

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 10, 2019, 10:57:28 pm
Is it a good idea for the US to advocate destroying the economy of Britain?  Banks are already relocating, the European Medecines Agency (the FDA for all of the EU) is leaving London with a couple of thousand good paying jobs, auto manufacturers will be next alone with other industries that rely on customs free delivery of parts from the EU.  Negotiating anything with Britain is not going to change the US relationship with the EU which is a far bigger trading partner.

Americans didn't vote for Brexit.  When that happened in June 2016, he hadn't even won the Republican nomination to run for president. That wasn't until the following month in July 2016.  You're giving Trump too much credit.  If the British economy gets screwed up, it is the Brits who are responsible. 


Once Brexit happens, if we can negotiate a good deal with them, it will help us negotiate a better deal with the EU.  For example, if we buy more British cars because they don;t have more tariffs on our stuff, then the German cars makers will insist the German government give those damn Americans a better deal and reduce German tariffs on our stuff too.  That's how it will work.  If the EU eventual ends, a possibility, then we'll be able to negotiate with individual countries who will be competing with each other to sell their stuff to us and provide better deals to get our business.  That's how the world works.  Trump knows that.  Don;t you think he played one contractor against the other when he bought out construction for his real estate?  I saw that in real life once when he squeezed the company I was working for and then gave it to a competitor anyway.  (The competitor was a German firm!! - Siemens. ) One advantage of a business experienced president.  Unlike Obama who had no clue how to negotiate.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 10, 2019, 11:11:02 pm
The pamphlet idea seems a little silly, I agree. But I can see some problems with forcibly arresting them all too. So they're arrested, then what.

As for weakening the levees, I wouldn't worry. They probably weren't built properly in the first place, they probably haven't been maintained, and there is no climate change, so why worry. :)



The graph above (Slobodan's post, I believe) about there being more homeless in Democratic states is interesting, but would be more convincing if it showed data for more than just 4 or 5 states. For all I know, this is cherry-picked information. Is there a more complete data set?

It raises some questions. Did they migrate to those states because the benefits are better or is it that Democratic-run states create more homeless because the economies there are worse? Because it's hard to picture California having a bad economy. But if they did migrate to those states, how did they get there? Did they hitch hike?

If, as Russ and others are predicting, more and more states will vote Republican, what happens to their homeless? If all the states end up run by Republicans, will there be no homeless left?

The more nagging question I have is if the economy is doing so much better, as has been doing better for about 6-7 years now (as measured by new jobs statistics that come out every month that show steady month over month job growth since about 2009-2010), why do you have all these homeless?



Many of the homeless have psychological problems.  When mental hospitals were closed, many of these people wound up on the streets.  Often they stop taking prescribed medicine.  Many take illegal drugs.  No one wants to re-hospitalized these people.  It is a real problem.  Frankly, there's no real reason for street people.  In NYC, there's billions available to house them and take care of them.  I'm sure California has similar money available.  They must if they can afford medical care for all the illegals. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: 32BT on June 11, 2019, 02:16:35 am
Americans didn't vote for Brexit.  When that happened in June 2016, he hadn't even won the Republican nomination to run for president. That wasn't until the following month in July 2016.  You're giving Trump too much credit.  If the British economy gets screwed up, it is the Brits who are responsible. 


Once Brexit happens, if we can negotiate a good deal with them, it will help us negotiate a better deal with the EU.  For example, if we buy more British cars because they don;t have more tariffs on our stuff, then the German cars makers will insist the German government give those damn Americans a better deal and reduce German tariffs on our stuff too.  That's how it will work.  If the EU eventual ends, a possibility, then we'll be able to negotiate with individual countries who will be competing with each other to sell their stuff to us and provide better deals to get our business.  That's how the world works.  Trump knows that.  Don;t you think he played one contractor against the other when he bought out construction for his real estate?  I saw that in real life once when he squeezed the company I was working for and then gave it to a competitor anyway.  (The competitor was a German firm!! - Siemens. ) One advantage of a business experienced president.  Unlike Obama who had no clue how to negotiate.

Sounds odd coming from you Alan. The problem with Trump is that he uses the "Italian" method. You'll negotiate untill the money is in the bank. Signing a contract? Break it open before the ink is even dry. Why is that a problem? Because the contractors start procurement. Once they are invested you break open the contract and renegotiate an even better deal. Contractors can hardly back out of the deal because of those investments.

While that may seem business savvy at the surface, it's does not particularly make you a trustworthy partner, and is highly counterproductive when you aim to create a network of capable businesspartners (or, on the political stage: allies).

You can blame Bush jr for a lot of things, but he was very well connected and knew how to build and run a team.

And please note: if we compare Huawai vs Apple, Huawai is the better choice. That's both literally and figuratively: desintegrate Europe and see the influence of Russia and China increase exponentially.

Oh... Wait... Russia...

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 11, 2019, 03:33:29 am
If the British economy gets screwed up, it is the Brits who are responsible. 


Couldn't agree more!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 11, 2019, 04:57:36 am
1. Curious that you think Trump has so much influence in GB and Europe too.  Why do you think that is?  2. And what influence are you referring too?


1. How many times does it to make you get the same point?

Let me try to spell it out, as much for you as for those kids in the now infamous school in Britain getting sex-orientation "guidance":

Trump, in much of Europe, is a figure of derision. In some parts of Britain, however, there is sufficient ignorance, neo-Naziism, faith in unicorns, fairy godmothers et al. that a newly prominent Brit such as Farage, allied with a popular cartoon character like our Boris, who gets to talk and shake hands with a showbiz hero and golf course owner, one of the fatter fat cats, appears to hold the key to the unfolding of an American cheque book that will then be shaken and strirred all over the benighted land, creating massive advantages and pay packets.

That, as you so eloquently said yourself below (and described even earlier as a tactic of divide and conquer):

"Once Brexit happens, if we can negotiate a good deal with them, it will help us negotiate a better deal with the EU.  For example, if we buy more British cars because they don;t have more tariffs on our stuff, then the German cars makers will insist the German government give those damn Americans a better deal and reduce German tariffs on our stuff too.  That's how it will work.  If the EU eventual ends, a possibility, then we'll be able to negotiate with individual countries who will be competing with each other to sell their stuff to us and provide better deals to get our business.  That's how the world works.  Trump knows that.  Don;t you think he played one contractor against the other when he bought out construction for his real estate?  I saw that in real life once when he squeezed the company I was working for and then gave it to a competitor anyway.  (The competitor was a German firm!! - Siemens. ) One advantage of a business experienced president."

is one of the prime reasons Brits at large should open their eyes and cover their ears. Trump is playing the UK for idiots, and in this current state of national madness, he's right. And as Oscar and I have already indicated, the ultimate destruction of some European solidarity makes the expansionist inclinations of Russia ever more possible to accomplish.

Quite why you consider a business tactic that screwed your own employers a good one, also leaves my mind wondering thoughts about you. I see that not a million miles from kissing the guy who mugged you. Future deals with anyone who does that also brings to mind this: screw me once, shame on you; screw me twice, shame on me. So what do you do? You vote for the guy. Hey ho.

2. I am referring to the influence that I described above and in earlier posts, including the public backing of a specific candidate in another country's internal election processes, made even the more shocking by doing so during a state visit to that country. Exactly what Russia did to aid Trump get to power. Many of your own countymen objected strongly to that interference; I do the same here. Far fom being a clever politician, he has simply laid himself open to even stronger pressure from without the States; his own Faustian deal, if you like. The kinder assumption, of course, being that he will see it as pressure, not as something he cherishes. And guess who will pay the price, either way, both in your country as in mine?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 11, 2019, 05:25:52 am
On top of which we have Pompeo talking about intervening in a UK general election  against Corbyn. Of course meddling in foreign elections is the general modus operandi for the US in Latin America but it’s a nasty realisation that the UK has become another banana republic.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 11, 2019, 06:53:31 am
We were in Oakland this weekend visiting our daughter and there is a large homeless population there.  I didn't see any poop on the sidewalks when I was out walking.  One reason is likely the good year around climate.  Little chance of freezing to death.  Washington DC also has a large homeless population as well and perhaps other big cities do too.  I doubt the CA homeless population is any greater as a percent of total population than anywhere else.  I would be interested to know if there are any state by state statistics.  I would assume the climate in Texas is good for the homeless also.

I will admit that the fact that CA is warm all year round is certainly a reason for the homelessness; if I was homeless CA would be a good option to think about.  However, this does not take away from the fact that the homeless population in CA has been growing and is the largest in the nation.  (See below)

I think I read last week homelessness grow 16% year over year in CA. 

It is becoming a real issue.  I even read that there is a fear of a typhus outbreak this summer amongst the homeless.  There are examples of people getting plague.  I already mentioned the issues with the levees. 

There is even a poop app for San Fran where you can look up the location of poop on the side walk.  Now the city is claiming that the increase is poop is from mindless dog owners, not the sudden increase in homeless, but...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 11, 2019, 07:12:45 am
I will admit that the fact that CA is warm all year round is certainly a reason for the homelessness; if I was homeless CA would be a good option to think about.  However, this does not take away from the fact that the homeless population in CA has been growing and is the largest in the nation.  (See below)

I think I read last week homelessness grow 16% year over year in CA. 

It is becoming a real issue.  I even read that there is a fear of a typhus outbreak this summer amongst the homeless.  There are examples of people getting plague.  I already mentioned the issues with the levees. 

There is even a poop app for San Fran where you can look up the location of poop on the side walk.  Now the city is claiming that the increase is poop is from mindless dog owners, not the sudden increase in homeless, but...

Unless you've got seriously small people or overly large dogs, it doesn't take a seasoned wildlife tracker to spot the different spoor varieties. If people kept more goats...

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 11, 2019, 07:13:23 am
The pamphlet idea seems a little silly, I agree. But I can see some problems with forcibly arresting them all too. So they're arrested, then what.

As for weakening the levees, I wouldn't worry. They probably weren't built properly in the first place, they probably haven't been maintained, and there is no climate change, so why worry. :)



The graph above (Slobodan's post, I believe) about there being more homeless in Democratic states is interesting, but would be more convincing if it showed data for more than just 4 or 5 states. For all I know, this is cherry-picked information. Is there a more complete data set?

It raises some questions. Did they migrate to those states because the benefits are better or is it that Democratic-run states create more homeless because the economies there are worse? Because it's hard to picture California having a bad economy. But if they did migrate to those states, how did they get there? Did they hitch hike?

If, as Russ and others are predicting, more and more states will vote Republican, what happens to their homeless? If all the states end up run by Republicans, will there be no homeless left?

The more nagging question I have is if the economy is doing so much better, as has been doing better for about 6-7 years now (as measured by new jobs statistics that come out every month that show steady month over month job growth since about 2009-2010), why do you have all these homeless?

LOL, good point on the levees.  I saw something a few years back on how they were not in fact built in the best possible way.  Scientists predict that when the next big one hits, most of the levees will collapse, causing even more problems then just the immediate destruction from the earthquake. 

Insofar as what is causing the homelessness, I feel it is a combination of factors.  As was stated earlier, the warmer weather and not having to fear freezing to death in the winter certainly adds to the problem. 

Also, housing in CA is very expensive.  From what I've read this is due to three factors, the environmental laws make it extremely difficult to develop undeveloped land.  Residents have way too much say in preserving the look of the neighborhood, making it very difficult to get multi-family structure built.  Both of these keep supply levels low, even though demand is increasing.  And last, Prop 13 limits how much existing homeowners can have their property taxes raised year over year, so to make up for the deficit this creates, new owners get a extremely large increase in property tax when they first buy.  So this leads to some people falling down on their luck and becoming homeless, however ...

The majority of the homeless in CA are not these people, they are addicts and those with mental illness (just like every where else).  The group above typically has enough sense to seek help, whereas many addicts and mentally ill do not want help (or at least turn it down).  Getting help requires getting sober, which some addicts don't like, or taking your meds, which some mentally ill do not like due to the side effects.  So, since these people are adults, they can refuse help. 

Now the issue in CA, from what I have read, is that it is now not illegal to camp in public places or sleep in your car overnight.  (From a moral and empathy perspective, I can understand this.)  So if you have a large amount of homeless, who are homeless due to their addiction, and they refuse help, you cant do anything about since they are allowed to be there.  In other states, you can arrest them and at least take them to a center to get help.  It may not seem right arresting an addict, but at the end of the day it is better then leaving him/her on the street to continue their addiction.  Not to mention, having all the public health concerns that comes with homelessness is something to be avoided as well. 

PS, I should add, regardless of your feelings here, leaving them on the levees to dig out level areas for encampments should not even be an option.  What to do with them after arresting them is an issue and concern, however the more immediate and dire one is making sure the levees remain structurally sound. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 11, 2019, 07:20:48 am
Unless you've got seriously small people or overly large dogs, it doesn't take a seasoned wildlife tracker to spot the different spoor varieties. If people kept more goats...

Rob

Problem is Rob, your right, but San Fran is refusing to identify where each pile came from.  They have admitted that they don't care to figure that out, and are just cleaning it up.  I mean from a logistical stand point, can you really expect those cleaning it up to inspect it too?   No. 

But then again, if so, you cant claim all of a sudden it is from dogs. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 11, 2019, 07:24:10 am
Once Brexit happens, if we can negotiate a good deal with them, it will help us negotiate a better deal with the EU.  For example, if we buy more British cars because they don;t have more tariffs on our stuff, then the German cars makers will insist the German government give those damn Americans a better deal and reduce German tariffs on our stuff too.  That's how it will work.  If the EU eventual ends, a possibility, then we'll be able to negotiate with individual countries who will be competing with each other to sell their stuff to us and provide better deals to get our business.  That's how the world works.  Trump knows that.
Trump knows nothing about international trade and his steps are being guided by a couple of loony economists who are so far from the mainstream it isn't funny.  Is there such a think as a British car maker?  I don't think so.  Ford use to own Jaguar and then sold it to Tata Motors who are headquartered in India.  I don't know if all of Jaguar and Landrover parts are made in the UK or if some are sourced from elsewhere.  Minicooper are owned by BMW and again, I don't know whether 100% of content comes from the UK.  Other foreign owned British manufacturers are extremely concerned about Brexit.  There is a large Nissan plant in the northern part of the UK where there was a large pro-Brexit vote.  that plant is in danger of being relocated because of parts acquisition issues that will be come more complicated under Brexit.  What else does the US buy from the UK??  In our own home the only things we have are Twinings tea.  I did buy a Burburry trench coat but that was about 20 years ago.  It's not clear to me what value the US will get from a UK trade negotiation.

Quote
  Don;t you think he played one contractor against the other when he bought out construction for his real estate?  I saw that in real life once when he squeezed the company I was working for and then gave it to a competitor anyway.  (The competitor was a German firm!! - Siemens. ) One advantage of a business experienced president.  Unlike Obama who had no clue how to negotiate.
I certainly don't place much faith in Trump's business experience.  He is the self-professed 'King of Debt' and that has not served him very well on some well documented occasions.  He was fortunate to be bailed out by his father on at least one occasion (and of course his father provided him with a considerable amount of money to start with).  His real estate losses are well documented and the fact that he was able to establish many LLCs to protect his holdings kept him from real bankruptcy (this is something that most small businesses that are not real estate holding companies can't take advantage of).  His sweetheart deals with the private banking group at Deutsche Bank are well documented and weird in that the merchant banking division of the company cut him off after his Chicago loans defaulted.  We also don't have a full understanding of whether various foreign parties used Trump real estate for money laundering.

Doesn't the fact that he has refused to disclose his current income tax return bother you?  Don't we have a right to know whether there are any fishy things going on?  I'll leave aside the fact that many of his business practices were immoral (e.g., not paying contractors their due payment).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 11, 2019, 07:28:43 am
LOL, good point on the levees.  I saw something a few years back on how they were not in fact built in the best possible way.  Scientists predict that when the next big one hits, most of the levees will collapse, causing even more problems then just the immediate destruction from the earthquake. 
the Midwest flooding has been well documented.  The amount of corn acreage that has been planted this year is dramatically below normal and there is a good possibility that a lot of farmers will lose the whole planting season.  It's not clear whether they will be able to get soybeans planted (a shorter growing season).  It's not just the levee situation but swollen rivers prevent barge traffic as well.  there was a good story in the paper this AM about the situation in northwest Arkansas where they cannot deliver fertilizer to farmers at all.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 11, 2019, 07:40:13 am
LOL, good point on the levees.  I saw something a few years back on how they were not in fact built in the best possible way.  Scientists predict that when the next big one hits, most of the levees will collapse, causing even more problems then just the immediate destruction from the earthquake. 

Insofar as what is causing the homelessness, I feel it is a combination of factors.  As was stated earlier, the warmer weather and not having to fear freezing to death in the winter certainly adds to the problem. 

Also, housing in CA is very expensive.  From what I've read this is due to three factors, the environmental laws make it extremely difficult to develop undeveloped land.  Residents have way too much say in preserving the look of the neighborhood, making it very difficult to get multi-family structure built.  Both of these keep supply levels low, even though demand is increasing.  And last, Prop 13 limits how much existing homeowners can have their property taxes raised year over year, so to make up for the deficit this creates, new owners get a extremely large increase in property tax when they first buy.  So this leads to some people falling down on their luck and becoming homeless, however ...

The majority of the homeless in CA are not these people, they are addicts and those with mental illness (just like every where else).  The group above typically has enough sense to seek help, whereas many addicts and mentally ill do not want help (or at least turn it down).  Getting help requires getting sober, which some addicts don't like, or taking your meds, which some mentally ill do not like due to the side effects.  So, since these people are adults, they can refuse help. 

Now the issue in CA, from what I have read, is that it is now not illegal to camp in public places or sleep in your car overnight.  (From a moral and empathy perspective, I can understand this.)  So if you have a large amount of homeless, who are homeless due to their addiction, and they refuse help, you cant do anything about since they are allowed to be there.  In other states, you can arrest them and at least take them to a center to get help.  It may not seem right arresting an addict, but at the end of the day it is better then leaving him/her on the street to continue their addiction.  Not to mention, having all the public health concerns that comes with homelessness is something to be avoided as well.


Maybe the wrong folks were "encouraged" into reservations.

But as you already had the idea...

We, mainly, did better: we deported them across the Atlantic. And aren't many of their descendents the happier for it! Ditto Australia.

:-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 11, 2019, 07:48:16 am
the Midwest flooding has been well documented.  The amount of corn acreage that has been planted this year is dramatically below normal and there is a good possibility that a lot of farmers will lose the whole planting season.  It's not clear whether they will be able to get soybeans planted (a shorter growing season).  It's not just the levee situation but swollen rivers prevent barge traffic as well.  there was a good story in the paper this AM about the situation in northwest Arkansas where they cannot deliver fertilizer to farmers at all.

First, I am not sure what this has to do with the levee situation in CA?  ???  It is true in both situations that the fact that we are trying to control nature is present and will have unforeseen consequences.  But the added homeless digging into parts of the levees is certainly making it worse in CA.  Add on the possibility of an earthquake, and the gates of hell could really open up. 

Second, I am not sure what to do about the situation in the midwest.  I once read that our desire to control the Mississippi and keep it from flooding was actually having adverse effects since the Mississippi is suppose to naturally flood and change course, slightly, over time.  This then causes all sorts of problems, like making the river shallower.  How do you fix this?  Letting nature takes its course is going to cause a lot of property damage along the banks of the river, which would be not very popular.  But would this be easier and better then dealing with the side effects of us controlling the river? 

It's like our current issue with forest fires.  Forests naturally burn every 25 years or so, which is a good thing since the burns up the dead fuel on the floor and typically, after only 25 years of build up, the fire is not strong enough to kill the forest.  However, letting a forest burn when it catches on fire is not particular popular, especially for those living there.  So we stop the fires and let the build up of fuel continue so when a fire does ignite after a 100+ years, it is so strong it destroys everything, including the forest. 

So what is the better option?  Stop fires when they start knowing eventually there will be enough fuel on the floor to create a massively strong fire that destroys everything, or let small fires burn themselves out regardless of who lives/works there?  I cant figure out what would be best here, just like with whether or not we should try to control large rivers. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 11, 2019, 07:50:48 am
Is it a good idea for the US to advocate destroying the economy of Britain?  Banks are already relocating, the European Medecines Agency (the FDA for all of the EU) is leaving London with a couple of thousand good paying jobs, auto manufacturers will be next alone with other industries that rely on customs free delivery of parts from the EU.  Negotiating anything with Britain is not going to change the US relationship with the EU which is a far bigger trading partner.

And it will change existing relationships with Britain, should it go through with this stuff, because on its own, it becomes an instant, relative minnow.

Why does this escape so many here; why does xenophobia blind so many to their own cost? The real fight was never with felllow Europeans; it began before there was a European union of any kind.

Friggin' history. Nobody reads it anymore, or if they do, then a politically corrected one that leads to the desecration of ancient statues and monuments to past heroes turned, almost overnight, into ogres. In Glasgow, they even changed the name of a famous city square where, if memory serves, stood an excellent map shop, symbolic key to the wider world.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 11, 2019, 08:15:42 am
Problem is Rob, your right, but San Fran is refusing to identify where each pile came from.  They have admitted that they don't care to figure that out, and are just cleaning it up.  I mean from a logistical stand point, can you really expect those cleaning it up to inspect it too?   No. 

But then again, if so, you cant claim all of a sudden it is from dogs. 
The poop area in San Francisco is Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi's district.  Now you know why nothing works in Congress. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 11, 2019, 08:35:03 am
Trump knows nothing about international trade and his steps are being guided by a couple of loony economists who are so far from the mainstream it isn't funny.  Is there such a think as a British car maker?  I don't think so.  Ford use to own Jaguar and then sold it to Tata Motors who are headquartered in India.  I don't know if all of Jaguar and Landrover parts are made in the UK or if some are sourced from elsewhere.  Minicooper are owned by BMW and again, I don't know whether 100% of content comes from the UK.  Other foreign owned British manufacturers are extremely concerned about Brexit.  There is a large Nissan plant in the northern part of the UK where there was a large pro-Brexit vote.  that plant is in danger of being relocated because of parts acquisition issues that will be come more complicated under Brexit.  What else does the US buy from the UK??  In our own home the only things we have are Twinings tea.  I did buy a Burburry trench coat but that was about 20 years ago.  It's not clear to me what value the US will get from a UK trade negotiation.
I certainly don't place much faith in Trump's business experience.  He is the self-professed 'King of Debt' and that has not served him very well on some well documented occasions.  He was fortunate to be bailed out by his father on at least one occasion (and of course his father provided him with a considerable amount of money to start with).  His real estate losses are well documented and the fact that he was able to establish many LLCs to protect his holdings kept him from real bankruptcy (this is something that most small businesses that are not real estate holding companies can't take advantage of).  His sweetheart deals with the private banking group at Deutsche Bank are well documented and weird in that the merchant banking division of the company cut him off after his Chicago loans defaulted.  We also don't have a full understanding of whether various foreign parties used Trump real estate for money laundering.

Doesn't the fact that he has refused to disclose his current income tax return bother you?  Don't we have a right to know whether there are any fishy things going on?  I'll leave aside the fact that many of his business practices were immoral (e.g., not paying contractors their due payment).

You're wrong in your understanding of American trade with Britain.  The UK is America's 7th largest trading partner after Mexico, Canada, China, Japan, Germany and South Korea.  They're 5th in exports and 7th in imports.  That's a lot of English tea.  So making a good deal with Britain will influence deals with other countries and  the EU. 
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/toppartners.html (https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/toppartners.html)

Forbes estimates Trump's wealth at $3 billion.  So all this nonsense about him being poor is just fake news.

Also, the reason he has so many LLC's is because with each deal, he sets up a different corporation to limit liability from one deal from the other.  I believe he has over 500 LLC's; each one would file it's own taxes.  That's standard practice. Also, most of his deals are only selling the Trump name to be put on the building (hotel, apartment complex etc.)  So Trump Malaysia, let's say, is being built by some Malaysia company who uses Trump's dame to help sell the apartments.  Trump gets paid for the use of his name but isn't constructing the building.  He's got nothing to do with the contractors or construction.  But I do agree with you that I would never do business with him because of his bill paying reputation.  But that doesn;t mean he doesn;t know how to negotiate a good deal.  He does from all his experience through the years.  With 500 business, he's got a lot of practice. 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2018/10/03/donald-trump-falls-11-more-spots-on-the-forbes-400-list/#49ed470e79f1 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2018/10/03/donald-trump-falls-11-more-spots-on-the-forbes-400-list/#49ed470e79f1)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 11, 2019, 09:01:13 am

1. How many times does it to make you get the same point?

Let me try to spell it out, as much for you as for those kids in the now infamous school in Britain getting sex-orientation "guidance":

Trump, in much of Europe, is a figure of derision. In some parts of Britain, however, there is sufficient ignorance, neo-Naziism, faith in unicorns, fairy godmothers et al. that a newly prominent Brit such as Farage, allied with a popular cartoon character like our Boris, who gets to talk and shake hands with a showbiz hero and golf course owner, one of the fatter fat cats, appears to hold the key to the unfolding of an American cheque book that will then be shaken and strirred all over the benighted land, creating massive advantages and pay packets.

That, as you so eloquently said yourself below (and described even earlier as a tactic of divide and conquer):

"Once Brexit happens, if we can negotiate a good deal with them, it will help us negotiate a better deal with the EU.  For example, if we buy more British cars because they don;t have more tariffs on our stuff, then the German cars makers will insist the German government give those damn Americans a better deal and reduce German tariffs on our stuff too.  That's how it will work.  If the EU eventual ends, a possibility, then we'll be able to negotiate with individual countries who will be competing with each other to sell their stuff to us and provide better deals to get our business.  That's how the world works.  Trump knows that.  Don;t you think he played one contractor against the other when he bought out construction for his real estate?  I saw that in real life once when he squeezed the company I was working for and then gave it to a competitor anyway.  (The competitor was a German firm!! - Siemens. ) One advantage of a business experienced president."

is one of the prime reasons Brits at large should open their eyes and cover their ears. Trump is playing the UK for idiots, and in this current state of national madness, he's right. And as Oscar and I have already indicated, the ultimate destruction of some European solidarity makes the expansionist inclinations of Russia ever more possible to accomplish.

Quite why you consider a business tactic that screwed your own employers a good one, also leaves my mind wondering thoughts about you. I see that not a million miles from kissing the guy who mugged you. Future deals with anyone who does that also brings to mind this: screw me once, shame on you; screw me twice, shame on me. So what do you do? You vote for the guy. Hey ho.

2. I am referring to the influence that I described above and in earlier posts, including the public backing of a specific candidate in another country's internal election processes, made even the more shocking by doing so during a state visit to that country. Exactly what Russia did to aid Trump get to power. Many of your own countymen objected strongly to that interference; I do the same here. Far fom being a clever politician, he has simply laid himself open to even stronger pressure from without the States; his own Faustian deal, if you like. The kinder assumption, of course, being that he will see it as pressure, not as something he cherishes. And guess who will pay the price, either way, both in your country as in mine?

Did Trump cause the recent shift to the right in the EU elections?  Apparently France, Italy and other are moving how GB moved.  Could it be that people in Europe are just tired of having to turn over their rights to some unelected foreigners in Brussels?

As far as divide and conquer, since when does getting better deals playing off one supplier against another immoral or not standard business practices?    I just got a quote to repair my air conditioning.  I think the price is too high.  I intend to call other repair companies and get competitive prices letting them all know that I'm doing that so they'll sharpen their pencils and give me lower price.  You make it sound like Europeans are "rubes" and don;t know how to negotiate.  Give me a break.  EU tariffs have been higher than ours for years.  It's only past American presidents were the "rubes" who didn;t know how to negotiate. So now we have TRump who does and you don;t like the competition any more because Europe won;t be able to get away with high tariffs like they use too.  Of course the American press, all Trump haters, take foreigner's sides instead of standing up for America.  And foreigners buy into the press and Trump hating because they see their trade profits evaporating under a Trump presidency.   The same thing happened with NATO costs and European defense spending.  He's hurting your pocketbook.  But that's good for Americans.  We can still be friends and allies.  We're just making better financial deals for ourselves.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 11, 2019, 10:53:34 am
Trump knows nothing about international trade and his steps are being guided by a couple of loony economists who are so far from the mainstream it isn't funny.  Is there such a think as a British car maker?  I don't think so.  Ford use to own Jaguar and then sold it to Tata Motors who are headquartered in India.  I don't know if all of Jaguar and Landrover parts are made in the UK or if some are sourced from elsewhere.  Minicooper are owned by BMW and again, I don't know whether 100% of content comes from the UK.  Other foreign owned British manufacturers are extremely concerned about Brexit.  There is a large Nissan plant in the northern part of the UK where there was a large pro-Brexit vote.  that plant is in danger of being relocated because of parts acquisition issues that will be come more complicated under Brexit.  What else does the US buy from the UK??  In our own home the only things we have are Twinings tea.  I did buy a Burburry trench coat but that was about 20 years ago.  It's not clear to me what value the US will get from a UK trade negotiation.
I certainly don't place much faith in Trump's business experience.  He is the self-professed 'King of Debt' and that has not served him very well on some well documented occasions.  He was fortunate to be bailed out by his father on at least one occasion (and of course his father provided him with a considerable amount of money to start with).  His real estate losses are well documented and the fact that he was able to establish many LLCs to protect his holdings kept him from real bankruptcy (this is something that most small businesses that are not real estate holding companies can't take advantage of).  His sweetheart deals with the private banking group at Deutsche Bank are well documented and weird in that the merchant banking division of the company cut him off after his Chicago loans defaulted.  We also don't have a full understanding of whether various foreign parties used Trump real estate for money laundering.

Doesn't the fact that he has refused to disclose his current income tax return bother you?  Don't we have a right to know whether there are any fishy things going on?  I'll leave aside the fact that many of his business practices were immoral (e.g., not paying contractors their due payment).


I can't, off the top of my head, think of a single significant car company in the UK that is still totally British-owned. Neither can I think of many manufactured products that Britain buys from the US. Cars? The only ones that appear to have had an impact of sorts are Jeep variants and Ford's Mustangs. In general, nobody really wants manufactured products very much because they have all they want available closer to home. Even online buying doesn't alter the import taxes they would have to pay. Are Apple products really American-made in the true sense of the claim?

Folks in the UK would rather have a Mercedes if they want expensive and big, and for some, that translates into Bentley if they want ultra expensive. Cadillac? Are you kidding me? BMW sells well, especially the smaller, more "sporty" Series 3-as-was. I believe that when it became known that BMW has/had? a factory in the US producing the Z sports models, sales in Britain shrank quickly. Rightly or wrongly, the German reputation for engineering is high, the American one not. By the way your own folks buy Japanese, many of you think the same, regardless of Slobodan's pet phrase to the contrary! :-)

Trump slapping on tariffs and taxes or other tricks will not make people want to buy stuff from him they didn't want to buy already. But hey, I bet he doesn't believe it either; it's the promises game that wins political power. That he knows very well. Cranking life into rustbelt corpses will produce nothing but debt and worse to come when renewed hopes and aspirations are once more dashed by cruel reality. Perhaps, by then, he will have left the country for a retirement where nobody can find him. St Petersburg is apparently a beautiful place...

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 11, 2019, 11:29:05 am
... why does xenophobia blind so many to their own cost?...

Xenophobia is such a blanket word, too much generalization. Firstly, it is defined as a irrational fear of foreigners. Well, when it is rational, it ain't xenophobia any more. Secondly, it is rarely about all foreigners, but specific ones. Which again wouldn't be xenophobia.

Therefore, I propose a new, better suited word: barbarophobia™ (royalties for the future use of the word go to me, please. PM me for bank details)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 11, 2019, 11:42:44 am
... Cranking life into rustbelt corpses...

It is actually working real well. And by whom? The loathed oil companies.

"Shell Sees New Role for Former Steel Region: Plastics"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/business/shell-polyethylene-factory-pennsylvania.html?fbclid=IwAR045MgDddF8jzttdEvjOAY8BeDooBxP_WvIPy1NZ76dvah1KXYtCVbsTGo

Quote
The oil and gas company is returning to the polyethylene market, building a 386-acre plant on the site of a long-shuttered zinc smelter on the Ohio River.



Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 11, 2019, 11:57:48 am

I can't, off the top of my head, think of a single significant car company in the UK that is still totally British-owned. Neither can I think of many manufactured products that Britain buys from the US. Cars? The only ones that appear to have had an impact of sorts are Jeep variants and Ford's Mustangs. In general, nobody really wants manufactured products very much because they have all they want available closer to home. Even online buying doesn't alter the import taxes they would have to pay. Are Apple products really American-made in the true sense of the claim?

Folks in the UK would rather have a Mercedes if they want expensive and big, and for some, that translates into Bentley if they want ultra expensive. Cadillac? Are you kidding me? BMW sells well, especially the smaller, more "sporty" Series 3-as-was. I believe that when it became known that BMW has/had? a factory in the US producing the Z sports models, sales in Britain shrank quickly. Rightly or wrongly, the German reputation for engineering is high, the American one not. By the way your own folks buy Japanese, many of you think the same, regardless of Slobodan's pet phrase to the contrary! :-)

Trump slapping on tariffs and taxes or other tricks will not make people want to buy stuff from him they didn't want to buy already. But hey, I bet he doesn't believe it either; it's the promises game that wins political power. That he knows very well. Cranking life into rustbelt corpses will produce nothing but debt and worse to come when renewed hopes and aspirations are once more dashed by cruel reality. Perhaps, by then, he will have left the country for a retirement where nobody can find him. St Petersburg is apparently a beautiful place...

The irony in all this is that the US still does manufacture many things, it's just that it's being done by assembly line robots: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_States)). But even as I write this, I laugh to myself, I mean it's not as if anyone really wants to hear facts. Mythology beats reality every time. There are still people around who think the war on drugs is accomplishing something.

Trump's electioneering about getting manufacturing jobs back got him some rust belt votes but even they must realize by now that it's not happening. The very idea that Trump was working on their behalf is hilarious. It's not clear who he is working for but I'm not alone in that confusion. Take the way he talks about tariffs. He frames tariffs as some kind of weapon that he can use to browbeat other countries, many of whom should be (and have been) profitable economic allies and trading partners for years. He has peddled the notion that other countries have been screwing the US, and those arguments have found believers despite decades of evidence to the contrary. As if everyone else is "the enemy", when they clearly are not. But then, there are people who think the earth is flat, despite having no pictures from the edge, which should be kind of easy to get.

Just one more example from the balance of trade discussions. At one point in the last year or two, Trump criticized Canada because during some arbitrary period (month or quarter or something) the US bought more goods from Canada than Canada bought from the US, and thus he presented this as some kind of unfair treatment of the US by Canada. This is simply beyond stupid. It's drunk bar talk. But it got headlines, along with some criticism by analysts who know something about trade, but they were utterly drowned out.

The rust belt's issue still is that they don't believe anyone else is looking after them either, and they have a point. That hasn't changed. But as is seen on these pages, there are many people in the US who do not believe that the purpose of a country is to help look after its citizens. As soon as someone loses a job or gets sick, they're perfectly happy throwing them to the wolves. It's as if people really believe that the purpose of everything is to help make wealthy people wealthier. The willingness to take personal credit for when things go well and to apportion blame when things go badly to the very people who are having troubles is quite something to behold. It's as if luck doesn't exist despite it probably being the biggest factor affecting our lives. Did I hear a quote attributed Thatcher once, that there is no country, just individuals. It's everyone for themselves! That's fine if that's what you want, but I can foresee a problem recruiting cannon fodder for future wars. You can see the argument, why should I go die for a country that treats me like sh*t? It's a valid point of view.

There was an entry earlier in this thread (or maybe another, I get confused) from Slobodan who presented health insurance as a kind of moral hazard because it encouraged people to not look after their health. This presupposes that illness is due to personal neglect, which is only ever partly true. The notion that that minuscule moral hazard is utterly overwhelmed by countervailing benefits to every participant in that insurance system is wilful ignorance, an example of ideology replacing thought. Every study I've seen reports of shows that the US spends roughly twice as much as other developed countries on health (per capita), but has worse outcomes, all while a significant percentage of the population has no health care. Even if you draw healthy error bars on those numbers, it should raise concerns, shouldn't it? I suspect that the kleptocracy in the US does a good job of hiding those reports from public view. It's easy to do, just drown it in an incessant 24/7 media data dump about celebrity ass sizes.

Somewhere I referred to a book by Joseph Heath called "Filthy Lucre". Heath is a U of Toronto philosophy professor who has made a career of analyzing various illogics in public policy. That book is a terrific read. The first half is a examination of a list of items that the "right" repeatedly misunderstands, moral hazard being just one, the other being trade with other countries. The second half of the book (the larger "half") is a skewering of various things that the "left" repeatedly gets wrong, because of ideology repressing thought once again. I can't recommend it highly enough, from time to time it addresses almost all the issues raised in these pages in a very instructive way.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 11, 2019, 12:28:39 pm
The irony in all this is that the US still does manufacture many things, it's just that it's being done by assembly line robots: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_States)). But even as I write this, I laugh to myself, I mean it's not as if anyone really wants to hear facts. Mythology beats reality every time. There are still people around who think the war on drugs is accomplishing something.

Trump's electioneering about getting manufacturing jobs back got him some rust belt votes but even they must realize by now that it's not happening. The very idea that Trump was working on their behalf is hilarious. It's not clear who he is working for but I'm not alone in that confusion.
Look at all the votes Trump received in areas that produce coal.  He was talking about how he would revive that industry.  Where are the results here?  Coal mining jobs continue to decrease and coal fired power plants continue to be taken off line and replaced by natural gas.

Quote
Just one more example from the balance of trade discussions. At one point in the last year or two, Trump criticized Canada because during some arbitrary period (month or quarter or something) the US bought more goods from Canada than Canada bought from the US, and thus he presented this as some kind of unfair treatment of the US by Canada. This is simply beyond stupid. It's drunk bar talk. But it got headlines, along with some criticism by analysts who know something about trade, but they were utterly drowned out.
Trump just doesn't understand international trade and his chosen advisors are just as clueless.  Trump's basic problem is he doesn't want anyone around him that is smarter than he is.  this really limits his choice of advisors in almost every field.  We see what happens to those who are knowledgeable; they quickly leave.

Quote
The rust belt's issue still is that they don't believe anyone else is looking after them either, and they have a point. That hasn't changed. But as is seen on these pages, there are many people in the US who do not believe that the purpose of a country is to help look after its citizens. As soon as someone loses a job or gets sick, they're perfectly happy throwing them to the wolves. It's as if people really believe that the purpose of everything is to help make wealthy people wealthier. The willingness to take personal credit for when things go well and to apportion blame when things go badly to the very people who are having troubles is quite something to behold. It's as if luck doesn't exist despite it probably being the biggest factor affecting our lives. Did I hear a quote attributed Thatcher once, that there is no country, just individuals. It's everyone for themselves! That's fine if that's what you want, but I can foresee a problem recruiting cannon fodder for future wars. You can see the argument, why should I go die for a country that treats me like sh*t? It's a valid point of view.
Quite right and this has been the case for sometime.  Republicans don't care for these people any more than Hilary Clinton did.

Quote
There was an entry earlier in this thread (or maybe another, I get confused) from Slobodan who presented health insurance as a kind of moral hazard because it encouraged people to not look after their health. This presupposes that illness is due to personal neglect, which is only ever partly true. The notion that that minuscule moral hazard is utterly overwhelmed by countervailing benefits to every participant in that insurance system is wilful ignorance, an example of ideology replacing thought. Every study I've seen reports of shows that the US spends roughly twice as much as other developed countries on health (per capita), but has worse outcomes, all while a significant percentage of the population has no health care. Even if you draw healthy error bars on those numbers, it should raise concerns, shouldn't it? I suspect that the kleptocracy in the US does a good job of hiding those reports from public view. It's easy to do, just drown it in an incessant 24/7 media data dump about celebrity ass sizes.
It's easy to scare people about non-existant death panels than it is to come up with a way to provide affordable health care.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 11, 2019, 12:29:22 pm
... Slobodan who presented health insurance as a kind of moral hazard because it encouraged people to not look after their health. This presupposes that illness is due to personal neglect, which is only ever partly true. The notion that that minuscule moral hazard...

Miniscule!? If you think 40% is, than you are right:

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2018/rising-obesity-united-states-public-health-crisis

Quote
Obesity is a grave public health threat, more serious even than the opioid epidemic. It is linked to chronic diseases including type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Obesity accounts for 18 percent of deaths among Americans ages 40 to 85, according to a 2013 study challenging the prevailing wisdom among scientists, which had placed the rate at around 5 percent. This means obesity is comparable to cigarette smoking as a public health hazard; smoking kills one of five Americans and is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.

The obesity crisis may be less dramatic than the opioid epidemic now gripping the nation, but it is just as deadly. Opioids accounted for around two-thirds of the 64,000 deaths related to drug overdose in 2016. Excess body weight leading to cancer causes about 7 percent of cancer-related deaths, or 40,000 deaths each year. This number doesn’t include deaths from the many other medical conditions associated with obesity. Obese people are between 1.5 to 2.5 times more likely to die of heart disease than people with normal body mass indices (BMIs).

There are also substantial economic losses associated with obesity. The medical costs of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment are estimated at $147 billion in 2008 dollars. Reduced economic productivity adds to these losses. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 11, 2019, 12:39:32 pm
Robert, quite a nice Communist Manifesto you penned here. Too bad you are almost two hundred years late, already done. By Karl Marx.

P.S. My revision of the Groucho Marx (a much smarter Marx) quote:
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 11, 2019, 12:56:59 pm
Not sure what you point is about obesity. Are we to infer that people without health insurance are fit and trim and people with health insurance are overweight and out of shape, all due to moral hazard? Or Republicans are fit and trim and Democrats overweight and out of shape?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 11, 2019, 01:01:43 pm
Not sure what you point is about obesity. Are we to infer that people without health insurance are fit and trim and people with health insurance are overweight and out of shape, all due to moral hazard? Or Republicans are fit and trim and Democrats overweight and out of shape?

This is a grownup discussion. Come back when you outgrow kindergarten logic.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 11, 2019, 01:13:12 pm
This is a grownup discussion. Come back when you outgrow kindergarten logic.
Then what is your point? Or is there one?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 11, 2019, 03:12:04 pm
Miniscule!? If you think 40% is, than you are right:

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2018/rising-obesity-united-states-public-health-crisis

And yet when people try to pass laws that educate the consumer on the content of the food they eat, the right cries about onerous burdens and regulation.  I'm cool with personal responsibility and the value of the judgment of the free market and all that, but for these things to work right, you have to have an *informed* market, and the right actively works to prevent this.  Why?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 11, 2019, 04:11:51 pm
And yet when people try to pass laws that educate the consumer on the content of the food they eat, the right cries about onerous burdens and regulation.  I'm cool with personal responsibility and the value of the judgment of the free market and all that, but for these things to work right, you have to have an *informed* market, and the right actively works to prevent this.  Why?


Why? Because nothing must halt the march of dimes big bucks.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 11, 2019, 04:28:17 pm
Miniscule!? If you think 40% is, than you are right:

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2018/rising-obesity-united-states-public-health-crisis

You have lost me. Are you implying that the reason all these Americans are leading unhealthy lifestyles is because they have health insurance?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 11, 2019, 04:31:45 pm
You have lost me. Are you implying that the reason all these Americans are leading unhealthy lifestyles is because they have health insurance?

One of the myriad contributing factors.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 11, 2019, 04:33:02 pm
And yet when people try to pass laws that educate the consumer on the content of the food they eat, the right cries about onerous burdens and regulation.  I'm cool with personal responsibility and the value of the judgment of the free market and all that, but for these things to work right, you have to have an *informed* market, and the right actively works to prevent this.  Why?

James, you never heard me complaining about that one (in general, unless you are talking about a specific law that I am unaware of).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: D Fuller on June 11, 2019, 06:40:47 pm
And yet when people try to pass laws that educate the consumer on the content of the food they eat, the right cries about onerous burdens and regulation.  I'm cool with personal responsibility and the value of the judgment of the free market and all that, but for these things to work right, you have to have an *informed* market, and the right actively works to prevent this.  Why?

The right isn’t  really opposed to educating the consumer about the food they eat, they were opposed to anything the Obamas were for, so when Michelle made nutrition education one of her causes, they had to be against it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 11, 2019, 10:29:44 pm
This is a grownup discussion. Come back when you outgrow kindergarten logic.

This was unnecessarily abusive. I am banning myself for a day.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 12, 2019, 04:02:48 am
I am banning myself for a day.

I approve of that method.
I used to punish my children with a TV ban when they had been naughty.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 12, 2019, 07:01:50 am
Fast food, fast death. But sugar can make the process more enjoyable.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 12, 2019, 07:28:23 am
I approve of that method.
I used to punish my children with a TV ban when they had been naughty.

Today, I would not notice a tv ban; truth to tell, we didn't watch much other than news and documentaries. And those were always in black/white, and I resisted the purchase of a colour set until pressure from kids seemed to make me feel I was being unkind. Nothing looked as dramatic ever again. Come to think of if, where some very notable, current politicos are concerned, the change to colour would amount to something as devastating as the introduction of talkies to some old movie stars.

:-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 12, 2019, 07:57:46 am
Today, I would not notice a tv ban; truth to tell, we didn't watch much other than news and documentaries. And those were always in black/white, and I resisted the purchase of a colour set until pressure from kids seemed to make me feel I was being unkind. Nothing looked as dramatic ever again. Come to think of if, where some very notable, current politicos are concerned, the change to colour would amount to something as devastating as the introduction of talkies to some old movie stars.

:-)

Hehe. I was trying to be "sarcastic"  ;D

BTW, you reminded me of "The Artist", a movie on the subject of that change from silent to sound movies AOT.
Great movie IMVHO
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 12, 2019, 08:33:05 am
Fast food, fast death. But sugar can make the process more enjoyable.

And a train both quicker and more exciting - if more messy, not that one would have time to notice, all going well.

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 12, 2019, 08:52:03 am
This was unnecessarily abusive. I am banning myself for a day.

I've done the same before.  See ya tomorrow.  er, today?   :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 12, 2019, 09:45:50 am
I approve of that method.
I used to punish my children with a TV ban when they had been naughty.

Good idea, Rab. I've "punished" myself with a 20 year TV ban. I kept thinking it couldn't possibly get any worse. Finally I realized I was wrong and probably always would be wrong about that.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 12, 2019, 09:59:13 am
Good idea, Rab. I've "punished" myself with a 20 year TV ban. I kept thinking it couldn't possibly get any worse.

Hehe.
Your faith was weak. Human "creativity" has no limits.
Is your ban already over?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 12, 2019, 11:14:16 am
No way. It'll continue forever.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on June 13, 2019, 10:49:51 am
One of the myriad contributing factors.

The United States has for the most part created an incredibly comfortable lifestyle with abundant food and huge conveniences in almost every aspect of life. Of course people get a bit heavy and sedentary with that. It’s a normal physiological response to that environment. It’s hard to resist it. Another slice of sour dough bread with Philadelphia cream cheese? Hell yes, I don’t mind if I do.

I lived in the States for 6 months in the early 90’s. It was great but wasn’t really for me I decided. That’s not a judgement on the place. I saw lots to admire.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 13, 2019, 01:28:30 pm
... his dangerous influence as well as his interference...

In another post, Rob, you stated that Trump is universally despised in Europe. So, how do I reconcile the two statements logically? How can he wield any influence and interference if he is so despised? If anything, any attempt on his part would work in the opposite direction. Any support for a particular candidate would backfire, wouldn't it?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 13, 2019, 02:55:06 pm
He's despised by by people who don't like him.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 13, 2019, 03:40:09 pm
In another post, Rob, you stated that Trump is universally despised in Europe. So, how do I reconcile the two statements logically? How can he wield any influence and interference if he is so despised? If anything, any attempt on his part would work in the opposite direction. Any support for a particular candidate would backfire, wouldn't it?

I though I'd explained: he adds a touch of international cachet to guys like Farage and Boris that some in the UK find attractive in that it raises their profile above being little local politicians. That many also hate him is not a conflict of views: there is little that follows logic in Brexit fans. He blew it big time in Scotland when he tried to muscle out a guy who had a property inconveniently where Trump wanted to build one of his golf courses. If there is one thing the Scots universally hate, it's the bully. A state visit there might prove interesting... but hey, the Nats may see him as an influence towards voting for Independence next time round, simply because of Brexit.

In Europe, as distinct from the UK, he is generally seen as a dangerous, unreliable person holding a lot of power. I have yet to pick up a paper here and find a journo (or owner) who cheers for him. He is seen as disruptive, and as indigenous Americans were portrayed as saying: he speaks with forked tongue. Nobody trusts or believes a word he says. You can bet his attitude to NATO does not go down well, and countries, mostly, do pay their agreed percentage of those costs. If that's allowed to crumble or become sterile, God help Europe and America: the balance of world power will shift very dangerously in the view of anyone not particularly enamoured of Putin and the Russian appetite for land. Being an island has long ceased being a viable option, even for America.

Trade is a long-term strategy that takes a lot of work to establish, and here comes this friggin' cowboy with the vision of a street hustler, who tears things up because he didn't write those deals, then as with the one with Canada and Mexico, he settles for another exactly the same, but for minor tweaks, and says it's the best deal ever because he now believes it was his deal! As they say, you couldn't make it up.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 13, 2019, 04:18:01 pm
I though I'd explained: he adds a touch of international cachet to guys like Farage and Boris that some in the UK find attractive in that it raises their profile above being little local politicians...

Boris seems destined to become the next U.K. Prime Minister. So much for “little local politician.”

Possible explanations:

- the U.K. public is so stupid that it falls for what the “cretin” Trump is saying

- Trump has a good sense for what people want
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 13, 2019, 04:25:31 pm
Boris seems destined to become the next U.K. Prime Minister. So much for “little local politician.”

Possible explanations:

- the U.K. public is so stupid that it falls for what the “cretin” Trump is saying

- Trump has a good sense for what people want

Boris could never be more than a little local politician, even if he was POTUS and the Emperor of China combined.

Both your explanations are true, to some extent.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 13, 2019, 04:26:41 pm
Quote
... God help Europe ...Russian appetite for land.

Seriously? When was Europe threatened by Russia? In both WW wars they tried to abstain, seeing it mostly as a fight between capitalists. If anything, it was Europe invading Russia, by Napoleon and Hitler, not the other way around. Russia already has the largest territory on Earth, why would they need more?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on June 13, 2019, 07:45:34 pm
Boris seems destined to become the next U.K. Prime Minister. So much for “little local politician.”

Possible explanations:

- the U.K. public is so stupid that it falls for what the “cretin” Trump is saying

- Trump has a good sense for what people want
Probably Boris and Trump know what the people want to hear and to believe, and a lot of promises are made beyond reason and even lies are told.
a hard Brexit will be very bad for Brittain and might even split it up. We will see.
Boris also wants to make a deal first and solve the problem of the irish border later. Why? Because he and nobody else knows how to arrange it without being a true border between the EU and Brittain.
Instead of dealing with many problems in the country the government was kept busy with Brexit and foremost itself the last three years.
In the mean time companies in Brittain have no certainty, that already has cost a lot of jobs and money. The end of this period is still not on the horizon, or it must be the hard brexit.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on June 13, 2019, 07:53:44 pm
Seriously? When was Europe threatened by Russia? In both WW wars they tried to abstain, seeing it mostly as a fight between capitalists. If anything, it was Europe invading Russia, by Napoleon and Hitler, not the other way around. Russia already has the largest territory on Earth, why would they need more?
As a buffer between them and the evil empire that wanted to over run them.
Stalin would have grabbed all of Germany and more if we were not already there at the end.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 13, 2019, 09:08:07 pm
As a buffer between them and the evil empire that wanted to over run them.
Stalin would have grabbed all of Germany and more if we were not already there at the end.

Well of course; they believed in spoils of war whereas we sought a reconstruction plan.  I cant blame them for this since up until to WW2, spoils of war was the most common thing to do if you won a war.  And this was one reason (note not the only reason, nor the biggest reason, and if you want I can also show historical documentation on this as well) we dropped the bomb on Japan, to keep the Soviets from getting a footprint in the pacific. 

However this does not take away from Slobo's remark.  It was Germany who attacked Russia first and they are only guilty of defending themselves.  With that said, although I am not terribly annoyed by this but certainly feel the Soviets should have given Poland their freedom back. 

Also, although I cant fault them for taking over west Germany, I vehemently despise the Soviets for imposing communism and socialism on the west. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 13, 2019, 09:34:30 pm
It's my practice not to read certain participant's posts so I usually see things when someone else quotes them.  There is a major error in the comment about Russia's role in the first World War.  In the lead up to the war, Russia was allied with France and Great Britain and certainly did not see the impending war as one between capitalists.  Russia had the largest standing army of any European country and began mobilization before any other country as they were concerned about Austria invading Serbia.  This event triggered a mobilization by Germany and it was in fact Russia who initiated hostilities with both Germany and Austria.  Prior to the outbreak in hostilities Germany gave Russia the opportunity to stand down which was refused.  It was in late August of 1914 that the Germans delivered a crushing defeat in the Battle of Tannenburg under the direction of Field Marshall von Hindenburg and General Ludendorff.  After this battle Russia was not a major military factor in the war.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 13, 2019, 10:11:33 pm
Our resident expert on everything, from pharmaceuticals to the Constitution, has now expertly concluded that the WWI was actually caused by Russia.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 14, 2019, 02:39:32 am
... Prior to the outbreak in hostilities Germany gave Russia the opportunity to stand down which was refused...
... After this battle Russia was not a major military factor in the war.
This is more or less what I've read in my history books
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 14, 2019, 03:46:16 am
The history books published and distributed behind the Iron curtain explained it quite differently. Even more when it came to WWII.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 14, 2019, 04:09:48 am
1. Seriously? When was Europe threatened by Russia? In both WW wars they tried to abstain, seeing it mostly as a fight between capitalists. If anything, it was Europe invading Russia, by Napoleon and Hitler, not the other way around. 2. Russia already has the largest territory on Earth, why would they need more?

1. That was then and this is now. To make matters worse, the West insists in making it feel more foe than the other way around. The silly slight of not inviting it to the recent gathering of heads of state attending the events in France regarding WW2 could have been avoided; yes, it wasn't on the "beaches" but neither was France, other than geographically. It, the brave populace - apart from the Resistance - was more interested in drawing up little lists of women whose heads they could shave when it was safe. Meanwhile, Russia lost millions of people. We talk about The Holocaust Six Million endlessly, but seldom give a shit about those many, many more millions who died in Russia at the same hands.

2. Because most of it is empty tundra. Europe is a ready-made industrialised and productive continent - a prize. And think of all those villas in Marbella and Portofino, Capri and the Côte d'Azur! Wanna dacha in a frozen forest instead?

For the Ruskies, the southern shores of France were already prized possessions of the nobility; they made the place, along with some English and a few lost Americans who slipped in from Paris when not writing the next biggest novel.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 14, 2019, 11:38:26 am
Getting back on topic, will President Trump ask Congress for a declaration of war against Iran?  This is how it is supposed to be done but of course is seldom used in recent history.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 14, 2019, 11:39:30 am
Our resident expert on everything, from pharmaceuticals to the Constitution, has now expertly concluded that the WWI was actually caused by Russia.

Does this kind of message serve any purpose? First, he did NOT say what you accuse him of saying, you are deliberately misinterpreting/exaggerating his remarks. Second, if you disagree with his statements, then simply do that. That would add value.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 14, 2019, 01:15:42 pm
Getting back on topic, will President Trump ask Congress for a declaration of war against Iran?  This is how it is supposed to be done but of course is seldom used in recent history.

Lord, I hope not.  The runup to presumed war against Iran is about as blatant as anything I can remember since Iraq.  Hopefully we learned something from that debacle.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 14, 2019, 01:48:27 pm
There is a pattern: demonazing > sanctions > war. Serbia, Iraq...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 14, 2019, 02:41:33 pm
Didn't Stalin and Ribbentrop (of Germany) try to split up Poland before WWII? 

On the other hand, if Germany and other European countries really believed Russia would attack western Europe, they'd be paying more for their defense and not relying on America so much.  Interesting, what I predicted a year or two ago is happening,  Trump is moving 1000 American troops out of Germany into Poland.  Maybe Germany will start paying more for their defense as they're suppose too. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 14, 2019, 02:46:16 pm
There is a pattern: demonazing > sanctions > war. Serbia, Iraq...

Qatar, Iran ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 14, 2019, 02:50:09 pm
Getting back on topic, will President Trump ask Congress for a declaration of war against Iran?  This is how it is supposed to be done but of course is seldom used in recent history.

I know you think Trump is evil. But he isn't going to war with Iran.  The most he might do is destroy a few docks and ships that may have attacked those oil tankers.  I don't believe, constitutionally, the President, as Commander-in-Chief needs, congressional approval to defend shipping interests and allies from military attacks, only if we go to all out war with a country.  As an aside, I wonder if the Saudis were the ones who attacked the tankers, not Iran, to get America involved against Iran, maybe the Israelis. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 14, 2019, 03:41:44 pm
I know you think Trump is evil. But he isn't going to war with Iran.  The most he might do is destroy a few docks and ships that may have attacked those oil tankers.  I don't believe, constitutionally, the President, as Commander-in-Chief needs, congressional approval to defend shipping interests and allies from military attacks, only if we go to all out war with a country.  As an aside, I wonder if the Saudis were the ones who attacked the tankers, not Iran, to get America involved against Iran, maybe the Israelis.

Then you saw the sausage-dog cartoon?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 14, 2019, 06:27:43 pm
Does this kind of message serve any purpose? First, he did NOT say what you accuse him of saying, you are deliberately misinterpreting/exaggerating his remarks. Second, if you disagree with his statements, then simply do that. That would add value.
He is just angry because I am ignoring all of his posts and only responding second hand.  He tries to be too cute by half.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 14, 2019, 06:31:08 pm
I hope it is clear that the views espoused in this thread by some of the more outspoken participants don't represent the views of all Americans.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 14, 2019, 06:32:30 pm
I know you think Trump is evil. But he isn't going to war with Iran.  The most he might do is destroy a few docks and ships that may have attacked those oil tankers.  I don't believe, constitutionally, the President, as Commander-in-Chief needs, congressional approval to defend shipping interests and allies from military attacks, only if we go to all out war with a country.  As an aside, I wonder if the Saudis were the ones who attacked the tankers, not Iran, to get America involved against Iran, maybe the Israelis.
I don't think he is evil, just very stupid and surrounds himself with people who will not challenge him.  All the good people have already left the administration.  The slippery slope of military intervention started only after WWII.  I'm fairly sure that a war declaration took place prior to that.  Of course the US has never been under formal attack aside from terrorist incidents.  We really don't know who attacked those ships and the film clip I saw was about as clear as the Zapruder film of the Kennedy shooting. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 14, 2019, 06:32:41 pm
I hope it is clear that the views espoused in this thread by some of the more outspoken participants don't represent the views of all Americans.

Is there anything under the sun that can be said that represents the views of all Americans?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 14, 2019, 06:35:42 pm
He is just angry because I am ignoring all of his posts and only responding second hand.  He tries to be too cute by half.

At this point, I do not ignore anyone here, not even the pompous pricks, as it is too much fun to read their posts.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Frans Waterlander on June 14, 2019, 07:21:14 pm
Of course the US has never been under formal attack aside from terrorist incidents.
What about Pearl Harbor? Get a grip, Alan! >:( ::)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 14, 2019, 07:31:59 pm
What about Pearl Harbor? Get a grip, Alan! >:( ::)
Hawaii was not a state at the time and I should have clarified that.  The point is the US relied on the separation of oceans for its defense over all the years.  the main point is that there has been NO Congressional declaration of war since 1942 when the US declared war against Romania which was then part of the Axis powers in Europe along with Bulgaria and Hungary which war was also declared.  The Korean War was a UN police action led by the US.  I won't belabor the long history building up to the US involvement in Vietnam.  Look at how much money was sunk into the pacification wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 14, 2019, 08:17:39 pm
I don't think he is evil, just very stupid and surrounds himself with people who will not challenge him.  All the good people have already left the administration.  The slippery slope of military intervention started only after WWII.  I'm fairly sure that a war declaration took place prior to that.  Of course the US has never been under formal attack aside from terrorist incidents.  We really don't know who attacked those ships and the film clip I saw was about as clear as the Zapruder film of the Kennedy shooting. 

I believe the Supreme COurt has already determined that Congressional legislation that provides funding to fight a war is tacit approval of going to war.  Congress can stop any war or military action started by the president by cutting off funding as they did in the 1970's when they stopped funding South VietNam.  Shortly thereafter, the North was able to overrun the South's military defenses. 

Frankly, Congress has avoided making difficult decisions that they should make regarding war.  They prefer to defer to the President because they are cowards who try to avoid political fallout that might occur by taking hard positions.  So over the years, they have granted presidents a lot of deference to start military actions while they look the other way or in fact giving him room to decide on his own with open-ended legislation.  For example, the Congressional  Act to fight terrorists  have been used by three president (Bush 2, Obama and Trump) to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, and a host of other countries.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Trump isn't going to war with Iran.  I suspect he might give them a bloody nose over the ship mining incident.   It will be interesting to see  what the Democrat presidential aspirants will say about it if he does that. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 15, 2019, 04:08:25 am
That "evidence" film was a joke; some of you are supposed to be photographers who understand these things: go look at the angles of the shots, and if they come from a satellite, then for some angles on the action it must have a clear view from the horizon, not above, or be an invisible, silent drone. I see little, if any, signs of flattened perspective such as distance would force.

(Even more unconvincing than the Moon, where I find myself wondering who shot the shot of the first footfall fom that angle, which kinds shows it to be, in fact, at least the second such step onto the surface.  ;-) )

As evidence of anything, it's evidence of poor photography. Or good photography designed to look stolen.

Trump can't go to war; it's his election pledge to bring the troop's back home. You know he keeps his promises.

But look at it this way: after he retires, like all the egos who seek such power, he and family will forever have to forgo privacy and endure the proximity of security agents. Long live anonymity!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on June 15, 2019, 09:57:17 pm
That "evidence" film was a joke;
As evidence of anything, it's evidence of poor photography.

Indeed.  If that's an example of America's state of the art surveillance imagery, I'm woefully disappointed. 

First and foremost, it's interlaced!

The first rule of deceptive imagery is to make it look like crap, in order to hide the deception.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 16, 2019, 07:21:50 am
Indeed.  If that's an example of America's state of the art surveillance imagery, I'm woefully disappointed. 

First and foremost, it's interlaced!

The first rule of deceptive imagery is to make it look like crap, in order to hide the deception.

For all we know, the video could have been shot by some American sailor on a surface ship 5 miles away with his personal iPhone.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: D Fuller on June 16, 2019, 09:24:50 am
For all we know, the video could have been shot by some American sailor on a surface ship 5 miles away with his personal iPhone.

If so, it wouldn’t be interlaced.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: DP on June 16, 2019, 10:05:53 am

https://babylonbee.com/news/nation-confident-government-would-never-lie-about-attacks-on-ships-in-a-gulf

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: DP on June 16, 2019, 10:13:56 am
Didn't Stalin and Ribbentrop (of Germany) try to split up Poland before WWII?
not before UK, France, Germany, Poland and Hungary (yes, these latter 2 happily grabbed some lands - so much for Poles screeching about being a victim year later) gutted CZ in 1938  ;D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 16, 2019, 10:43:57 am
not before UK, France, Germany, Poland and Hungary (yes, these latter 2 happily grabbed some lands - so much for Poles screeching about being a victim year later) gutted CZ in 1938  ;D
Why are we revisiting WWII?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 16, 2019, 11:07:19 am
Why are we revisiting WWII?

The thread's about American politics: anything goes.

:-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 16, 2019, 12:04:04 pm
Why are we revisiting WWII?

Just filling in time til Trump.starts WWIII.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 16, 2019, 12:31:07 pm
Just filling in time til Trump.starts WWIII.
It's the Democrats pushing for conflict with Russia,  not Trump.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 16, 2019, 12:44:06 pm
It's the Democrats pushing for conflict with Russia,  not Trump.
THIS (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/15/us/politics/trump-cyber-russia-grid.html) is not being done by Democrats.  Also, do you have a quote that you can cite about Democrats wanting conflict with Russia?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 16, 2019, 12:45:38 pm
THIS (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/15/us/politics/trump-cyber-russia-grid.html) is not being done by Democrats.  Also, do you have a quote that you can cite about Democrats wanting conflict with Russia?

Or Iran, for that matter.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 16, 2019, 04:25:59 pm
THIS (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/15/us/politics/trump-cyber-russia-grid.html) is not being done by Democrats.  Also, do you have a quote that you can cite about Democrats wanting conflict with Russia?
Where have you been?  Since he was elected, and before, Trump had been trying to establish relations with Putin.  The whole thing with "collusion" claims have been from the Democrats and a few neocon Republicans who have been hostile to Russia and Trump.  Because of that, he had to back off of what he wanted to do with Russia - develop better relations.  To say he wants WWIII is just silly.  Frankly we need to cozy up to Russia as a bulwark against an expanding China.  The "collusion" politics has spoiled the political impetus to do it. 

Regarding Iran, Bart, first he isn't going to war with them. Maybe a strike in response to their attack on the oil ships. In any case, this won't start WWIII.  And I never said this was being pushed by the Democrats.  I acknowledge his cancelling the US-Iran nuclear deal.  That's Trump's decision.    Time will tell whether it was a good decision. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 16, 2019, 04:28:43 pm
Hawaii was not a state at the time and I should have clarified that.  The point is the US relied on the separation of oceans for its defense over all the years.  the main point is that there has been NO Congressional declaration of war since 1942 when the US declared war against Romania which was then part of the Axis powers in Europe along with Bulgaria and Hungary which war was also declared.  The Korean War was a UN police action led by the US.  I won't belabor the long history building up to the US involvement in Vietnam.  Look at how much money was sunk into the pacification wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hawaii was a possession of the USA no different really than Puerto Rico.  If a country attacked the PR today, wouldn't we consider that an act of war?  In any case, Japan attacked our naval forces.  It doesn;t matter they were in Hawaii or on the open seas  That too is an act of war. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 16, 2019, 04:31:12 pm
If so, it wouldn’t be interlaced.

I produce 1080i with my Photoshop Premiere Elements from phone and camera video's clips (4K and otherwise) .  Whenever I try to produce 1080p, the software fails.  We don't know if the video had an in-between step and not taken directly from the phone memory.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 17, 2019, 01:35:47 am
It's the Democrats pushing for conflict with Russia,  not Trump.

True enough - Trump has been happy enough to let Russia consolidate its invasion of Crimea, take over Syria (throwing the Kurds under the bus) etc. Pretty good payoff for a little election help.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 17, 2019, 02:01:47 am
True enough - Trump has been happy enough to let Russia consolidate its invasion of Crimea...

You know that happened in 2014, two years before Trump, right?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 17, 2019, 03:27:11 am
You know that happened in 2014, two years before Trump, right?

Consolidation happens after the event.

But at any rate, without a full-scale war, I see not how that fait accompli can be altered now.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 17, 2019, 03:30:25 am
Consolidation happens after the event.

What he said.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 17, 2019, 09:30:30 am
True enough - Trump has been happy enough to let Russia consolidate its invasion of Crimea, take over Syria (throwing the Kurds under the bus) etc. Pretty good payoff for a little election help.
Crimea is in Europe's back yard.  And they did nothing.  This raises a point.  Whenever America uses its military, you guys complain we're warlike, too quick to shoot. Then when we don;t shoot, you complain we're too pacific.  You're always complaining about what we do.,  Meanwhile you sit on your hands and do nothing.  If you do get involved, we have to drag you into the fight, kicking and screaming all the way.  Don;t you ever get embarrassed?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 17, 2019, 09:37:49 am
Consolidation happens after the event.

But at any rate, without a full-scale war, I see not how that fait accompli can be altered now.

What is this mysterious “consolidation”? It was an event that happened in 2014. End of story. Obama had two years to do something about it and that mysterious “consolidation.” And somehow it is the next president’s fault!?

Now, we both, as most of the world, agree that neither Obama nor Trump could do much about it. The USA also has a weak moral and logical ground to complain. They did a much worse thing helping Kosovo separate from Serbia. Especially since Crimea was Russian for almost two hundred years, before being “gifted” by Krushchov to Ukraine.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 17, 2019, 10:17:26 am
  If you do get involved, we have to drag you into the fight, kicking and screaming all the way. 
Like in Afghanistan, you mean, where UK etc got involved in the US response to 9/11 ?
Quote
Don't you ever get embarrassed?
Naah - just bored with reading "USA USA" every time some folk touch their keyboard. I lived a long time in the US and there are some things to be very proud of. Military meddling is not one of them.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 17, 2019, 10:23:16 am
They did a much worse thing helping Kosovo separate from Serbia. Especially since Crimea was Russian for almost two hundred years, before being “gifted” by Krushchov to Ukraine.
As far as I know the people of Kosovo were happy to be separated from Serbia.
They say that the Serbs made many ugly things in the Bosnian war and had to be bombed to reason.
The Sebrenica massacre and the "ethnic cleansing" among other things.
I wouldn't discuss the subject but I think that has to be said.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 17, 2019, 10:27:31 am
What is this mysterious “consolidation”? It was an event that happened in 2014. End of story. Obama had two years to do something about it and that mysterious “consolidation.” And somehow it is the next president’s fault!?

Now, we both, as most of the world, agree that neither Obama nor Trump could do much about it. The USA also has a weak moral and logical ground to complain. They did a much worse thing helping Kosovo separate from Serbia. Especially since Crimea was Russian for almost two hundred years, before being “gifted” by Krushchov to Ukraine.

Even James Bond knew the Balkans had no solution; so where lies blame, particularly: politics or religion?

Gifts...

Kinda brings up the little matter of Palestine. Might ever right?

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 17, 2019, 10:31:29 am
As far as I know the people of Kosovo were happy to be separated from Serbia.
They say that the Serbs made many ugly things in the Bosnian war and had to be bombed to reason.
The Sebrenica massacre and the "ethnic cleansing" among other things.
I wouldn't discuss the subject but I think that has to be said.


One man's reason is another man's dumb mistake.

Wars are not fought by saints unless little old Joan fits that bill. Silly girl. Should have settled down instead, and not taken to causing umpteen more fatalities on all sides.

Wouldn't have given her a thought except that I'm rereading an old travel tome that I have on the Périgord, something I often do when I think of the apartment selling. Have several such books, but in reality, we always followed our own noses instead. Again, I curse the time wasted on those trips making trannies for stock, time better spent having an even better good time when I could still eat and drink anything my heart desired. Nothing stays the same. There's a song for that too, but you can look it up if you want to do so.

Lucille. The two I know come from Little Richard and Kenny Rogers. I'm sure he does, or at least did. Lucille has nothing to do with things not staying the same. Well, not in my case.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 17, 2019, 11:08:09 am
As far as I know the people of Kosovo were happy to be separated from Serbia...

So were the people of Crimea.

Quote
... They say that the Serbs made many ugly things in the Bosnian war and had to be bombed to reason.
The Sebrenica massacre and the "ethnic cleansing" among other things...

What happened during a civil war in Bosnia (Srebrenica, etc.) was done by ethnic Serbs who lived there for centuries, not the neighboring Serbia as a state. It would be like blaming Germany for something ethnic Germans who live in Austria did. Or Austria for what ethnic Germans do in Italy. In any case, Bosnia is not Kosovo, which was part of Serbia for millennia.

Besides, it is not the bombing we are discussing here, but the secession, which happened nine years after the end of bombing. Note that about a half of the world states have not recognized the secession, some European countries as well.

Here is a comment from the American Society of International Law (emphasis mine):

Quote
... while Kosovo's declaration of independence and its recognition by various states can be justified under existing international law, it is not a clear case. Rather, Kosovo presents a quintessential "tough case," demonstrating the ways in which political interests of states affect how the international law is given effect. How and whether it will be considered a unique case in international law or a precedent for other secessionist movements may depend on how various states interpret the law and facts that gave rise to the declaration.

Note the part about "a precedent for other secessionist movements," which is where my comparison to Crimea comes from.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 17, 2019, 11:22:57 am


Note the part about "a precedent for other secessionist movements," which is where my comparison to Crimea comes from.
Slobodan this is really not personal and, as I said before, I would not discuss the issue here.
There is lot of info everywhere for those interested..
What the Serbs did to the other ethnic groups, what the Belgians to the Congolese, what the Hutu to the Tutsi and the Germans to almost everybody is not easy to digest.
We humans should commit seppuku all together, for a better world. Or just not.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 17, 2019, 12:21:59 pm
Slobodan this is really not personal and, as I said before, I would not discuss the issue here.
There is lot of info everywhere for those interested..
What the Serbs did to the other ethnic groups, what the Belgians to the Congolese, what the Hutu to the Tutsi and the Germans to almost everybody is not easy to digest.
We humans should commit seppuku all together, for a better world. Or just not.


Vote for youself!

I tend to agreed with everybody who agrees with me. The others? They are mistaken, as time will teach them; but kill 'em? No way!

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 17, 2019, 12:39:39 pm
...What the Serbs did to the other ethnic groups...

And what those other ethnic groups did to Serbs. In a civil war or terrorist attacks.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on June 17, 2019, 01:24:57 pm
If you do get involved, we have to drag you into the fight, kicking and screaming all the way.

I suggest, Alan, that you read some history.  Particularly WWII.

Also, interlacing originates in the camera, not in the edit.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 17, 2019, 02:47:13 pm
I suggest, Alan, that you read some history.  Particularly WWII.

Also, interlacing originates in the camera, not in the edit.
I was referring to post World War II.

In any case, Premiere Elements allows you to create a video in interlaced or Progressive. I know when I put in slides I can select 24 or 30 frames per second and then select the output. Also I sometimes down Resolute from 4K video to 2K video which would be 1080. But for some reason 1080p won't assemble while 1080i will. Now the question is if the original was interlaced or Progressive, can you change it over to the opposite when you publish the video? I really don't know.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 17, 2019, 04:52:45 pm
Where have you been?  Since he was elected, and before, Trump had been trying to establish relations with Putin.  The whole thing with "collusion" claims have been from the Democrats and a few neocon Republicans who have been hostile to Russia and Trump.  Because of that, he had to back off of what he wanted to do with Russia - develop better relations.  To say he wants WWIII is just silly.  Frankly we need to cozy up to Russia as a bulwark against an expanding China.  The "collusion" politics has spoiled the political impetus to do it. 

Regarding Iran, Bart, first he isn't going to war with them. Maybe a strike in response to their attack on the oil ships. In any case, this won't start WWIII.  And I never said this was being pushed by the Democrats.  I acknowledge his cancelling the US-Iran nuclear deal.  That's Trump's decision.    Time will tell whether it was a good decision.

This article about a House Committee investigation into Trump's foreign policies may interest you https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/17/house-foreign-affairs-panel-oversight-trump-1365840 (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/17/house-foreign-affairs-panel-oversight-trump-1365840).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 17, 2019, 05:21:33 pm
This article about a House Committee investigation into Trump's foreign policies may interest you https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/17/house-foreign-affairs-panel-oversight-trump-1365840 (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/17/house-foreign-affairs-panel-oversight-trump-1365840).
Not interested in what a  house committee run by the Democrats have to say about it.   If you want to respond to my point, I'd be glad to hear from you.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 17, 2019, 05:38:16 pm
Not interested in what a  house committee run by the Democrats have to say about it.   If you want to respond to my point, I'd be glad to hear from you.


Unless you remove your ear protectors, how do you know that anyone is or is not speaking? And if they are, whether what they have to say is of interest to you?

In the case of the link, save your ears: there was next to nothing in it but entire paragraphs of tautology, at the end of which, I was none the wiser.

Not fake news, no news!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 17, 2019, 05:44:58 pm

Unless you remove your ear protectors, how do you know that anyone is or is not speaking? And if they are, whether what they have to say is of interest to you?

In the case of the link, save your ears: there was next to nothing in it but entire paragraphs of tautology, at the end of which, I was none the wiser.

Not fake news, no news!

Rob, you realize that you second sentence contradicts the first? Or, in other words, confirms Alan’s statement.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 17, 2019, 05:50:12 pm
Not interested in what a  house committee run by the Democrats have to say about it.   If you want to respond to my point, I'd be glad to hear from you.

Do as you like. But it's not a Democratic committee, it is described as bipartisan in the article and one of the main points is how hard the GOP members on it are working because they are worried about Trump's foreign policy moves. I thought it might provide some food for thought, is all.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 17, 2019, 06:10:52 pm
Do as you like. But it's not a Democratic committee, it is described as bipartisan in the article and one of the main points is how hard the GOP members on it are working because they are worried about Trump's foreign policy moves. I thought it might provide some food for thought, is all.
I hope you realize what you are reading in these posts are talking points from Fox News. Not much sense in trying to debate them.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on June 17, 2019, 07:04:35 pm
I was referring to post World War II.

Oh, well then. The greatest, possibly the most important war in history doesn't count. (s)

Quote
In any case, Premiere Elements allows you to create a video in interlaced or Progressive. I know when I put in slides I can select 24 or 30 frames per second and then select the output. Also I sometimes down Resolute from 4K video to 2K video which would be 1080. But for some reason 1080p won't assemble while 1080i will. Now the question is if the original was interlaced or Progressive, can you change it over to the opposite when you publish the video? I really don't know.

Interlacing originates with acquisition - ie the camera.  It is possible to de-interlace footage with software, which is what Premiere is offering you and which is apparent in the poor quality video submitted by the American defense people.  I don't think you can interlace non-interlaced footage.  Nor can I think of a reason why. It's a hack.  An engineering cheat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video

To return to the whatever-it-is topic of this thread: It's interesting that some of America's allies are refusing to interpret the video the way the DOD suggests.


"Germany, in particular, specifically said the Centcom video was not enough to prove Iran is to blame".

“The video is not enough. We can understand what is being shown, sure, but to make a final assessment, this is not enough for me,” German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told reporters in Oslo"

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/448670-us-iran-tensions-deepen-five-things-to-know-about-oil-tanker-attack
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 17, 2019, 07:27:59 pm
Do as you like. But it's not a Democratic committee, it is described as bipartisan in the article and one of the main points is how hard the GOP members on it are working because they are worried about Trump's foreign policy moves. I thought it might provide some food for thought, is all.
It's laziness to post a link to an article or video and tell people to watch it without making its salient points in your post.  Who has time to read every link posted by every TOm Divk and Harry?  You should be making it's basic arguments in your post, then provide the link for reference. 

Thank you for summing it up in your second post. Regarding Republicans who oppose his foreign policies, this has been true from the start from when he ran for President.  Many Republican neocons who got us into Iraq, and want conflict with Russia, have joined Democrats in opposing Trump.  That's why he beat the Republicans who ran against him during the Republican nominations.  These same Republicans hate Trump because he overthrew the Republican (and Democrat) hold on American government.  He wasn't part of the inner circle of politicians allowed to run America.  The "deep state".   remember it was Republicans who originally started the dossier on Trump, not the Democrats.  The Democrats under Hillary Clinton took over after Trump won the Republican nomination.   Main stream Republicans hate Trump.  So anything they do with the Dems such as in that article you linked too are suspect.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 17, 2019, 07:34:14 pm
I hope you realize what you are reading in these posts are talking points from Fox News. Not much sense in trying to debate them.

Then what are you doing here?

Occasionally, just providing links might be useful. Occasionally. But this is a debate between LuLa meembers, not between Fox and MSNBC. Thus it is expected that members shall make their own point, not just link to something. As a minimum, there should be a sentence or paragraph describing the main point one is trying to make or the link is trying to make. Actually, it is a requirement established by the moderator of this site for posting outside links.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 17, 2019, 09:47:48 pm
It's laziness to post a link to an article or video and tell people to watch it without making its salient points in your post.  Who has time to read every link posted by every TOm Divk and Harry?  You should be making it's basic arguments in your post, then provide the link for reference. 


I thought I had said enough in the first instance to peak your interest, but I guess not. The vast majority of written articles contain a short preview in their headline or lead paragraph, so I tend not to want to repeat those, just hint at what the general topic is. To my mind, a click is not a big commitment to make when it has been suggested by someone who is participating in the discussion. I don't see that click as any more onerous than reading a summary that I may write.

Podcast and video links would require some explanation, I agree. Their content is not immediately apparent on a first click.

My reason for sometimes suggesting links to articles or podcasts is as a way of providing longer form information. A lot of what is actually written by people in forums such as these is rarely complete and not usually informative. So I post links to longer pieces written/presented by people knowledgeable in their fields as a way to further the discussion when I feel it has reached an impasse. I assume that some people are interested enough to want to read/hear more and so the links are there as reference. If they don't wish to do so, they don't need to follow the link.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 17, 2019, 09:56:45 pm
I thought I had said enough in the first instance to peak your interest, but I guess not. The vast majority of written articles contain a short preview in their headline or lead paragraph, so I tend not to want to repeat those, just hint at what the general topic is. To my mind, a click is not a big commitment to make when it has been suggested by someone who is participating in the discussion. I don't see that click as any more onerous than reading a summary that I may write.

Podcast and video links would require some explanation, I agree. Their content is not immediately apparent on a first click.

My reason for sometimes suggesting links to articles or podcasts is as a way of providing longer form information. A lot of what is actually written by people in forums such as these is rarely complete and not usually informative. So I post links to longer pieces written/presented by people knowledgeable in their fields as a way to further the discussion when I feel it has reached an impasse. I assume that some people are interested enough to want to read/hear more and so the links are there as reference. If they don't wish to do so, they don't need to follow the link.

Robert, I'm more interested in what your thoughts are then some writer from CNN or Fox for that matter.  Your summary shows what you consider important.  I want to hear about your guideposts about life and politics and photography.  That's what I want to know and respond too; not some other person's beliefs.  Anyway, I'm glad you did summarize in your follow-up post.  And I was able to respond to it without reading the original linked site.  Simple and more personal.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 17, 2019, 09:59:42 pm
I hope you realize what you are reading in these posts are talking points from Fox News. Not much sense in trying to debate them.

Providing links to longer form written/audio/video material is really by way of making sources of information available generally and isn't necessarily just aimed at the quoted writer. My assumption is that people engage in these kinds of conversations to learn something. I mean, people can't just be here because they think they're going to badger or insult someone else into seeing things their way. Who has that kind of time to waste. I occasionally come across articles or podcasts or videos and now and then it strikes me that one of those is relevant to the topic under discussion, and so I provide a link to that info under the assumption that people want to know more. Others have provided links to sources that I have gone on to look at and I very much appreciate it. It's not possible to curate everything out on your own.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 17, 2019, 10:21:38 pm
I hope you realize what you are reading in these posts are talking points from Fox News. Not much sense in trying to debate them.

That's a very dismissive statement.  Even insulting.  As if conservative thinkers can't think for themselves.  Only you can think for yourself.  In fact, the accusation you make I always hear on liberal outlets.  So it seems that's where you get your talking points.  If you really want to show what you know, make a cogent point against a conservative argument rather than accusing the writer of plagiarism.   Otherwise you sound like you're reading a CNN script rather than thinking independently. . 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 18, 2019, 10:27:27 am
That "evidence" film was a joke; some of you are supposed to be photographers who understand these things: go look at the angles of the shots, and if they come from a satellite, then for some angles on the action it must have a clear view from the horizon, not above, or be an invisible, silent drone. I see little, if any, signs of flattened perspective such as distance would force.

(Even more unconvincing than the Moon, where I find myself wondering who shot the shot of the first footfall fom that angle, which kinds shows it to be, in fact, at least the second such step onto the surface.  ;-) )

As evidence of anything, it's evidence of poor photography. Or good photography designed to look stolen.

Trump can't go to war; it's his election pledge to bring the troop's back home. You know he keeps his promises.

But look at it this way: after he retires, like all the egos who seek such power, he and family will forever have to forgo privacy and endure the proximity of security agents. Long live anonymity!

The photos were shot from an American helicopter.  They didn't provide the distance.  The two pictures in this article do appear to show the same boat indicating it was Iranian.  Here are improved photos.  Probably Photoshopped so we especially can argue about that.  :) Regarding photos from the moon, they were shot with a Hasselblad 6x6 film camera, I believe. So obviously, America doesn;t always use it's own designed equipment. 
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/17/us-military-releases-new-images-of-japanese-oil-tanker-attack.html
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 18, 2019, 10:31:11 am
The picture with the notations taken from the helicopter seemed to indicate that the camera was aiming downwards 20 degrees from horizontal.  See the <-20 on the left.  Not too sure what the other markings mean.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 18, 2019, 04:37:51 pm
I'll apologize in advance because I'm about to provide another link to a lengthy podcast: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/06/730339596/uaes-prince-mohammed-bin-zayed-s-growing-influence-on-the-u-s (https://www.npr.org/2019/06/06/730339596/uaes-prince-mohammed-bin-zayed-s-growing-influence-on-the-u-s). There is also a transcript provided but I don't know if it a complete transcript of the interview.

The subject matter is about how Pres Trump on many occasions seems to have taken foreign policy advice from the crown prince of the U.A.E. in opposition to his own advisors. The prince in question is good friends with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia and both are avowed enemies of Iran. The interviewee assigns the increasing war of words against Iran to be partly because of their influence. The podcast give examples of where their advice is in opposition to the advice of US intelligence agencies. There are some interesting tidbits. U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia seem to be making overtures to Israel and UAE and Israel already have close ties in the security and military areas. News to me. The crown princes have done a good job convincing the US that the muslim brotherhood are "terrorists". This is odd on the surface because the brotherhood is a great backer of elections and as hereditary leaders, they are both kind of against elections. It seems odd for the US to be against elections but it wouldn't be the first time that they back non-obvious believers in democracy. This pattern would at least make one a little suspicious of the demonization of Iran. I mean, the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, weren't they, or have they re-written the history books.

Anyway, my cynical comments aside, the podcast is very informative re long-term trends and politics in the area.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 18, 2019, 04:55:01 pm
I'll apologize in advance because I'm about to provide another link to a lengthy podcast: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/06/730339596/uaes-prince-mohammed-bin-zayed-s-growing-influence-on-the-u-s (https://www.npr.org/2019/06/06/730339596/uaes-prince-mohammed-bin-zayed-s-growing-influence-on-the-u-s). There is also a transcript provided but I don't know if it a complete transcript of the interview.

The subject matter is about how Pres Trump on many occasions seems to have taken foreign policy advice from the crown prince of the U.A.E. in opposition to his own advisors. The prince in question is good friends with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia and both are avowed enemies of Iran. The interviewee assigns the increasing war of words against Iran to be partly because of their influence. The podcast give examples of where their advice is in opposition to the advice of US intelligence agencies. There are some interesting tidbits. U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia seem to be making overtures to Israel and UAE and Israel already have close ties in the security and military areas. News to me. The crown princes have done a good job convincing the US that the muslim brotherhood are "terrorists". This is odd on the surface because the brotherhood is a great backer of elections and as hereditary leaders, they are both kind of against elections. It seems odd for the US to be against elections but it wouldn't be the first time that they back non-obvious believers in democracy. This pattern would at least make one a little suspicious of the demonization of Iran. I mean, the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, weren't they, or have they re-written the history books.

Anyway, my cynical comments aside, the podcast is very informative re long-term trends and politics in the area.

For whatever reason, Robert, Saudi Arabia has long had an incomprehensible (to me at least) hold on the hearts of America's leaders.  I suppose that it was energy-related for awhile, but one could hope that with our newfound energy-independence via fracking, that there could at least be some silver lining to the rape of our ecology, but seems not to be so.   The case can be made that Iraq is the single largest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam (and potentially of the entire post WWI era), but we seem to have learned very, very little from it. 

The weird thing is that (and not to turn this into Trump bashing) Trump and his core group seem much more likely to want to do deals with the ME as opposed to starting wars, but then he goes and puts lunatics like Bolton and evangelicals like Pompeo in charge, who never met a war they didn't like, and embrace an insane Biblical view of Israel, respectively.  It's really quite frightening.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 18, 2019, 04:55:22 pm
Rob, you realize that you second sentence contradicts the first? Or, in other words, confirms Alan’s statement.


I don't think so. He simply refuses to listen to, or absorb the information from a specific set of opinions. Unless he gives them a hearing, how can he judge the value therein? He has no idea what that will be.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 18, 2019, 05:26:04 pm
The photos were shot from an American helicopter.  They didn't provide the distance.  The two pictures in this article do appear to show the same boat indicating it was Iranian.  Here are improved photos.  Probably Photoshopped so we especially can argue about that.  :) Regarding photos from the moon, they were shot with a Hasselblad 6x6 film camera, I believe. So obviously, America doesn;t always use it's own designed equipment. 
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/17/us-military-releases-new-images-of-japanese-oil-tanker-attack.html

Whether the shots of the "first footfall" were shot with a special 'blad or adapted Nikon, neither of which are American cameras, is not the point; the point is this: since shot from a position outwith that space vehicle, and as the drones were still in Captain Kirk's locker, then somebody else took that first step to get to camera position, not the cat in clown's diver's clothing playing the part for said camera.

Of course, as it was all shot in a crater on Lanzarote just next to another one in which was cultivated the traditional single vine of Malvasia, it remains academic...  They had a helluva time setting up the trampoline beneath the ash; every shot but three was ruined because of the rhythmic, vibrating patterns of the particles rising and falling back down in full accordance with Earthly gravitational norms. It was finally resolved through careful, traditional motion film retouching techniques back in NASA laboratories.

Don't you just love the power of photographs?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 18, 2019, 05:34:48 pm
For whatever reason, Robert, Saudi Arabia has long had an incomprehensible (to me at least) hold on the hearts of America's leaders.  I suppose that it was energy-related for awhile, but one could hope that with our newfound energy-independence via fracking, that there could at least be some silver lining to the rape of our ecology, but seems not to be so.   The case can be made that Iraq is the single largest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam (and potentially of the entire post WWI era), but we seem to have learned very, very little from it. 
I suspect that a considerable amount of support for Saudi Arabia is a result of the anti-Iran focus of their government.  This is the meme in the whole Middle East where you have various branches of Islam, a small (area wise) Jewish state and sprinkled among these are a number of smaller Christian groups.  Back in the mid-1990s our next door neighbor who was French worked at the World Bank and Iran was one of the countries he regularly visited.  It was always illuminating to talk with him about how misunderstood the country was then (and probably still is).  Most everyone who could afford it watched pirated US television programs and wore US branded blue jeans.  It was only the theocrats who Khomeni brought into power when the Shah was overthrown who were virulently anti-American.  Maybe there are no good answers for this part of the world other than to get out and let them fend for themselves.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 18, 2019, 05:34:55 pm
I'll apologize in advance because I'm about to provide another link to a lengthy podcast: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/06/730339596/uaes-prince-mohammed-bin-zayed-s-growing-influence-on-the-u-s (https://www.npr.org/2019/06/06/730339596/uaes-prince-mohammed-bin-zayed-s-growing-influence-on-the-u-s). There is also a transcript provided but I don't know if it a complete transcript of the interview.

The subject matter is about how Pres Trump on many occasions seems to have taken foreign policy advice from the crown prince of the U.A.E. in opposition to his own advisors. The prince in question is good friends with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia and both are avowed enemies of Iran. The interviewee assigns the increasing war of words against Iran to be partly because of their influence. The podcast give examples of where their advice is in opposition to the advice of US intelligence agencies. There are some interesting tidbits. U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia seem to be making overtures to Israel and UAE and Israel already have close ties in the security and military areas. News to me. The crown princes have done a good job convincing the US that the muslim brotherhood are "terrorists". This is odd on the surface because the brotherhood is a great backer of elections and as hereditary leaders, they are both kind of against elections. It seems odd for the US to be against elections but it wouldn't be the first time that they back non-obvious believers in democracy. This pattern would at least make one a little suspicious of the demonization of Iran. I mean, the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, weren't they, or have they re-written the history books.

Anyway, my cynical comments aside, the podcast is very informative re long-term trends and politics in the area.

American Presidents listening to our CIA has not boded well for us.,  May I remind you it was our CIA that overthrew the elected government of Iran and installed the Shah who favored us better.  That led years later to his overthrowing by the Mullahs, their holding American hostages for over a year, the loss of the second presidential term of our Carter because of the hostages,  and our present problems with a clerical Iran.  It was also the CIA who said Saddam has WMD's in Iraq leading to our 2nd war there.  Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood has avowed to destroy Jews and Israel.  Also, Morsi. a Muslim Brotherhood leader, tried to rough house Egyptian democracy when he and the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt. 

You don't seem to be up-to-speed on these issues.  I wouldn't waste my time on an obviously prejudiced podcast.  Frankly, all Presidents should be wary of our own CIA.  If Obama was still president, you would be telling us how bad the American CIA is.  But since Trump is president, anything that opposes Trump is good in your book even if bad. 

Having said all that, I suspect that Israel is secretly working with Saudi Arabia to undermine their common enemy, Iran.  So Trump is listening to Israel when he listens to Saudi's. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 18, 2019, 06:41:10 pm
... Frankly, all Presidents should be wary of our own CIA.  If Obama was still president, you would be telling us how bad the American CIA is.  But since Trump is president, anything that opposes Trump is good in your book even if bad... 

Just look how virulently anti-Trump the former CIA director is. People like that (and like Comey in the FBI) are still there.

The role of CIA is not to formulate foreign policy, but to provide information to those who are elected to do so. Those providing the information are trying to insert their own slant to it.

I worked in the American embassy in Belgrade for seven years. I saw first-hand how information is gathered and interpreted at the grass-root stage, based on a particular embassy officer's worldview or his/her idea of which view is in vogue in Washington and what is going to get them promoted. I did not have access to the classified information, i.e., the final version of the report, but, as I said, I had a pretty good insight in the origins.

In other words, info coming from embassies, intelligence agencies, etc. should not be treated as the gospel, but just as one of the facets necessary for those elected to formulate foreign policy.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 18, 2019, 06:44:37 pm
It was also the CIA who said Saddam has WMD's in Iraq leading to our 2nd war there.

Really? That's not how I recall it, and so doesn't the CIA's 2002 intelligence assessment:

https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-full-version-of-the-cias-2002-intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq-2015-3

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 18, 2019, 07:07:50 pm
Just look how virulently anti-Trump the former CIA director is. People like that (and like Comey in the FBI) are still there.

The problem you and others have is that you refuse to accept the *reasons why* upper level professionals in economics, journalism, international relations etc. are virulently anti-Trump.  There's a reason why newspapers like the Dallas Morning News, which had endorsed the conservative candidate for 50 years, refused to endorse Trump.  There's a reason why apolitical appointees that have served in D and R administrations refuse to support Trump, and it's not because he's "shaking up the establishment" or "draining the swamp."   It's because he's utterly incompetent and not fit for the office.  He's proudly ignorant and refuses to dig deep into policy, and he is incapable of consistency on the world stage. 

But, you say, "I like what he does.  I like deregulation and smaller government.  I think the border is a serious problem.  And for some reason I think he's responsible for the economy even though it's been on the exact same trajectory for 6 years now."   The thing is, you can have all of these things *without* electing someone patently unsuited for the job, but a faction of people *chose* this guy, and people that know better are incredulous. IT's not that they have betrayed conservative ideals, it's that *Donald Trump is incompetent.*
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 18, 2019, 07:09:56 pm
The problem you and others have is that you refuse to accept the *reasons why* upper level professionals in economics, journalism, international relations etc. are virulently anti-Trump.  There's a reason why newspapers like the Dallas Morning News, which had endorsed the conservative candidate for 50 years, refused to endorse Trump.  There's a reason why apolitical appointees that have served in D and R administrations refuse to support Trump, and it's not because he's "shaking up the establishment" or "draining the swamp."   It's because he's utterly incompetent and not fit for the office.  He's proudly ignorant and refuses to dig deep into policy, and he is incapable of consistency on the world stage. 

But, you say, "I like what he does.  I like deregulation and smaller government.  I think the border is a serious problem.  And for some reason I think he's responsible for the economy even though it's been on the exact same trajectory for 6 years now."   The thing is, you can have all of these things *without* electing someone patently unsuited for the job, but a faction of people *chose* this guy, and people that know better are incredulous.

The alternative was Hillary Clinton. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 18, 2019, 07:14:31 pm
The alternative was Hillary Clinton.

Who would have been a better choice.  A fact which at this point is painfully obvious.  Honestly, I can't even figure out what the complaint would be now.  Before it was how you can't trust her - she lies.  Or how her Clinton Foundation was supposedly corrupt. Or OMG her emails.  I mean, Trump has done all of those things and far worse just since assuming office.  And of course his supporters don't care now.  Surprise.  The debt ceiling?  Non issue.  Unauthorized personal electronic device? So what. Trump Foundation?  Actually forced to dissolve under court supervision.  And on and on and on and on.

The hypocrisy is astounding. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: BobShaw on June 18, 2019, 07:17:24 pm
American Presidents listening to our CIA has not boded well for us., 
True, but presidents as far back as Johnson were told they couldn't win the Vietnam war, but generals said the solution was more money, bombs and bodies.
Invading other countries that have not invited them has not worked out well for the US (except Hawaii of course).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 18, 2019, 07:19:26 pm
Who would have been a better choice.  A fact which at this point is painfully obvious.  Honestly, I can't even figure out what the complaint would be now.  Before it was how you can't trust her - she lies.  Or how her Clinton Foundation was supposedly corrupt. Or OMG her emails.  I mean, Trump has done all of those things and far worse just since assuming office.  And of course his supporters don't care now.  Surprise.  The debt ceiling?  Non issue.  Unauthorized personal electronic device? So what. Trump Foundation?  Actually forced to dissolve under court supervision.  And on and on and on and on.

The hypocrisy is astounding. 

She lost.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 18, 2019, 07:23:59 pm
She lost.

The USA lost.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 18, 2019, 07:24:40 pm
The problem you and others have is that you refuse to accept the *reasons why* SOME IN THE upper level professionals in economics, journalism, international relations etc. are virulently anti-Trump....

This explains why we have a problem with what SOME say. Their "reasons" are exactly why people like Trump.

Quote
...But, you say, "I like what he does...

You bet. And would like him to do more of that,  without being sabotaged every step of the way.

Quote
.. I think the border is a serious problem...

Of course.

Quote
... And for some reason I think he's responsible for the economy even though it's been on the exact same trajectory for 6 years now."...

I think I posted before that we tend to give too much credit to presidents for the state of the economy. So you won't have me subscribed to the above. However, the above contains a fallacy that needs to be addressed: trajectories do not last forever. Given that the doomsday scenario predicted a market crash and deep recession in case he is elected, continuing the trajectory is a success.

Quote
...a faction of people *chose* this guy...

A faction!? Just the majority of people in the majority of states.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 18, 2019, 07:25:32 pm
The USA lost.

We are doing just fine, thank you.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 18, 2019, 07:29:38 pm
Trump tax legislation gave a boost to the economy by adding more profits.  Also, less taxes and more spending always boosts the economy.  Of course, deficits and debt have grown and there will be a penalty at some time for our profligacy. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 18, 2019, 07:45:12 pm
... I mean, Trump has done all of those things and far worse just since assuming office...

Here is an idea: perhaps you guys should start an investigation into those horrible crimes. You know, spend a couple of years and millions of dollars, maybe you will find something?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 18, 2019, 09:00:13 pm
She lost.

This is like when a 3 year old just plugs their ears and screams that they can't hear you.   That she lost isn't the point.  That Donald Trump is the living embodiment of everything that people claimed to dislike about Hillary, but suddenly that doesn't matter - that's the point.  It's not about Hillary. She's done.  It's about looking inward and deciding what your price is.  For far too many of you, it's disturbingly low.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 18, 2019, 09:05:03 pm
Here is an idea: perhaps you guys should start an investigation into those horrible crimes. You know, spend a couple of years and millions of dollars, maybe you will find something?

A sound idea.  I figure we have 4 or 5 more investigations before we hit the level of inanity that we did over Benghazi.  Or the Clinton Foundation.  Then again, Clinton actually testified under oath to a hostile committee.  And the Clinton Foundation continues on to this day.  Meanwhile Trump is scared to testify under oath and his "Foundation" is forcibly shuttered.

But nevertheless, Clinton's still probably guilty and going after Trump is still a witch hunt.   Good Lord.   ::)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 18, 2019, 09:06:58 pm
This explains why we have a problem with what SOME say. Their "reasons" are exactly why people like Trump.


They like that he refuses to read intel briefings?  That he consults with the likes of Hannity on policy?  That our allies have zero confidence in the messages that come out of the White House?  Or State, or wherever?  No, I suspect that the things they like are that he's mean to liberals and "talks like they do."  That's sort of pathetic.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 18, 2019, 09:09:51 pm
Oh, by the way, James, your presidential candidate, AOC, is so much more qualified and suited for the job, right? I mean, in your view, after Trump, even a retard like her can’t be worse, right? 😉

P.S. political teasing aside, I hope we are still friends :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 18, 2019, 09:23:23 pm
Oh, by the way, James, your presidential candidate, AOC, is so much more qualified and suited for the job, right? I mean, in your view, after Trump, even a retard like her can’t be worse, right? 😉

P.S. political teasing aside, I hope we are still friends :)

FWIW, I didn't vote for Obama in '12 because I saw his expansion of drone warfare and his embrace of things like the surveillance state and the Patriot Act to not only be directly opposed to his campaign promises, but more importantly because they are directly in opposition to what I believe is both morally right and Constitutionally legal.  So no, I'm not an AOC fan at all.  I think she's a reactionary that plays primarily to an ill-informed base, and lacks a basic understanding of the things she's trying to solve.  Of the current candidates I prefer Buttigieg and Kamala Harris on the left, and on the right would have voted for Weld without reservation had he stuck it out and primaried Trump.

Here's the thing.  As I said (or at least implied) in the opening round of this part of the discussion, my problem isn't with things like lower taxes, border control, or other conservative priorities.  I may not place them as high up on the importance scale as conservatives do, but I don't find them morally or legally problematic in concept.  What I do have a very large problem with is putting my faith in someone who, whether by ignorance or design, plays to a fringe in words and deeds, thinks they already know everything, and is hostage to his or her own ego.  I think that's a recipe for poor decision making, and when you're the President of the USA, your poor decisions could, literally, bring about the end of the world. 

And yeah - of course we're friends.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 18, 2019, 09:52:14 pm
This is like when a 3 year old just plugs their ears and screams that they can't hear you.   That she lost isn't the point.  That Donald Trump is the living embodiment of everything that people claimed to dislike about Hillary, but suddenly that doesn't matter - that's the point.  It's not about Hillary. She's done.  It's about looking inward and deciding what your price is.  For far too many of you, it's disturbingly low.

Hillary may have had us at war with Russia by now had she become president.  Trump sees Russia as a natural ally, a bulwark against China who is our real future adversary.  While not yet resolved, the North Koreans have stopped testing ICBM's and nuclear bomb tests.  More than many past presidents have accomplished. Trump has strengthened our military and started to cruise the South China Sea which Obama stopped and China therefore built up those islands as military bases and threatened our allies there.  He's pressed NATO allies to up their defense spending something past presidents have not been able to do although they tried.  He's passed new tax legislation and reduced regulations that's helping make our economy boom.  His tariffs have challenged China's theft of intellectual property and other predatory trade practices.  While not yet resolved, again he's trying to solve something past presidents have avoided.  He's done all these things practically by himself with little Congressional support while being challenged every day by the entrenched political and media classes.   If Hillary had won, and done the things he's doing, she'd be praised as a fearless genius.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 18, 2019, 09:56:30 pm
American Presidents listening to our CIA has not boded well for us.,  May I remind you it was our CIA that overthrew the elected government of Iran and installed the Shah who favored us better.  That led years later to his overthrowing by the Mullahs, their holding American hostages for over a year, the loss of the second presidential term of our Carter because of the hostages,  and our present problems with a clerical Iran.  It was also the CIA who said Saddam has WMD's in Iraq leading to our 2nd war there.  Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood has avowed to destroy Jews and Israel.  Also, Morsi. a Muslim Brotherhood leader, tried to rough house Egyptian democracy when he and the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt. 

You don't seem to be up-to-speed on these issues.  I wouldn't waste my time on an obviously prejudiced podcast.  Frankly, all Presidents should be wary of our own CIA.  If Obama was still president, you would be telling us how bad the American CIA is.  But since Trump is president, anything that opposes Trump is good in your book even if bad. 

Having said all that, I suspect that Israel is secretly working with Saudi Arabia to undermine their common enemy, Iran.  So Trump is listening to Israel when he listens to Saudi's.

What a peculiar reaction. You think it's a good thing for the President to ignore the USA's own intelligence agencies? Maybe he should disband them, save some money. You think it's ok to take advice and direction from other countries? The Saudi royal family are the good guys now, despite the odd dismembered journalist?

This isn't serious discussion. This is drunk bar talk. Your "founding fathers" are probably turning over in their graves.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 18, 2019, 10:06:44 pm
Hillary may have had us at war with Russia by now had she become president.  Trump sees Russia as a natural ally, a bulwark against China who is our real future adversary.  While not yet resolved, the North Koreans have stopped testing ICBM's and nuclear bomb tests.  More than many past presidents have accomplished. Trump has strengthened our military and started to cruise the South China Sea which Obama stopped and China therefore built up those islands as military bases and threatened our allies there.  He's pressed NATO allies to up their defense spending something past presidents have not been able to do although they tried.  He's passed new tax legislation and reduced regulations that's helping make our economy boom.  His tariffs have challenged China's theft of intellectual property and other predatory trade practices.  While not yet resolved, again he's trying to solve something past presidents have avoided.  He's done all these things practically by himself with little Congressional support while being challenged every day by the entrenched political and media classes.   If Hillary had won, and done the things he's doing, she'd be praised as a fearless genius.

I'm sure that he says he's done all that.

Your leading statement is odd. How can Russia be a bulwark against China? Russia's economy is puny, they are not a world player, Trump just thinks it is, probably because they are the only place on earth that is willing to lend him money. No US bank will touch him because he doesn't pay back loans. Oh wait, does that make him smart?

Why is China a future adversary? They are a current major trading partner is what they are.

Why does the US need to increase its military spending when its armed forces are already the size of the next 5 (10?) countries' forces combined? Do you need your military to be the size of the next 20 countries' combined? 30? When will you feel safe?

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 18, 2019, 10:18:02 pm
Why is China a future adversary? They are a current major trading partner is what they are...

This is a kindergarten talk*

*just referencing your “drunk bar talk” ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 18, 2019, 10:29:08 pm
What a peculiar reaction. You think it's a good thing for the President to ignore the USA's own intelligence agencies? Maybe he should disband them, save some money. You think it's ok to take advice and direction from other countries? The Saudi royal family are the good guys now, despite the odd dismembered journalist?

This isn't serious discussion. This is drunk bar talk. Your "founding fathers" are probably turning over in their graves.

Unil Trump, most liberals hated the CIA and complained constantly about how evil they were getting us into dangerous situations like Cuba Bay of Pigs invasion that almost lead to WWIII, or the Shah of Iran fiasco leading to the Mullahs.  Now that Trump takes what they say and do with a grain of salt, these same liberals suddenly are heaping praise on the CIA almost making them infallible.  It's pathetic. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 18, 2019, 10:34:42 pm
I'm sure that he says he's done all that.

Your leading statement is odd. How can Russia be a bulwark against China? Russia's economy is puny, they are not a world player, Trump just thinks it is, probably because they are the only place on earth that is willing to lend him money. No US bank will touch him because he doesn't pay back loans. Oh wait, does that make him smart?

Why is China a future adversary? They are a current major trading partner is what they are.

Why does the US need to increase its military spending when its armed forces are already the size of the next 5 (10?) countries' forces combined? Do you need your military to be the size of the next 20 countries' combined? 30? When will you feel safe?




Not because of their economy but due to their military prowess through nuclear arms and other sophisticated weapons.  Also, their long border with China and large army.    Having Russian troops along that border with friendly relations with America will help hold China in check.  But first, we have to turn around our relations with them.  Because of the constant collusion charges against Trump all for political reasons, he has be unable to do that hurting American security interests. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 18, 2019, 10:45:43 pm
...Do you need your military to be the size of the next 20 countries' combined? 30?

Of course. In the next world war, we might need to fight all 20-30 of them, given the current state of animosity toward the US ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 19, 2019, 12:08:48 am
Of course. In the next world war, we might need to fight all 20-30 of them, given the current state of animosity toward the US ;)

Regrettably, Trump is not helping to counteract that sentiment.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 19, 2019, 04:23:32 am
Oh, by the way, James, your presidential candidate, AOC, is so much more qualified and suited for the job, right? I mean, in your view, after Trump, even a retard like her can’t be worse, right? 😉

P.S. political teasing aside, I hope we are still friends :)

Since when has AOC been a presidential candidate? More fake news?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 19, 2019, 04:44:03 am
Since when has AOC been a presidential candidate? More fake news?

Unfortunately :-(
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 19, 2019, 05:55:05 am
This explains why we have a problem with what SOME say. Their "reasons" are exactly why people like Trump.

You bet. And would like him to do more of that,  without being sabotaged every step of the way.

Of course.

I think I posted before that we tend to give too much credit to presidents for the state of the economy. So you won't have me subscribed to the above. However, the above contains a fallacy that needs to be addressed: trajectories do not last forever. Given that the doomsday scenario predicted a market crash and deep recession in case he is elected, continuing the trajectory is a success.

A faction!? Just the majority of people in the majority of states.

Really? I though that the number of individual votes was agaist him, but the US sytem of grouping them together worked to his advantage.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 19, 2019, 06:37:30 am
Really? I though that the number of individual votes was agaist him, but the US sytem of grouping them together worked to his advantage.

Rob

Yes - that is what Slobo said. You can win 2 votes to 1 in 3 states, and lose a million to one in the 4th, and still win the election (numbers exaggerated, obvs, put the point is the same!!)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 19, 2019, 07:04:14 am

Not because of their economy but due to their military prowess through nuclear arms and other sophisticated weapons.  Also, their long border with China and large army.    Having Russian troops along that border with friendly relations with America will help hold China in check.  But first, we have to turn around our relations with them.  Because of the constant collusion charges against Trump all for political reasons, he has be unable to do that hurting American security interests.

You believe that Russia on your side? Is this anything other than wishful thinking?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 19, 2019, 07:22:12 am
Unil Trump, most liberals hated the CIA and complained constantly about how evil they were getting us into dangerous situations like Cuba Bay of Pigs invasion that almost lead to WWIII, or the Shah of Iran fiasco leading to the Mullahs.  Now that Trump takes what they say and do with a grain of salt, these same liberals suddenly are heaping praise on the CIA almost making them infallible.  It's pathetic.

This is non-argument. It's entirely irrelevant what "liberals" thought (or think for that matter) of the CIA. I certainly don't speak for American "liberals". I can see however what they might have had against the incursions into other countries by the CIA in the past. This is not directly connected to the intelligence that they gathered (or gather now), which can still be useful information on which to base decisions.

So what you seem to be saying is that it's ok for Trump to take foreign policy advice from the crown prince's of religious dictatorships instead of his own employees because that pisses "liberals" off, and that makes you feel good.

You asked for my personal views at one point. I don't regard my views on these matters as even close to relevant, and they're certainly not important. This is mostly why I tend to provide links to material provided by very knowledgeable people and it confuses me why you don't want to be exposed to them. But my very personal view of this issue anyway, coming from my irrelevant gut feel, is that the crown prince's of Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. and Putin are wily international operators and Trump is a babe in the woods and they're playing him like a puppet.

What leader hires his family as his chief aides and consultants? What knowledge did any of them have of the world? What leader leaves large areas of his own important services without appointed bosses (Pentagon is the latest)? What leader goes through appointees as rapidly as he does? Who would invest in a company when the CEO generated more senior staff turnover than a pancake house?

Please don't reply to this with another "What about Obama, or what about Hilary or even more silly What about AOC?" I don't care about any of them.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 19, 2019, 08:53:42 am
You believe that Russia on your side? Is this anything other than wishful thinking?

It's 'naive' (to put it mildly) to think so.

BTW, they are competitors to the USA for delivering Natural Gas.
So Europe can now choose the cheaper or more reliable supplier (whichever is more relevant at a certain moment in time), depending on the European strategic goals. The USA has become an increasingly unreliable partner, since it started demonstrating that it will unilaterally pull out of trade agreements and other treaties.

But then, there's not much in the constitution about that.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 19, 2019, 08:57:17 am
[...] the crown prince's of Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. and Putin are wily international operators and Trump is a babe in the woods and they're playing him like a puppet.

+2

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 19, 2019, 09:06:17 am
Yes, and Europe always has been so successful at international relations. especially with regard to Germany and Russia.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 19, 2019, 09:16:19 am
It's 'naive' (to put it mildly) to think so.

BTW, they are competitors to the USA for delivering Natural Gas.
So Europe can now choose the cheaper or more reliable supplier (whichever is more relevant at a certain moment in time), depending on the European strategic goals. The USA has become an increasingly unreliable partner, since it started demonstrating that it will unilaterally pull out of trade agreements and other treaties.

But then, there's not much in the constitution about that.

Cheers,
Bart


Trump is more aware of the potential security issues than Germany regarding the gas line currently being installed from Russia that Europe will have to depend on  in the future.  How will Europe stand up to Russia in a pinch when they can threaten shutting off your heat?  Yet you and others accuse Trump as being naive in dealing with Russia.  You'll put your faith in Russia over America when we're in your country defending you against Russia?  What naivete and hypocrisy. 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-13/why-world-worries-about-russia-s-natural-gas-pipeline-quicktake
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 19, 2019, 09:25:15 am
+2

Cheers,
Bart


+3

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 19, 2019, 09:40:25 am
You'll put your faith in Russia over America   

Yep. That's the Trump effect!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 10:29:20 am
Since when has AOC been a presidential candidate? More fake news?

Fortunately, James Clark was too smart to fall for this obvious metaphorical trap, but luckily we have other forum members to happily volunteer.

AOC is the de facto leader of the Democratic Party and presidential king maker. Anyone she chooses to win the nomination would only be her proxy on the throne, keeping it warm for her until she matures enough (as it is ever going to happen) to run for President.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 10:33:06 am
... So what you seem to be saying is that it's ok for Trump to take foreign policy advice from the crown prince's of religious dictatorships...

A classic strawman argument.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 19, 2019, 10:36:37 am
Frankly, I think the world is waking to a new reality: old allies might never have been friends as such; they may simply have been playing the cards they thought, at the time, might suit their own tribal interests best. The problem is population: as we love to screw around so much, we are too many, and with not enough useful space and resources to go round, all of which eventually ends up as yet another existential crisis nations face.

The more technology advances, the fewer of us become necessary and the greater the number surplus to requirements. We create unemployment across the board, for the highly skilled as for the others. Global war was once a semi-natural way of resolving some of the procreation issues, but the nuclear deterrent has put paid to that old solution, so minor battles come along for fear of mutual annihilation if anyone steps that step too far. So you end up with struggles as in Syria where deaths are large in number, but nobody outside really gives much of a damn, other than as a means to gaining a new foothold as, with Russia, another outlet to warm seas. We lose real shops and create online, faceless institutions that are struggling to become monopolies so that they can then abandon competition and milk the public dry, the objective of most business models that deal with the public; why else would anyone have anything to do with it?

In order to keep unemployment figures low, MacJobs are created in civvy street, and/or the military continues to take people into its arms even when it costs more to train them for two years of compulsory "service" than there is work or need for them. Governmental book-faking and figures massage. If youth has little prospect of working its way to a reasonable standard of life, no wonder it goes underground and takes to crime and the accompanying violence that scares reasonable people off the streets at night. 

My friend, the Cuban tenor player, was having lunch today at the same place as I, and I stopped to chat on my way out. His take was that as there are so many robots working for us now, the pensions deficits might be solved by making the buggers pay taxes and National Health contributions too. I thought that Boris might take that up if he hears of it, or unless Farage thinks of it first. I think my musical friend was playing a little scherzo of the mind...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 19, 2019, 10:41:14 am
A classic strawman argument.


In the context he wrote that, no. It's valid, and demonstrates the political use of situation ethics yet again.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 19, 2019, 10:41:31 am
Who would have been a better choice.  A fact which at this point is painfully obvious.  Honestly, I can't even figure out what the complaint would be now.  Before it was how you can't trust her - she lies.  Or how her Clinton Foundation was supposedly corrupt. Or OMG her emails.  I mean, Trump has done all of those things and far worse just since assuming office.  And of course his supporters don't care now.  Surprise.  The debt ceiling?  Non issue.  Unauthorized personal electronic device? So what. Trump Foundation?  Actually forced to dissolve under court supervision.  And on and on and on and on.

The hypocrisy is astounding.
Unfortunately, it is wasted on the True Believers (good to read Eric Hoffer's short but wonderful book on this subject).  Just look at what happened at his campaign rally in Orlando yesterday.  Just a lot of lies and revisits of memes that roil up the crowd (really, is "...lock her up..." worth anything these days?).  Trump is at best a narcissistic amoral individual who cannot abide to be with anyone smarter than he is.  If you are, the exit light will quickly flash.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 19, 2019, 10:44:01 am
Since when has AOC been a presidential candidate? More fake news?

Cheers,
Bart
The one who posted the original comment and to whom I don't read or directly respond ignores the convenient fact that Congresswomen Ocasio-Cortez is not old enough by the Constitution's standards to run for President.  Perhaps he does not understand "original intent."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 19, 2019, 10:47:49 am
Unfortunately, it is wasted on the True Believers (good to read Eric Hoffer's short but wonderful book on this subject).  Just look at what happened at his campaign rally in Orlando yesterday.  Just a lot of lies and revisits of memes that roil up the crowd (really, is "...lock her up..." worth anything these days?).  Trump is at best a narcissistic amoral individual who cannot abide to be with anyone smarter than he is.  If you are, the exit light will quickly flash.

Alan, it's like the Catholic v. Protestant thing in Northern Ireland and the West of Scotland. AFAIK few of those people go to either church, but that prevents not violent hatreds based on those empty aisles.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 10:48:54 am
The one who posted the original comment and to whom I don't read or directly respond ignores the convenient fact that Congresswomen Ocasio-Cortez is not old enough by the Constitution's standards to run for President.  Perhaps he does not understand "original intent."

Dream on, buddy.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 19, 2019, 10:53:18 am

The more technology advances, the fewer of us become necessary and the greater the number surplus to requirements. We create unemployment across the board, for the highly skilled as for the others.

My friend, the Cuban tenor player, was having lunch today at the same place as I, and I stopped to chat on my way out. His take was that as there are so many robots working for us now, the pensions deficits might be solved by making the buggers pay taxes and National Health contributions too.
This is the point that Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang has been making.  Look at the demise of retail with eCommerce websites.  We replace salespeople and buildings with the Internet and large warehouses that are going to be largely robotic.  Truck drivers will be replaced with self driving cars and call centers are moving out of the US so fast it's not funny.  I had an issue with GoDaddy several weeks ago when they had a server outage that corrupted my and a lot of other websites.  It took six calls to various tech reps in India before someone finally understood the issue and fixed it.  Look at the auto industry, not to mention President Trump's beautiful coal mining that continues to lose jobs to automation.  Lots of other examples here that could be cited.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 19, 2019, 11:12:32 am
AOC is the de facto leader of the Democratic Party and presidential king maker.

Only in your dreams (or should I say nightmares?). It's blatantly obvious why you raised her name, but discussing it with you or other Trump supporters is futile and, anyway, it has little to do with the constitution.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 11:25:23 am
...anyway, it has little to do with the constitution.

The Constitution has everything to do with it, as our resident know-it-all said:

... Ocasio-Cortez is not old enough by the Constitution's standards to run for President...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 19, 2019, 11:31:41 am
The Constitution has everything to do with it, as our resident know-it-all said:

No, you're wrong, you only used her name as a distraction.
It was not because you wanted to debate what qualifies people to run for president.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 11:45:00 am
No, you're wrong, you only used her name as a distraction.
It was not because you wanted to debate what qualifies people to run for president...

James Clark started that debate when he argued that the current occupant is not qualified to be the president. In that context, mentioning AOC "qualifications" is a perfectly legitimate part of the debate, whether metaphorically, in this election cycle, or literally, in the next (if she doesn't go down in flames in the meantime, like the other left's darling with the equally catchy and short name, β or something).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 19, 2019, 11:48:49 am
James Clark started that debate when he argued that the current occupant is not qualified to be the president. In that context, mentioning AOC "qualifications" is a perfectly legitimate part of the debate, whether metaphorically, in this election cycle, or literally, in the next (if she doesn't go down in flames in the meantime, like the other left's darling with the equally catchy and short name, β or something).

Why do you seem to obsessing over AOC?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 11:53:29 am
Why do you seem to obsessing over AOC?

Why wouldn't I? It is only the future of this country at stake. Leaving it to the capable hands of the complete retard person with learning difficulties like her doesn't bode well for that future.

EDITED for PC politeness
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 19, 2019, 11:55:29 am
James Clark started that debate when he argued that the current occupant is not qualified to be the president. In that context, mentioning AOC "qualifications" is a perfectly legitimate part of the debate, whether metaphorically, in this election cycle, or literally, in the next (if she doesn't go down in flames in the meantime, like the other left's darling with the equally catchy and short name, β or something).

No, it's not a legitimate part of that debate, it's a transparent attempt at distraction. I'll stop playing your childish game, but I may point out fake news and distraction attempts when they occur.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 19, 2019, 11:57:24 am
Leaving it to the capable hands of the complete retard like her doesn't bode well for that future.

Distraction alert!

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 12:01:40 pm
Distraction alert!

Bart, thanks for repeating my words, I was afraid some might miss it. Especially our resident pompous know-it-all who doesn't read mine directly.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 19, 2019, 12:06:50 pm
Bart, thanks for repeating my words, I was afraid some might miss it. Especially our resident pompous know-it-all who doesn't read mine directly.

Attempt to get the thread closed alert!

Maybe it's time again for Slobodan to ban himself, for insulting the intelligence of the moderator and other readers ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 19, 2019, 12:29:29 pm
Tariffs on China starting to work as Apple iphone considers moving 30 percent of production out of that country. 
https://www.macrumors.com/2019/06/19/apple-15-30-pct-production-out-of-china-report/
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 19, 2019, 12:37:07 pm
Attempt to get the thread closed alert!

Maybe it's time again for Slobodan to ban himself, for insulting the intelligence of the moderator and other readers ...

Cheers,
Bart
The best thing it to do what I have done, don't read any of his posts.  It's easy to skip him by just looking at the picture and scrolling onto the next post.  Let him post to his heart's content but just don't read him.  I only reply when I see someone else quoting something he erroneously writes.

Alan
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 19, 2019, 12:39:45 pm
Tariffs on China starting to work as Apple iphone considers moving 30 percent of production out of that country. 
https://www.macrumors.com/2019/06/19/apple-15-30-pct-production-out-of-china-report/
Alan, this is not production but just final assembly that is being looked at.  The manufacturing capacity for the critical iPhone parts requires sophisticated plants and those are in China.  the only major things that have moved out of China to date are shoes and apparel manufacturing which are far easier to re-locate.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 12:45:31 pm
... It's easy to skip him by just looking at the picture and scrolling onto the next post...

Excellent idea!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 19, 2019, 12:46:00 pm
Alan, this is not production but just final assembly that is being looked at.  The manufacturing capacity for the critical iPhone parts requires sophisticated plants and those are in China.  the only major things that have moved out of China to date are shoes and apparel manufacturing which are far easier to re-locate.
Regardless, Chinese are losing their jobs.   It will make the leaders more sensitive to making a deal with America. That's what the tariffs are suppose to do.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 19, 2019, 12:56:34 pm
I've already notified the moderator but just want to publicly call out someone who posts on this forum for expropriating a copyrighted image into his profile.  I don't find this in the least bit funny.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 12:58:13 pm
... expropriating a copyrighted image into his profile...

Please send me the name of the photographer, I'd be happy to pay him.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 19, 2019, 01:02:02 pm
Please send me the name of the photographer, I'd be happy to pay him.

Not a selfban, but a ban is in order.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 01:18:18 pm
Damn, under the pressure from the moderator, I have to revert to my ugly mugshot (at the age of 30) instead of that distinguished gentleman's portrait :(
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 01:53:11 pm
Really? I though that the number of individual votes was agaist him...

Yes, Rob, the American public hates him ;)

Quote
CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, often known for challenging President Trump and his associates, pointed out on Tuesday that Democrats aren't pulling in the same crowd sizes as the president.
"Why don't the Democrats pack the stadiums the way the president does?"...

His comments came on the same night that Trump drew a massive crowd for hisre-election rally in Orlando, Florida. Some Trump supporters even arrived 40 hours in advance, lining up for a chance to see Trump at the rally.
Fox News producers also reported that Trump appeared to fill the Orlando Amway Centerwhich holds about 20,000 people. That would have dwarfed former President Barack Obama's crowd size of 14,000 during his reelection announcement in 2012. In less than 24 hours after Trump's re-election announcement, he also raised a record $24.8 million.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 02:23:25 pm
... Please don't reply to this with another "What about Obama, or what about Hilary...

Ok, you have a point, but just one more, please? Pretty please?

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 19, 2019, 02:54:37 pm
I've already notified the moderator but just want to publicly call out someone who posts on this forum for expropriating a copyrighted image into his profile.  I don't find this in the least bit funny.

Then you lack a sense of humour. It was a joke. Obviously.

Not a selfban, but a ban is in order.

Nonsense.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 19, 2019, 03:34:08 pm
Then you lack a sense of humour. It was a joke. Obviously.

And one in extremely bad taste.

Quote
Nonsense.

I take copyright issues very seriously, and even the slightest attempts at personality theft or impersonation of others on this forum need to be nipped in the bud, IMHO of course.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 19, 2019, 03:51:02 pm
Then you lack a sense of humour. It was a joke. Obviously.

Jeremy
Nice response from a lawyer who ought to have respect for intellectual property.  Perhaps they don't take these things seriously in England but then I've always found English humour wanting ever since Monty Python called it quits.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 04:33:59 pm
... I take copyright issues very seriously...

Me too. Ever heard of the Fair Use doctrine? If not:

Quote
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 19, 2019, 05:07:23 pm
Then you lack a sense of humour. It was a joke. Obviously.

Nonsense.

Jeremy


In the past few days, Slobodan has used the term "pompous pricks" in reference to other forums participants. He used the word "pompous" in another context but I can't find it right now. He used the expression "retard" in two posts regarding AOC. Then he fiddled with someone's avatar.

I, for one, do not think that he should be banned. Having worked in software development in a previous life, you have to go a LOT farther than that to offend my sensibilities. This is partly why I usually stay out of discussions concerning appropriate public (forum) behaviour, as I am able to tolerate much more than the average person and therefore have nothing much useful to say in these matters.

The only comment I make is that the bar does seem to be lower these days.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 05:28:03 pm
...The only comment I make is that the bar does seem to be lower these days.

I've been just going with the flow, Robert. We heard recently, on this forum, that the term "ass" (as in "don't be an ass") is acceptable and has much less derogatory meaning, especially in the UK, than I expected. I also get PMs when people think it is ok to go further and call me "arshole." I assumed that a term for the 180 degrees from an arshole is ok then.

I am just blending in, you see. On the other hand, I didn't know that "pompous" is a prohibited word. Nor "retard" for a public figure.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 19, 2019, 05:34:38 pm
Nor "retard" for a public figure.
It just depends on how offensive you are comfortable being.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 05:38:04 pm
It just depends on how offensive you are comfortable being.

As offensive as others are when referring to the sitting President.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 19, 2019, 05:48:32 pm

I, for one, do not think that he should be banned. Having worked in software development in a previous life, you have to go a LOT farther than that to offend my sensibilities. This is partly why I usually stay out of discussions concerning appropriate public (forum) behaviour, as I am able to tolerate much more than the average person and therefore have nothing much useful to say in these matters.

Agreed

The only comment I make is that the bar does seem to be lower these days.

eh.. it ebbs and flows.  :D.   Since the subject is the American Constitution, I can assure everyone that the language used by the Founders as they debated the document in question was not one iota less pointed that what's being thrown about here, and to our credit, no one has yet demanded satisfaction of another ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 19, 2019, 06:07:10 pm
... no one has yet demanded satisfaction of another ;)

That would be going a bit far.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 19, 2019, 06:34:03 pm
I've been just going with the flow, Robert. We heard recently, on this forum, that the term "ass" (as in "don't be an ass") is acceptable and has much less derogatory meaning, especially in the UK, than I expected. I also get PMs when people think it is ok to go further and call me "arshole." I assumed that a term for the 180 degrees from an arshole is ok then.

I am just blending in, you see. On the other hand, I didn't know that "pompous" is a prohibited word. Nor "retard" for a public figure.

Sad to hear about private messages with that tone, but at least they were private messages. So as far as that goes, it doesn't concern public forum etiquette (unless there is an interdiction about that as well in the forum rules) nor does it concern any of the rest of us.

I am not concerned with prohibited words as such. George Carlin already visited this. In the long run what people choose to write will only reflect on them. If you want to call someone pompous, go ahead, but "pompous prick" slides up pretty closely up against personal insult. You can do that, and the forum admins can allow it, up to you guys, but it may have the effect in the long run of driving people away from forum participation, which defeats the purpose of having forums.

Personally, I find the use of the word "retard" rather deliberately offensive, but as others point out that's your schtick. I assume you use it to piss off "liberals" and "lefties". That's not a political correctness argument, it's just bad taste, imo. Whatever point you were trying to get across about AOC by using the word was devalued by using the word. But you can do that if you want, no skin off my nose.

In another post above you raised concerns about how people speak about the current President. I understand why people would want some decorum there, in principle, but as I've said before, that ship sailed a long time ago. After referring to an entire country as rapists and drug dealers, tossing paper towels at a press conference re the hurricane in Puerto Rico and many many other other examples, requiring or even just hoping for decorum towards the guy just isn't going to happen. He set that tone and seems to revel in it, so be it. He has never been a subtle guy, so what's the point of insulting him in a subtle manner?  :)

When people call your president names, it's often in the context of pointing out something he said or did, but not always. You have referred to AOC and her policies/beliefs in a derogatory manner a few times, but I don't remember (could easily have missed a thread) a discussion of them, so at least readers would have some context of why you think that. As it stands, you simply called her names. That doesn't bother me much, as you say, she's a public figure and it seems to go with that territory these days, but repeated name calling alone won't carry much weight. 

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 19, 2019, 07:53:42 pm

Personally, I find the use of the word "retard" rather deliberately offensive, but as others point out that's your schtick. I assume you use it to piss off "liberals" and "lefties". That's not a political correctness argument, it's just bad taste, imo. Whatever point you were trying to get across about AOC by using the word was devalued by using the word. But you can do that if you want, no skin off my nose.
My daughter is a special education teacher working in a title one elementary school.  Many of her students have challenges and this term has cavalierly been used in the past to refer to such students.  It is indeed offensive and should have no place in civil discussion.  If the person who used this wanted to be taken seriously, he/she would avoid such pejorative language.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 19, 2019, 08:21:34 pm
My daughter is a special education teacher working in a title one elementary school.  Many of her students have challenges and this term has cavalierly been used in the past to refer to such students.  It is indeed offensive and should have no place in civil discussion.  If the person who used this wanted to be taken seriously, he/she would avoid such pejorative language.

The problem I have with saying that the word retard is offensive (as opposed to saying that the way in which someone may use it is offensive) is that it was not offensive when it was first developed, but only developed that negative connotation after students started using it to make fun of other students.  Same thing with moron; it was a medical term originally and only became negative after people started using it that way. 

So now we cant use retard anymore to describe people who are mentally retarded, and instead have to say mentally challenged.  Only now kids are using mentally challenged to make fun of someone.  So in another 20 years we will be at the same place with mentally challenged.  What word will we use then I have to wonder?  ???
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 19, 2019, 08:39:13 pm
“Idiot” is a medical term as well.

When I use the word “retard” to describe someone, it is actually a compliment to those who are medically mentally retarded.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 19, 2019, 09:56:56 pm
The problem I have with saying that the word retard is offensive (as opposed to saying that the way in which someone may use it is offensive) is that it was not offensive when it was first developed, but only developed that negative connotation after students started using it to make fun of other students.  Same thing with moron; it was a medical term originally and only became negative after people started using it that way. 

So now we cant use retard anymore to describe people who are mentally retarded, and instead have to say mentally challenged.  Only now kids are using mentally challenged to make fun of someone.  So in another 20 years we will be at the same place with mentally challenged.  What word will we use then I have to wonder?  ???
The American language is full of pejoratives that are no longer in common use as well as some mainstream terms that are not frowned upon but are usually not used (I'm sure that the primary example of an American minority is familiar to everyone and does not need to be repeated here).  The language and usage is constantly evolving and what once might have been ill-usage is no longer.  You draw and example between retard and moron but these terms had different patterns of evolution.  Today 'moronic' is in common use and one often finds it in crossword puzzles, the same cannot be said for retard.  'Mentally challenged' is an umbrella word that can cover lots of things.  Comedians often come up with zinger 'dumb' jokes which are often funny and intended to poke fun.  The same cannot be said about the use of the word 'retard' to describe someone.  You really need to examine the nuance.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 20, 2019, 03:18:48 am
And one in extremely bad taste.

I don't agree. Look at the context. In any event, taste is subjective.

I take copyright issues very seriously, and even the slightest attempts at personality theft or impersonation of others on this forum need to be nipped in the bud, IMHO of course.

Impersonation? What drivel. Slobodan's name appeared over the snapshot. Immediate resort to hyperbole does nothing to advance an argument.

Nice response from a lawyer who ought to have respect for intellectual property.  Perhaps they don't take these things seriously in England but then I've always found English humour wanting ever since Monty Python called it quits.

Whose "intellectual property"? It's a snapshot of someone who may or may not be you, taken by someone who almost certainly wasn't you and who may or may not have been working at the time for someone who as a result may own the copyright.

For what it's worth, my own view is that Slobodan's transient use of the photograph fell very comfortably within "fair use". There was no infringement of copyright.

Your view of English humour is of immense concern to me.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 20, 2019, 03:20:44 am
So now we cant use retard anymore to describe people who are mentally retarded, and instead have to say mentally challenged.  Only now kids are using mentally challenged to make fun of someone.  So in another 20 years we will be at the same place with mentally challenged.  What word will we use then I have to wonder?  ???

We already are: the currently approved euphemism is "with learning difficulties".

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 20, 2019, 03:23:00 am
What drivel.

Is this a comment as a forum member, or as a moderator?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 20, 2019, 03:30:18 am
Is this a comment as a forum member, or as a moderator?

Either. Both. Add "as a possessor of common sense"; "as a realist"; "as someone not prone to hysteria".

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 20, 2019, 03:49:50 am
Either. Both.

Interesting concept.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 20, 2019, 08:26:46 am

The politically correct language police can go too far, pretty much everyone goes too far if you let them, but the impulse to not cause discomfort to those who are least able to defend themselves seems like a decent thing to do to me. People used to ridicule people with certain cognitive problems, so a language change emerged to help stop this behaviour. A writer/speaker can still call them "retards" but more and more people in the listening audience will be repulsed when they do.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 20, 2019, 09:43:16 am
As offensive as others are when referring to the sitting President.

Slobodan, you know perfectly well that office alone does not confer respect; respect has to be won or, at the very least, earned.

Your man has done neither: he has, as with our own Boris, behaved like a buffoon but without the saving grace of humour. In pretty much everything international he disregards agreements, breaks the solemnly given word of your country, and yep, I am prepared to admit that appeals to two broad types of voter: the ignorant my-arms-are-thicker-your-arms redneck; the hopeless political absolutist.

Behaviour like that has one ultimate fate: it distances everybody else in the world, because even those with whom he seeks to sleep know that they will never, ever be able to trust a goddam word he says to them or a paper he signs. That's his legacy.

It is also a mistake to take disgust with Trump as being tantamount to disgust with the entire Republican Party. Never before has the distance between the two entities looked so wide.

Regarding the Democrats: where do they get international airplay? Even the so-called Fake Noos channels seem devoid of interest in them one way or the other. If Mrs Clinton made one massive mistake last election time, it was in her public image: she appeared like Pinocchio's mother's original stump of tree. As for that open mouth à la glamour girl, the stabbing, pointed finger at nobody at all in the crowd, pleeeeas. But it's catching: Trump, has picked up on it too, poor man.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 20, 2019, 09:48:23 am
The politically correct language police can go too far, pretty much everyone goes too far if you let them, but the impulse to not cause discomfort to those who are least able to defend themselves seems like a decent thing to do to me. People used to ridicule people with certain cognitive problems, so a language change emerged to help stop this behaviour. A writer/speaker can still call them "retards" but more and more people in the listening audience will be repulsed when they do.

Yes, but this will only start to develop with the new terms as well, eventually.  Like I said, years ago I was told that mentally retarded was no longer an acceptable term to use, due to the negative connotations.  At that time, I was told that mentally challenged was the new and more appropriate word.  It was not long after hearing that I heard student using mentally challenged in the same way mentally retarded was use when I was in school.  So, obviously, the new word, regardless of how well intentioned creating it was, developed a negative connotation. 

It is impossible to avoid this. 

George Carlin on PC Nonsense  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asZ1R-Xylj4)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 20, 2019, 10:08:38 am
Yes, but this will only start to develop with the new terms as well, eventually.  Like I said, years ago I was told that mentally retarded was no longer an acceptable term to use, due to the negative connotations.  At that time, I was told that mentally challenged was the new and more appropriate word.  It was not long after hearing that I heard student using mentally challenged in the same way mentally retarded was use when I was in school.  So, obviously, the new word, regardless of how well intentioned creating it was, developed a negative connotation. 

It is impossible to avoid this. 

George Carlin on PC Nonsense  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asZ1R-Xylj4)

Thanks for the link: have posted it off to somebody badly in need of it!

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 20, 2019, 10:09:53 am
Slobodan, you know perfectly well that office alone does not confer respect; respect has to be won or, at the very least, earned.

Your man has done neither: he has, as with our own Boris, behaved like a buffoon but without the saving grace of humour. In pretty much everything international he disregards agreements, breaks the solemnly given word of your country, and yep, I am prepared to admit that appeals to two broad types of voter: the ignorant my-arms-are-thicker-your-arms redneck; the hopeless political absolutist.

Behaviour like that has one ultimate fate: it distances everybody else in the world, because even those with whom he seeks to sleep know that they will never, ever be able to trust a goddam word he says to them or a paper he signs. That's his legacy.

It is also a mistake to take disgust with Trump as being tantamount to disgust with the entire Republican Party. Never before has the distance between the two entities looked so wide.

Regarding the Democrats: where do they get international airplay? Even the so-called Fake Noos channels seem devoid of interest in them one way or the other. If Mrs Clinton made one massive mistake last election time, it was in her public image: she appeared like Pinocchio's mother's original stump of tree. As for that open mouth à la glamour girl, the stabbing, pointed finger at nobody at all in the crowd, pleeeeas. But it's catching: Trump, has picked up on it too, poor man.

Rob
The US President doesn't approve treaties.  The US Senate does.  World leaders and diplomats know that and take their chances with President--only formulated deals. After all, after 4 or maybe 8  years, a president is replaced.  He's got nothing to say about what future presidents do. However, with a Senate approved treaty, the subsequent president is bound constitutionally to honor the treaty. 

The Iran treaty is a perfect example. Obama never went to the Senate to get approval with the deal he agreed too.  He didn't think it would pass.  So he kept his finger's crossed and hoped for the best.  He was wrong.  That's the whole point of Senate approval.  It prevents presidents who think they're a king from making personal deals.  It also obligates future presidents.  Obama never gave the word of our country.  He ignored our constitutional rules.  It would be like your PM deciding on Brexit on her own.

Regarding  other countries keeping their word, may I remind  you that more than half of Europe's NATO countries still are not paying 2% of their GDP towards defense as they promised.  In fact, in some cases the percentage is decreasing.  So when Trump calls you out on it and threatens to pull out of NATO, you complain he's not "rolling" over like previous presidents have and accepting it.  How about it if Europe kept their word? Well, that's why so many red necks appreciate him.  He's not letting others take advantage of America's largesse and niceness. He plays tough like others do and you're just not use to it. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 20, 2019, 11:48:38 am
The politically correct language police can go too far...

Case in point:
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 20, 2019, 11:55:48 am
And the vulgarity continues. As expected.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 20, 2019, 01:00:56 pm
And the vulgarity continues. As expected.
Some individuals never outgrow their teenage years. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 20, 2019, 01:25:25 pm
Some individuals never outgrow their teenage years. 

And some were 17 going on 70 the whole life.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 20, 2019, 03:41:46 pm
My late teens were the best years of my life.

Then, my late twenties became the very best years of my life until I hit my mid-forties and went AWOL in the Med. From then onwards there was no doubt that things just got better and better until they imploded and yeah, the best years of my life will be in the next life.

Gotta look on the bright side - there really may be one somewhere else.

:-)

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on June 20, 2019, 07:27:00 pm
sorry, couldn't resist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2Wx230gYJw
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on June 21, 2019, 02:43:29 pm
The Iran treaty is a perfect example. Obama never went to the Senate to get approval with the deal he agreed too.  He didn't think it would pass.  So he kept his finger's crossed and hoped for the best.  He was wrong.  That's the whole point of Senate approval.  It prevents presidents who think they're a king from making personal deals.  It also obligates future presidents.  Obama never gave the word of our country.  He ignored our constitutional rules.  It would be like your PM deciding on Brexit on her own.
Last night mr Trump almost started a war in the middle east...
A war that could be easely greater than the war in Irak where about a million people were killed, mostly young Irakis that were send to war.
This new war could be even nuclear with Israel and Iran as participant.
Apparantly you do not need the Senates approval to start a war...  A war far away from the US and very close to Europe. I want OBAMA !
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 21, 2019, 04:19:02 pm
Everyone who said trump is dangerous, erratic, and would start wwiii was just proven wrong.   He canceled a planned retaliatory attack. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 21, 2019, 04:25:52 pm
Everyone who said trump is dangerous, erratic, and would start wwiii was just proven wrong.   He canceled a planned retaliatory attack.

Well Alan...That looks like erratic...
Sorry for intruding
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 21, 2019, 05:10:06 pm
Everyone who said trump is dangerous, erratic, and would start wwiii was just proven wrong.   He canceled a planned retaliatory attack.

Word is Donald may have been persuaded to cancel the action by Fox News’ Tucker! Okay, so gotta admit, Fox “News” did good. Still, with John “WWIII” Bolton whispering in the big D’s ear, we should all try to persuade any family member from joining the military unless most of Washington’s scions are in uniform too.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 21, 2019, 05:17:27 pm
Well. If Iran does another shootdown or something,  then when Trump retaliates,  everyone will say he was very patient and everyone will blame Iran.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 21, 2019, 05:27:16 pm
Last night mr Trump almost started a war in the middle east...
A war that could be easely greater than the war in Irak where about a million people were killed, mostly young Irakis that were send to war.
This new war could be even nuclear with Israel and Iran as participant.
Apparantly you do not need the Senates approval to start a war...  A war far away from the US and very close to Europe. I want OBAMA !


It's useless. You can't get through: nobody can.

The nuclear deal the civilized world (which included the USA that day) signed up to with Iran is now an aberration by a man called Obama. It was illegal for him to have signed up - we are told - but the rest of the world was led to believe it was honourably valid, and so it now looks as if Trump is not the first American president to fake not only news, but deals too! Goodness me, how the plot thickens!

Yet, some-magic-how, that's not making America look and behave untrustworthy at all, only clever and great at deals! Right.

Like climate change: myth, dear boy, myth! All those gasses we pump out go away into a gravity-defying cloud and head for the nearest black hole. Absolutely no effect on Earth at all! Nothing to worry about! Again, right.

So some truths are good fibs and some lies are truths in disguise. And you thought nobody could make it up?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 21, 2019, 05:49:01 pm

It's useless. You can't get through: nobody can....

Rob, I can only wish that the condescending tone toward Alan is taken down a notch. Alan has been patiently, and very politely, giving you in a nutshell one side of the story. If you want to believe only the other side, that is fine, but that does not invalidate the aspect of the situation that Alan provides.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 21, 2019, 06:22:38 pm
Rob, I can only wish that the condescending tone toward Alan is taken down a notch. Alan has been patiently, and very politely, giving you in a nutshell one side of the story. If you want to believe only the other side, that is fine, but that does not invalidate the aspect of the situation that Alan provides.
Alan's opinion is Alan's opinion.. It is not an "aspect of the situation."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 21, 2019, 06:37:27 pm
Rob, I can only wish that the condescending tone toward Alan is taken down a notch. Alan has been patiently, and very politely, giving you in a nutshell one side of the story. If you want to believe only the other side, that is fine, but that does not invalidate the aspect of the situation that Alan provides.

I'm confused. It looked like Rob was answering to kers, not to Alan.  :o
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 21, 2019, 06:44:20 pm
Well. If Iran does another shootdown or something,  then when Trump retaliates,  everyone will say he was very patient and everyone will blame Iran.

Not everyone, Alan. Donald owns this mess. By reneging on the nuclear deal, the US has made it clear the only option for Iran is a regime change. My guess it will take down as many players it can before it succumbs to that.

So Donald had his moment of fatuous braggadocio with his “fire and fury” nonsense and now with an adversary that is willing to really fight, the idea of coffins draped with the American flag has exposed him as someone who’s been anywhere but in the Oval Office.

PS  My cynical side would say that the only thing Donald truly cares about is his image and his money. The way he insulted John McCain as a veteran suggests that death in service to your country is of no consequence to him.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 21, 2019, 06:50:33 pm
I'm confused. It looked like Rob was answering to kers, not to Alan.  :o

It doesn’t surprise me at all that you are confused. Try reading again. It helps. Sometimes.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 21, 2019, 08:08:18 pm
Well. If Iran does another shootdown or something, [...]

Who says it was Iran and not, say, Saudi Arabia? Or, what evidence do you have that it even happened?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 21, 2019, 09:09:39 pm
Who says it was Iran and not, say, Saudi Arabia? Or, what evidence do you have that it even happened?

Cheers,
Bart
Iran admitted it shot down the American drone.  The only disagreement is that Iran claims it was in Iranian space and the US claims it was over international waters.  Frankly, I felt Trump should have done something to respond and will be forced to if another incident occurs.  Otherwise he will lose all credibility as Obama did with his "red line" regarding Syria.   No one will take him seriously. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 21, 2019, 09:12:43 pm
Rob, I can only wish that the condescending tone toward Alan is taken down a notch. Alan has been patiently, and very politely, giving you in a nutshell one side of the story. If you want to believe only the other side, that is fine, but that does not invalidate the aspect of the situation that Alan provides.

Thanks for the support.  You've taken a lot of heat too. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 21, 2019, 09:25:01 pm
Not everyone, Alan. Donald owns this mess. By reneging on the nuclear deal, the US has made it clear the only option for Iran is a regime change. My guess it will take down as many players it can before it succumbs to that.

So Donald had his moment of fatuous braggadocio with his “fire and fury” nonsense and now with an adversary that is willing to really fight, the idea of coffins draped with the American flag has exposed him as someone who’s been anywhere but in the Oval Office.

PS  My cynical side would say that the only thing Donald truly cares about is his image and his money. The way he insulted John McCain as a veteran suggests that death in service to your country is of no consequence to him.

Trump ran and was elected president on his promise to pull out of both the Iran agreement and climate change Paris agreement, both signed unilaterally and unconstitutionally by Obama.  Call it what you want.  America is not a party to a treaty until it is ratified by the US Senate, which did not occur.  America does not want treaties without Senate advise and consent.  That's what happened in Iran and Paris.  Obama thought he was being cute but he knew he wouldn't get Senate approval for either of them. 

Now, if Iran would sign a new deal forever giving up their desire to obtain nukes, Trump and the US Senate would sign a treaty with Iran tomorrow and remove all sanctions and their regime would be untouched. 

Regarding Paris, if China and India were included and there were some method of enforcement, Trump would consider renegotiating Paris.  Currently Paris requires nothing of those two countries until 2030 who produce 37% of the world's CO2.  Paris punishes the rest of us while China especially can continue to "pollute" and actually increase their CO2 production. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 21, 2019, 11:13:35 pm
Quote
One of President Trump's most vocal critics offered rare praise for him on Friday after he backed away from a military strike on Iran.

"I do applaud Trump’s decision not to carry out what would have been a disproportionate strike that would have led to 150 or so fatalities," former CIA Director John Brennan told MSNBC on Friday
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: BobShaw on June 22, 2019, 03:41:39 am
Iran admitted it shot down the American drone.  The only disagreement is that Iran claims it was in Iranian space and the US claims it was over international waters.  Frankly, I felt Trump should have done something to respond and will be forced to if another incident occurs.
Possibly the fact that he didn't answers the disagreement?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 22, 2019, 04:29:50 am
It doesn’t surprise me at all that you are confused. Try reading again. It helps. Sometimes.

Slobodan, Slobodan!!!
You did it again...
Why are you so obsessed with that rabanito-bashing?

Look at the attachment... Isn't Rob quoting kers?
Is poor rabanito so wrong being confused?
Tsk-Tsk...

rabanito's English is poor, that's easy for anybody to notice. And so it's easy to make fun of him.
BUT: Why instead of using that (using your own vocabulary) "condescending tone" you just "take it down a notch" and help him to understand??   ;D ;D

Look, just as an example: I play chess. But I'll never beat a GM unless he's drunk. That doesn't make me furious or frustrated against them. That's just the way it is.
Buy yourself a mirror and look into it, Slobodan. You'll do yourself a favor.
Biting continuously on granite just ruins the teeth.
Let's stay friends  ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on June 22, 2019, 04:33:44 am
The last thing the world needs is another war in the Middle East.
a completely unneccesary one.

It took 10 years of talking with many leaders around the world to accomplish the Iran treaty.
Iran gets a better economy & the world an Iran without nuclear arms.
The treaty was controlled and Iran kept its promises as did the other parties.

Trump showed all parties involved that the US is not faithful partner to make a treaty with. ( and showed that repeatedly)
Iran showed restrain and kept its promises up until now, a year after Trump withdrew and put new sanctions on Iran.
Now the US, Saudi Arabia, armed to the teeth by the US, and Israel seem to be ready for war with Iran.
They only have to find a good reason to start it so they try to provoke Iran into some mistake.

- remember the last Irak war;
The US said there were weapons of mass destruction in Irak- the UN-commitee that controlled Irak said there were not.
Still the war was pushed through. about a million Iraki soldiers died - even worse - no party was/is interested to count them.
The US not for obvious reasons and the Irak government for obvious reasons.
Also the country was destroyed by bombs destroying 4000 years of man made history and civilisation.
Politically it was and is still a mess in wich IS found ground to develop.

Iran has never started a war. It has defended itself in the Irak- Iran war - in a time the 'ally' Saddam Houssein was armed by the US and Europe in a way Saudi Arabia is armed now.
Those weapons will start a life of their own -as the Iraki arms of Saddam Houssein did, the US and Russian arms still do in Afganistan.
The people in Jemen are the first victims of those arms.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on June 22, 2019, 04:39:18 am
...
Now, if Iran would sign a new deal forever giving up their desire to obtain nukes, Trump and the US Senate would sign a treaty with Iran tomorrow and remove all sanctions and their regime would be untouched. 
...
Iran did just that in the treaty rejected by Trump - the US.

about forever...
Trump showed that a deal with the US only lasts one year. You cannot trust the US anymore.
Iran still keeps its part of the treaty up until now, despite the new US sanctions.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 22, 2019, 06:47:01 am
Iran admitted it shot down the American drone.

a drone  after multiple warnings that it was invading Iranian airspace, at least that is the Iranian side of the lies that both parties are spreading. Do we even know if it was operated by American or Arabic controllers? We know nothing, except for what they want us to believe.

And do you really think there was only one drone in the air? So even selectively shared Radar tracks may not tell the real story.

Let's not be gullible, especially when human lives are at stake.

Quote
No one will take him seriously.

I'll refrain from commenting on that.

BTW., it's the US who unilaterally broke the internationally supported agreement, which Iran upheld, and the US imposed sanctions on anybody who does business with Iran. Do you really thnk that deliberately wrecking a sovern nation's economy (by request of Israel and Saudi Arabia?) is the best way to preserve peace in the middle East?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 22, 2019, 07:14:39 am
Rob, I can only wish that the condescending tone toward Alan is taken down a notch. Alan has been patiently, and very politely, giving you in a nutshell one side of the story. If you want to believe only the other side, that is fine, but that does not invalidate the aspect of the situation that Alan provides.


And how I wish you were still able to read and digest both sides of the American argument as well as you did in your link to our own version of your guy: Boris.

Alan does not listen; he's as open to hearing the other side as is a Rangers man willing to sit down in a Celtic pub.

If it sounds condescending, it's a measure of frustration at the rubber wall against which opinion and/or argument is cast.

And no, I don't expect you to agree with that view.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 22, 2019, 08:06:58 am
Trump ran and was elected president on his promise to pull out of both the Iran agreement and climate change Paris agreement, both signed unilaterally and unconstitutionally by Obama.  Call it what you want.  America is not a party to a treaty until it is ratified by the US Senate, which did not occur.  America does not want treaties without Senate advise and consent.  That's what happened in Iran and Paris.  Obama thought he was being cute but he knew he wouldn't get Senate approval for either of them. 

Now, if Iran would sign a new deal forever giving up their desire to obtain nukes, Trump and the US Senate would sign a treaty with Iran tomorrow and remove all sanctions and their regime would be untouched. 

Regarding Paris, if China and India were included and there were some method of enforcement, Trump would consider renegotiating Paris.  Currently Paris requires nothing of those two countries until 2030 who produce 37% of the world's CO2.  Paris punishes the rest of us while China especially can continue to "pollute" and actually increase their CO2 production.

The agreement was a non-binding deal, not a treaty. Of course, had it been a treaty Donald would have needed senate approval to reverse it.  ::)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 22, 2019, 09:01:15 am
a drone  after multiple warnings that it was invading Iranian airspace, at least that is the Iranian side of the lies that both parties are spreading. Do we even know if it was operated by American or Arabic controllers? We know nothing, except for what they want us to believe.

And do you really think there was only one drone in the air? So even selectively shared Radar tracks may not tell the real story.

Let's not be gullible, especially when human lives are at stake.

I'll refrain from commenting on that.

BTW., it's the US who unilaterally broke the internationally supported agreement, which Iran upheld, and the US imposed sanctions on anybody who does business with Iran. Do you really thnk that deliberately wrecking a sovern nation's economy (by request of Israel and Saudi Arabia?) is the best way to preserve peace in the middle East?

Cheers,
Bart

Not only preserve peace in the Middle East but retain the faith of the fellow western allies! Suddenly, the US, in body of Trump, is putting the screws onto people who have been its faithful (some might say blind) supporters for as long as anyone can remember. That's the new face of "special relationships", guys!

Remember you saw it first writ large in orange.

As for the cold logic of the US distancing Europe: does Mr T imagine that possible strikes may only come via Alaska? (Think Omaha Beach etc, when Hitler imagined the closest crossing, Calais, the logical point of attack.) Europe is full of early-warning sites; out tallest mountain in Mallorca, at 1445 metres, featured twin domes, US-built and run; today, I can only see one, which may or may not be an upgrade: they don't consult me, but maybe they consult another LuLa scribe. :-) I'm certain Gibraltar is not sitting idle as nothing but a low-grade accontancy haven, either, and the US airforce bases on the mainland just there for the summer weather, the female tourists and sangria, nor just the good of Europe alone.

Turning good, foreign relations sour because of pique or local vote-seeking intentions says more about the turncoat than the others.

If you want a parallel, then look no further than our mirror in Boris and what the Tories, my old party of choice, has become: their openly stated, over and over again, objective in trying to elect Boris as next PM has nothing to do with what the majority in Parliament has shown repeatedly to be their belief in the wisest choice for the country, but an attempt to win the next general election. In other words, fuck the country's long-term interests, let's cater to the tiny majority of voter that wants to commit collective suicide; it might switch all its vote to New Tory and keep us in great sinecures.

It has certainly lost my potential vote, should I ever again be in a position to exercise it, which they clearly don't want me to be able to do, or they would not have disenfranchised me and thousands more from the original Brexit decision vote. Who needs the opinion of somebody with actual experience of what it all means?
 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 22, 2019, 10:36:15 am
Iran did just that in the treaty rejected by Trump - the US.

about forever...
Trump showed that a deal with the US only lasts one year. You cannot trust the US anymore.
Iran still keeps its part of the treaty up until now, despite the new US sanctions.



The deal allows Iran to start building nukes again in a few years.  Useless.  That's why the US Senate would not ratify Obama's deal and make it a treaty that America and future presidents would have to support.  Obama figured Clinton would win the presidency and continue the "deal". The Iranians knew better and worried about the "deal".  I'm sure they pressed Obama to get Senate approval but he couldn;t.  So they kept their fingers crossed and lost when Trump was elected.  Meanwhile, they're raising the consistency of nuclear materials against the "deal" and promises they made to Europeans and have attacked Japanese and other non-American ships in the Gulf of Hormuz. What have the Japanese done to them? 

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 22, 2019, 10:41:20 am

And how I wish you were still able to read and digest both sides of the American argument as well as you did in your link to our own version of your guy: Boris.

Alan does not listen; he's as open to hearing the other side as is a Rangers man willing to sit down in a Celtic pub.

If it sounds condescending, it's a measure of frustration at the rubber wall against which opinion and/or argument is cast.

And no, I don't expect you to agree with that view.




No one here every changed their mind on any subject.  Maybe we can at least agree on that point. :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 22, 2019, 11:09:21 am
a drone  after multiple warnings that it was invading Iranian airspace, at least that is the Iranian side of the lies that both parties are spreading. Do we even know if it was operated by American or Arabic controllers? We know nothing, except for what they want us to believe.

And do you really think there was only one drone in the air? So even selectively shared Radar tracks may not tell the real story.

Let's not be gullible, especially when human lives are at stake.

I'll refrain from commenting on that.

BTW., it's the US who unilaterally broke the internationally supported agreement, which Iran upheld, and the US imposed sanctions on anybody who does business with Iran. Do you really thnk that deliberately wrecking a sovern nation's economy (by request of Israel and Saudi Arabia?) is the best way to preserve peace in the middle East?

Cheers,
Bart


Iran has been a bad actor in the Middle East.  They and their proxies have stirred up war and conflict in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and half a dozen other countries with their terrorist activities.  The last thing we need is for them to be allowed to develop nukes in a few years which they would be allowed to do under the current "deal".  What would "peace" look like when that happens?  Better we nip it in the bud before they actually get the bomb. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 22, 2019, 11:49:12 am
The other problem, Alan, is that if Iran actually gets close to a bomb, Israel isn't going to have any choice. If they want to continue to exist they're going to have to put a stop to that. At that point Israel's going to HAVE to consider using nukes to eliminate the threat. That's an existential threat to the whole world.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 22, 2019, 11:53:15 am
... help him to understand??...

The briefest explanation is: you were reading the lines, I was reading between the lines ;)

Proof? How about directly from the horse's mouth (not that I imply that Rob looks like a horse, God forbid, it is just a saying):

... Alan does not listen...

I'll give you one thing, rabanito. I have an unfair advantage. I've been reading Rob's posts since forever, it seems. I consider him a friend, in spite of the recent divergent political stances. I know his writing style. He is good with a pen (even keyboard). He is a Brit. As the saying goes, Brits are too polite to be honest, and the Dutch are too honest to be polite. Serbs are much, much closer to the Dutch, by the way. When Rob attempts a dig at someone, he will rarely name that someone. But careful reading between the lines, or previous posts, even posts in different threads, will tell you who Rob had in mind.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 22, 2019, 12:07:46 pm
The agreement was a non-binding deal, not a treaty. Of course, had it been a treaty Donald would have needed senate approval to reverse it.  ::)

Ah, Omer, ruining a perfect mud fight with facts ;)

Here is another example of the difference between agreements and treaties. Bosnia before the recent Bosnian war. Leaders of the three communities in Bosnia met to discuss how to avert a war and share the power peacefully. They were Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosnian Croats. They agreed. There was a collective sigh of relief in the region. Just a minor detail: the agreement had to be approved by respective parliaments. Bosnian Serbian side and Bosnian Croatian side approved the agreement. Then something happened before the session of the Bosnian Muslim parliament. Someone came to visit them. American Ambassador. Clinton's ambassador.  He told them something. They didn't approve the agreement. The war ensued.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 22, 2019, 12:19:40 pm
Better we nip it in the bud before they actually get the bomb.

You mean, to start a war in the Middle East?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 22, 2019, 12:35:16 pm
The briefest explanation is: you were reading the lines, I was reading between the lines ;)

As I said in my original posting, I was confused. You didn't answer to that but digressed.
"Reading between the lines" can be also called "speculation"
As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just the facts, ma'am"


Proof? How about directly from the horse's mouth (not that I imply that Rob looks like a horse, God forbid, it is just a saying):
Proof? Who asked for a proof? It's not THAT important. If you say so it's OK with me.
But you didn't.

There is a kind of people who prefer "being right" than "finding the truth"
Among them are many adolescents. But not only  ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 22, 2019, 12:53:31 pm
The deal allows Iran to start building nukes again in a few years.

Utter nonsense. The deal doesn't do anything like that.

Instead, the deal expires, and a new (similar) deal can be made because everybody was happy about the state of affairs and everybody stuck to the agreed terms. Iran didn't pursue the development of a nuclear capability, and in return, there is trade that will bring prosperity to Iran which keeps the new generation of Iranians happy and less hostile towards 'the West', and its own government.

Quote
That's why the US Senate would not ratify Obama's deal and make it a treaty that America and future presidents would have to support.

More nonsense. The Republican-dominated Senate had a formal policy to torpedo any proposal by the Obama administration, even if they did agree with a proposal under a previous Republican administration. That's why it never became a formal treaty.

Put the blame where the blame belongs if you have to blame somebody.

Quote
Meanwhile, they're raising the consistency of nuclear materials against the "deal" and promises they made ...

Deal? There is no more deal. The USA unilaterally ended it.

The reason? Saudi Arabia promised to buy more weapons.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 22, 2019, 01:50:54 pm
So that tells you what European newsmedia are reporting.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 22, 2019, 01:55:51 pm
You mean, to start a war in the Middle East?

Cheers,
Bart
Iran with a nuclear bomb will be a much more dangerous adversary. 
Think about what more of a mess the Middle East will be if Iran had a nuclear bomb.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 22, 2019, 02:05:06 pm
European news media is available online for all to see, unless like some outlets everywhere, payment is expected. But that's natural: production costs money, just like for LuLa and for me. If the latter bit surprises, ask yourself: does the Internet come for free? Nope, costs contracted money every month with no way to avoid that other than to close down all communication systems one has other than post.

A good one, especially for debates, is France24.com and it also has a vast list of past programmes that can be watched. I've never had to pay a thing to access, so I expect the same applies everywhere.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 22, 2019, 02:28:10 pm
So that tells you what European newsmedia are reporting.
Russ I've read on this issue FAZ, SD, NZZ, Le Monde, The Guardian and the Americans NYT, WP and Foreign Affairs and all say more or less the same. Similar lines
Often the Europeans just cite the Americans.
They are there for anyone to read
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 22, 2019, 02:40:17 pm
Russ I've read on this issue FAZ, SD, NZZ, Le Monde, The Guardian and the Americans NYT, WP and Foreign Affairs and all say more or less the same. Similar lines
Often the Europeans just cite the Americans...l

Hahahahaha...

Haha...

Ha...

But f course, they cite the ultra-left Americans.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 22, 2019, 03:09:12 pm
So that tells you what European newsmedia are reporting.

????

Do you mean that Fox news Propaganda doesn't tell you what's actually going on?

Try this for a change:
Quote
Saudi Arabia seeks to fight Iran “to the last American,” by luring it into a war with the Islamic Republic
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-behravesh-iran-commentary/commentary-why-trumps-arab-nato-plan-wont-curb-iran-idUSKBN1KZ21C

One might also wonder what Jared Kushner's role in all this is ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 22, 2019, 03:21:36 pm
And amidst of it all, still no new Secretary of Defense, not even one acting as one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFKNiyNSE24

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 22, 2019, 03:24:54 pm
Russ I've read on this issue FAZ, SD, NZZ, Le Monde, The Guardian and the Americans NYT, WP and Foreign Affairs and all say more or less the same. Similar lines
Often the Europeans just cite the Americans.
They are there for anyone to read

It's all fake news, Rab. Been that way for decades now. The Clintons can do no wrong. Obama can do no wrong. Algore can do no wrong. Reagan can do no right. The Bushes can do no right. And Trump -- My GOD! He's tearing the country apart. It's all bullshit. Look at the "polls." Trump is behind against Buttiegig? As Sarah Palin would say, "You betcha." The fact, which has been pointed out by a couple people who actually THINK, is that the people who are gonna vote for Trump in the next election won't say so, no matter what kind of poll is asking them the question. Considering the insanity on the left, would you? Of course not. Nobody with an ounce of sense would stick his neck out that far. I just hope the Dem candidates keep up the hubbub. They're looking sillier and sillier by the hour. What would really cinch the next election for Trump would be impeachment by the Dems. Bring it on.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 22, 2019, 04:03:39 pm
Hahahahaha...

Haha...

Ha...

But f course, they cite the ultra-left Americans.

The important thing is not whether they are right or left
but whether they are right or wrong.

Agree?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 22, 2019, 04:14:23 pm
It's all fake news, Rab. Been that way for decades now. The Clintons can do no wrong. Obama can do no wrong. Algore can do no wrong. Reagan can do no right. The Bushes can do no right. And Trump -- My GOD! He's tearing the country apart. It's all bullshit. Look at the "polls." Trump is behind against Buttiegig? As Sarah Palin would say, "You betcha." The fact, which has been pointed out by a couple people who actually THINK, is that the people who are gonna vote for Trump in the next election won't say so, no matter what kind of poll is asking them the question. Considering the insanity on the left, would you? Of course not. Nobody with an ounce of sense would stick his neck out that far. I just hope the Dem candidates keep up the hubbub. They're looking sillier and sillier by the hour. What would really cinch the next election for Trump would be impeachment by the Dems. Bring it on.
This explains more about your views on street photography than your posts on street photography.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 22, 2019, 04:29:45 pm
The important thing is not whether they are right or left
but whether they are right or wrong.

Agree?

This sounds too logical. Where's the catch?  ;)

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 22, 2019, 04:44:49 pm
This sounds too logical. Where's the catch?  ;)

Cheers,
Bart

No catch
Just my opinion that generalizations like "they are ultra-left Americans" implying something negative per se are not a good basis for intelligent debate.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 22, 2019, 04:57:17 pm
... generalizations like "they are ultra-left Americans" implying something negative per se...

You betcha.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 22, 2019, 04:57:37 pm
No catch
Just my opinion that generalizations like "they are ultra-left Americans" implying something negative per se are not a good basis for intelligent debate.

Ultras are almost always wrong.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 22, 2019, 05:14:08 pm
Ultras are almost always wrong.
You're right but in this case the (dis-)qualification came from a layman, as it is very often the case.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 22, 2019, 05:51:35 pm
You're right but in this case the (dis-)qualification came from a layman, as it is very often the case.

Every time I feel down, I go to YouTube and watch experts (i.e., non-laymen) explain how there is no chance in Hell Trump would win, including those with 90% certainty Clinton would. Expert after expert, pundit after pundit. Journalists, diplomats, political scientists, etc.

That said, although I do not claim I am an expert, I am not a layman either. I was educated in the East, and I was educated in the West. I lived and work under socialism, and under capitalism. I read socialist newspapers and I read capitalist ones. It certainly gives me a different perspective than those who only read about it, if at all.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 22, 2019, 06:26:04 pm
It appears we’ve been played. Both the Iran and refugee deportation actions have been put on hold, and not only that but Iran now could be a great place!

Well.

Obviously Carlson is a better adviser than either Mike or John, or at least he knows exactly what Donald really cares about. How ‘bout a Trump tower in Tehran? Yep.

And see what a humanitarian Donald is, he’s allowing refugee families a two week reprieve giving Nancy and Mitch some time to... hmm... consider how to twist this to their advantage.

Yep, Donald (with a some help from Carlson) always knows how to pass the buck and make money doing so. Nicely done, ‘gotta admit.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 22, 2019, 06:33:20 pm
That said, although I do not claim I am an expert, I am not a layman either. I was educated in the East, and I was educated in the West. I lived and work under socialism, and under capitalism. I read socialist newspapers and I read capitalist ones. It certainly gives me a different perspective than those who only read about it, if at all.

That's great Slobodan.
BUT
A person who qualifies say, the NYT as "ultra-left", probably doesn't know really what "ultra-left" can be.
Something comparable to the socialist regimes you know? Or the socialist papers you read?
Come on... 8)
That's confusing
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 22, 2019, 07:45:13 pm
Every time I feel down, I go to YouTube and watch experts (i.e., non-laymen) explain how there is no chance in Hell Trump would win, including those with 90% certainty Clinton would. Expert after expert, pundit after pundit. Journalists, diplomats, political scientists, etc.

That said, although I do not claim I am an expert, I am not a layman either. I was educated in the East, and I was educated in the West. I lived and work under socialism, and under capitalism. I read socialist newspapers and I read capitalist ones. It certainly gives me a different perspective than those who only read about it, if at all.

Expert: A drip under pressure.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 22, 2019, 07:51:39 pm
The NYT and WP have for decades favored big government,  social programs,  Democrats,  and the left.   They particularly hate Trump.   Their news is biased against him regularly.   95% of their readership despiseTrump.   Just read their comments after the news articles.

Unfortunately,  the world's media repeat their articles.   So the world gets a distorted view of America and Americans.

Read the Washington Times fir a different perspective.   Bart suggested Reuters to me a couple of years ago for a more factual and balanced news source.   Generally I have with him
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 22, 2019, 08:26:51 pm
... A person who qualifies say, the NYT as "ultra-left", probably doesn't know really what "ultra-left" can be.
Something comparable to the socialist regimes you know? Or the socialist papers you read? ...

Let me help you. The comparison is in American terms. What’s left in America is probably touching right-of-center in Europe.

American Democrats were “the left” something like 15-20 years ago. Heck, my daughter reminds me that I was pro-Democrats when we arrived to America. She asked what changed. While I changed a bit, getting better and smarter with years, like a good wine :), the Democrats changed a lot, to the point that it would be unrecognizable 15-20 years ago. That’s what makes them “ultra-left,” in comparison with themselves, not “socialist regimes.” 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on June 22, 2019, 09:16:17 pm
Ultras are almost always wrong.

Well said.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 22, 2019, 10:55:11 pm

Iran has been a bad actor in the Middle East.  They and their proxies have stirred up war and conflict in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and half a dozen other countries with their terrorist activities.  The last thing we need is for them to be allowed to develop nukes in a few years which they would be allowed to do under the current "deal".  What would "peace" look like when that happens?  Better we nip it in the bud before they actually get the bomb.

Can you name a "good" actor in the Middle East?

One good thing about Iran though is that the 9/11 hijackers weren't from there. :)



Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 22, 2019, 11:58:27 pm
Can you name a "good" actor in the Middle East?

One good thing about Iran though is that the 9/11 hijackers weren't from there. :)





Yup.  Frankly we should pull out of the ME completely and let the players sort it out by themselves.  We'd save a lot of money we could spend on infrastructure and medical care in America.  We probably should pull out of Europe too and let the countries there handle whatever.  They have the money and strength for it now and that would give us even more money to deal with the Pacific and China.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 23, 2019, 04:07:54 am
Let me help you. The comparison is in American terms. What’s left in America is probably touching right-of-center in Europe.


There were other hidden conditions. This is a discussion in "American Terms". Now I understand--- 8)
Next time it could be "Texan Terms" against "NY Terms" and so on ad infinitum

And now enter Relativity

Using your reasoning if Democrats (Center Right in Europe) are "ultra left" in America, then the Republicans, wide right from the Democrats (European Center Right) would fall automatically on the "Ultra-right" in Europe, something like Hitler (imagine for simplicity changing the WB with the eyedropper. You choose a white point and the other colors fall relative to it - for this reasoning)

I don't see it like that. America is still a great democracy.

Of course this kind of debate brings us nowhere.
Let's do some more Great Photography instead?  ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 23, 2019, 05:03:17 am
There were other hidden conditions. This is a discussion in "American Terms". Now I understand--- 8)
Next time it could be "Texan Terms" against "NY Terms" and so on ad infinitum

And now enter Relativity

Using your reasoning if Democrats (Center Right in Europe) are "ultra left" in America, then the Republicans, wide right from the Democrats (European Center Right) would fall automatically on the "Ultra-right" in Europe, something like Hitler (imagine for simplicity changing the WB with the eyedropper. You choose a white point and the other colors fall relative to it - for this reasoning)

I don't see it like that. America is still a great democracy.

Of course this kind of debate brings us nowhere.
Let's do some more Great Photography instead?  ;)


Who's gonna cast that first stone?

There has been nothing new or great here for years; there has been nothing great or new almost anywhere I've looked recently. Frankly, it's as if everybody has deserted photography and has become camera/lens/tricks and Photoshop testers instead. What there is, however, is a raised standard of general stuff.

I broke my fast and bought Italian Vogue again some while ago, and all it had was Steven Meisel doing parodies of Steven Meisel. Anybody looked at the Pirelli Calendars of late? Where the friggin' magic these past ten or more years?

The medium seems to me to be as exhausted as I am. At least it makes me feel less like I'm alone in that sad state. The only photographic buzz that's still able to grip me comes from websites showing work by a few of the old greats. To me, they did stuff that's still timeless.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 23, 2019, 07:12:22 am
America is still a great democracy.

American democracy seems to be defined by what divides people, not by what unites them.

Not exactly what I would label as 'great'.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 23, 2019, 07:25:19 am
America is still a great democracy.

The United States is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic ("if you can keep it" as Ben Franklin said). The French had a democracy after their revolution. Didn't work out too well. Unfortunately, our ignorant left is trying to push us toward becoming a democracy. Several leftist states have abandoned the idea of the Electoral College and say they'll give their state electoral votes to the candidate with a nationwide majority. That approach may run into a small problem with the Supreme Court, but it's an attempt to bring down our Republic.

America is a great constitutional republic.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 23, 2019, 09:57:51 am
Congrats, rabanito, you just confirmed the Godwin’s Law.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 23, 2019, 10:24:00 am
The United States is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic ("if you can keep it" as Ben Franklin said). The French had a democracy after their revolution. Didn't work out too well. Unfortunately, our ignorant left is trying to push us toward becoming a democracy. Several leftist states have abandoned the idea of the Electoral College and say they'll give their state electoral votes to the candidate with a nationwide majority. That approach may run into a small problem with the Supreme Court, but it's an attempt to bring down our Republic.

America is a great constitutional republic.

The funny thing is that one day, a left Democrat state who has that rule, will have to give their State's electoral vote to the Republican candidate because he got the national popular vote even though their State's local popular vote went for the Democrat.  Watch how fast they do away with that law.

It will make the 2000 Florida "chad" debacle kid's play.  All the State's will be suing themselves in federal court to have the SUpreme Court find their own statutes unconstitutional so they could reverse their electoral votes and give them to the Democrat.  Then the Supreme COurt will be called biased whatever their decision.  What a mess it will be.  Frankl, they should rule the State can apportioned their electoral vote however they want and keep hands off.   

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 23, 2019, 10:33:19 am
The problem is that the state's voters end up disenfranchised, Alan. The first time a state actually does this and a lawsuit ensues, the thing's gonna zip through the court system and end up in the hands of the Supremes almost immediately, just as Algore's attempt to subvert the electoral process in Florida zipped to the Supremes. Ain't no way this is gonna hold up under the Constitution. We went through this whole argument when the Constitution was adopted.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 23, 2019, 10:37:30 am
American democracy seems to be defined by what divides people, not by what unites them.

Not exactly what I would label as 'great'.

Cheers,
Bart
Division and difference of thought is what democracy is all about.  No country of 330 million people think alike.  Doesn't your country and others have many parties?  What's the popular percentage vote of the PM when he is elected?  Probably less votes than Trump got.   

American democracy is "great" in that people still influence politics and power.  It hasn't slipped into autocracy.  After 200 years, we're still a nation of laws protected by a constitutional bill of rights.  That's not bad. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 23, 2019, 10:38:19 am
The problem is that the state's voters end up disenfranchised, Alan. The first time a state actually does this and a lawsuit ensues, the thing's gonna zip through the court system and end up in the hands of the Supremes almost immediately, just as Algore's attempt to subvert the electoral process in Florida zipped to the Supremes. Ain't no way this is gonna hold up under the Constitution. We went through this whole argument when the Constitution was adopted.

People, or those for this odd pact on popular vote, seem to forget this.  There was many factions fighting over this and states' powers quite intently, and this was the compromise that was devised.  On top of it, many of the founders wrote on the subject, which would certainly be looked at by the Supremes. 

I find it unlikely that this pact, when challenged, would be allowed to stand since it goes so much against the founder's notes on the subject. 

Although it would be quite comical to see Alan's situation happen.  Another thing people forget is that State's flip flop all the time through out history.  TX use to be democratic and CA use to be very republican.  WV, which actually decided to the election for George W Bush, was a solid blue state until he got it to switch in 2000.  It just make me laugh when I see people talk (mainly liberals currently but conservatives too) about state policies as if things wont swing the other way. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 23, 2019, 10:49:14 am
The problem is that the state's voters end up disenfranchised, Alan. The first time a state actually does this and a lawsuit ensues, the thing's gonna zip through the court system and end up in the hands of the Supremes almost immediately, just as Algore's attempt to subvert the electoral process in Florida zipped to the Supremes. Ain't no way this is gonna hold up under the Constitution. We went through this whole argument when the Constitution was adopted.

You realize of course that a lawsuit is in the cards for 2020.  They will be filed immediately.  The winner of the presidency will not be able to be known until the Supremes vote.  Another 2000 mess.  It may turn out that the Court rules their methods are constitutional.  Who knows?  After all, the Constitution does not require electors to vote one way or the other. In fact, in 2016, a bunch of Clinton "faithless" electors voted for Trump and vice versa.  Perfectly legal. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election)

So who's to say how a state decides how their electors are selected in the first place?  Well, it will be worth another thread here and we'll get lot's of foreigner's opinions on what we should do.  It's going to be a lot of fun :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 23, 2019, 10:53:17 am
You realize of course that a lawsuit is in the cards for 2020.  They will be filed immediately.  The winner of the presidency will not be able to be known until the Supremes vote.  Another 2000 mess.  It may turn out that the Court rules their methods are constitutional.  Who knows?  After all, the Constitution does not require electors to vote one way or the other. In fact, in 2016, a bunch of Clinton "faithless" electors voted for Trump and vice versa.  Perfectly legal. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election)

So who's to say how a state decides how their electors are selected in the first place?  Well, it will be worth another thread here and we'll get lot's of foreigner's opinions on what we should do.  It's going to be a lot of fun :)

I believe the pact does not actually go into effect until enough states sign on so a majority of electoral votes is guaranteed.  Right now, that pact has not gotten there yet, so any state that passed it will still have their electoral votes go to the state's winner. 

On top of this, many of the states that signed on switched democratic during the last midterms.  They could certainly switch back and cancel their alliance to it.  I cant see any relatively small swing state that is currently democratic that has aligned itself not cancelling it when the majority turns Republican.  Really this pact is only going to stay in those states that are liberal progressive states already, and more then likely there will never be enough states that sign onto it to make it actually go into effect. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 23, 2019, 11:08:46 am
You realize of course that a lawsuit is in the cards for 2020.  They will be filed immediately.  The winner of the presidency will not be able to be known until the Supremes vote.  Another 2000 mess.  It may turn out that the Court rules their methods are constitutional.  Who knows?  After all, the Constitution does not require electors to vote one way or the other. In fact, in 2016, a bunch of Clinton "faithless" electors voted for Trump and vice versa.  Perfectly legal. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election)

So who's to say how a state decides how their electors are selected in the first place?  Well, it will be worth another thread here and we'll get lot's of foreigner's opinions on what we should do.  It's going to be a lot of fun :)


And to make it even worse, it's a "foreigner" gave you the opportunity to shine forth on well over six hundred plus posts on the matter!

:-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 23, 2019, 11:12:15 am
I believe the pact does not actually go into effect until enough states sign on so a majority of electoral votes is guaranteed.  Right now, that pact has not gotten there yet, so any state that passed it will still have their electoral votes go to the state's winner. 

On top of this, many of the states that signed on switched democratic during the last midterms.  They could certainly switch back and cancel their alliance to it.  I cant see any relatively small swing state that is currently democratic that has aligned itself not cancelling it when the majority turns Republican.  Really this pact is only going to stay in those states that are liberal progressive states already, and more then likely there will never be enough states that sign onto it to make it actually go into effect. 

It's quite complicated and will create a lot of fun in the Supreme Court as they hash it out.  To me though, it seems like it would disenfranchise a particular state's voters since their electors would be selected on how other state legislatures determine their electors rather than on their own state.  ie. a Georgian's elector would be determined by a Californian legislature.  That's where the violation of the Constitution is. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 23, 2019, 11:14:59 am

And to make it even worse, it's a "foreigner" gave you the opportunity to shine forth on well over six hundred plus posts on the matter!

:-)

Well, it was your King George III who started this mess in the first place. :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 23, 2019, 11:24:43 am
...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 23, 2019, 11:35:51 am
That's not a fair representation.  Here's is a better representation of the electoral vote situation.  Each state gets two additional votes for each of their state's senators.  So while biased, it's much more slender than the original map you showed. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 23, 2019, 11:41:02 am
Another way of looking at it.
What each popular vote is worth per electoral vote in each state.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 23, 2019, 11:45:39 am
That's not a fair representation.  Here's is a better representation of the electoral vote situation.  Each state gets two additional votes for each of their state's senators.  So while biased, it's much more slender than the original map you showed. 

I am not sure what you are contesting in the map I showed? My map shows what would happen if NO electoral college existed and only popular vote is used.

EDIT: Just to be sure, I am not advocating against electoral college, on the contrary.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 23, 2019, 11:52:51 am
I am not sure what you are contesting in the map I showed? My map shows what would happen if NO electoral college existed and only popular vote is used.
Ok I understand, you're right.  I was looking at it from the standpoint of how it could make the electoral college look so much more unfair, when it isn't.  So I wanted to show the relative weight of the electoral college by comparison.  You popular vote map shows why candidates will only campaign in four states - California, NY, Texas and FLorida and ignore the rest of the country.  The electoral college forces them to at least think of the rest of the country and not forget their needs. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 23, 2019, 12:01:32 pm
Another infographic:

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 23, 2019, 12:05:41 pm
Another infographic:


Not sure this means much.  There are 24 democrats running against one republican - Trump, who is also currently the president with no one running against him except maybe Weld.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 23, 2019, 12:25:41 pm

Iran has been a bad actor in the Middle East.  They and their proxies have stirred up war and conflict in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and half a dozen other countries with their terrorist activities. 

The day irony died ..
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 23, 2019, 01:02:31 pm
The day irony died ..

But their activities are against our interests.    :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 23, 2019, 01:56:17 pm

Who's gonna cast that first stone?

There has been nothing new or great here for years; there has been nothing great or new almost anywhere I've looked recently. Frankly, it's as if everybody has deserted photography and has become camera/lens/tricks and Photoshop testers instead. What there is, however, is a raised standard of general stuff.

I broke my fast and bought Italian Vogue again some while ago, and all it had was Steven Meisel doing parodies of Steven Meisel. Anybody looked at the Pirelli Calendars of late? Where the friggin' magic these past ten or more years?

The medium seems to me to be as exhausted as I am. At least it makes me feel less like I'm alone in that sad state. The only photographic buzz that's still able to grip me comes from websites showing work by a few of the old greats. To me, they did stuff that's still timeless.

Rob

Rob, that's a figure of speech
I meant that better than nitpicking on alien subjects we should dedicate our time in what is of primary interest in this website, namely photography, great or not  ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 23, 2019, 02:07:35 pm
America is a great constitutional republic.

Well, it is your country, you know better.

I see it from the point of view of the definitions of republic and democracy. Both conditions seem to be met.
1.Republic, form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body.The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy.
2.Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

I wouldn't argue the point.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 23, 2019, 02:17:42 pm
Congrats, rabanito, you just confirmed the Godwin’s Law.

Ah, Slobodan, those are commonplaces.
I name Hitler because it's well known. If instead I put, say, Ante Pavelić the probability that anybody recognizes it is smaller
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 23, 2019, 03:16:47 pm
You realize of course that a lawsuit is in the cards for 2020.  They will be filed immediately.  The winner of the presidency will not be able to be known until the Supremes vote.  Another 2000 mess.  It may turn out that the Court rules their methods are constitutional.  Who knows?  After all, the Constitution does not require electors to vote one way or the other. In fact, in 2016, a bunch of Clinton "faithless" electors voted for Trump and vice versa.  Perfectly legal. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election)

So who's to say how a state decides how their electors are selected in the first place?  Well, it will be worth another thread here and we'll get lot's of foreigner's opinions on what we should do.  It's going to be a lot of fun :)

Happily, it's only deep blue states that are getting ready to do this. They'd vote Democrat in any case, so the result probably wouldn't change. But if, say, a majority in Colorado vote Republican and it turns out that the state's electoral college votes go to the Democrats because New York, California, and a few other high population states gave the national total to the Democrats it's gonna cause the equivalent of another civil war.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 23, 2019, 03:18:48 pm
Rob, that's a figure of speech
I meant that better than nitpicking on alien subjects we should dedicate our time in what is of primary interest in this website, namely photography, great or not  ;)

No, that is not logical: those spending their time here on this thread do so because they want to; who amongst us has the right to tell them not to, to concentrate on making snaps?

If that's what you prefer, it's your call to disappear from this thread and to pop up in others. You see? Everybody free to do as they wish.

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 23, 2019, 03:59:25 pm
No, that is not logical: those spending their time here on this thread do so because they want to; who amongst us has the right to tell them not to, to concentrate on making snaps?

If that's what you prefer, it's your call to disappear from this thread and to pop up in others. You see? Everybody free to do as they wish.

;-)

Rob, Rob, you played that tune before.
I am a friendly being.
Look:
"Of course this kind of debate brings us nowhere.
Let's do some more Great Photography instead?  ;)"


That's the text.
It's a proposal! Just that! Look at the question mark at the end of the phrase!
And it was directed to ONE person with whom I was sustaining a conversation and not to the forum anyway...
Don't you think you are overreacting?
A figure of speech mustn't be "logical".
It is "A word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect".
Ayayay...  :(
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 23, 2019, 04:27:48 pm
Rob, that's a figure of speech
I meant that better than nitpicking on alien subjects we should dedicate our time in what is of primary interest in this website, namely photography, great or not  ;)

I'm all for sharing great photography. But if it's not that great, I'd rather amuse and educate myself by reading some other topics.
Actually great photography and interesting political discussions are not mutually exclusive. Even on the same site.
 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 23, 2019, 04:31:08 pm
... If that's what you prefer, it's your call to disappear from this thread and to pop up in others. You see? Everybody free to do as they wish.

Sorry to see you go, rabanito 😢
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 23, 2019, 04:54:34 pm
I'm all for sharing great photography. But if it's not that great, I'd rather amuse and educate myself by reading some other topics.
Actually great photography and interesting political discussions are not mutually exclusive. Even on the same site.
Of course you are right.
That was a friendly proposal to the person which which I was conversing, just to finish that particular debate.
Rob was probably not aware of it and reacted without knowing all the facts.
I explained the situation to him above.
And "Great Photography" is an ironical remark. That's not mine, to be sure  ;D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 23, 2019, 05:05:12 pm
... And "Great Photography" is an ironical remark...

You are now insulting my photography too?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 23, 2019, 05:10:59 pm
Sorry to see you go, rabanito 😢

Hehe, I got my orders from Rob. What else could I do?
And I'm easy to be bullied, as you well know.  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 23, 2019, 05:24:06 pm
You are now insulting my photography too?

Me? God forbid!
Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
The word used for the insulting expression is sarcasm
English is a very difficult language, I know ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 23, 2019, 06:48:20 pm
About the lack and cessation of Great Photography: Contrary to all rumours, it is still alive and thriving.
The latest Lula article / Zizka Photography shows some spectacular and very unique images. Quite different from the silky waterfalls, homeless persons, and Grand Canyon panoramas.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 24, 2019, 06:35:24 am
Let me help you. The comparison is in American terms. What’s left in America is probably touching right-of-center in Europe.

American Democrats were “the left” something like 15-20 years ago. Heck, my daughter reminds me that I was pro-Democrats when we arrived to America. She asked what changed. While I changed a bit, getting better and smarter with years, like a good wine :), the Democrats changed a lot, to the point that it would be unrecognizable 15-20 years ago. That’s what makes them “ultra-left,” in comparison with themselves, not “socialist regimes.”

Not only that, but their colours are also confusing.
Red has been traditionally a communist colour. In Canada, Liberals use bright red colour and the conservatives a blue colour. No wonder, there is so little international cooperation between the parties.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 24, 2019, 07:21:40 am
Not only that, but their colours are also confusing.
Red has been traditionally a communist colour. In Canada, Liberals use bright red colour and the conservatives a blue colour. No wonder, there is so little international cooperation between the parties.

The red color is effective, attractive and "revolutionary"
Both the NSDAP and the communists chose these colors for their banners.
Not necessarily a sign of political ideology (right or left)
Now the Nazis are almost extinct and the left are the only "reds" left (pun not intended)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 24, 2019, 07:56:05 am
50 years ago Americans interchangeably called the communists "Reds".  Such as "The reds behind the iron curtain."  Also "Red CHina"  or "The Red Army" although you don;t hear that today about China even though they still are.  What did they call them in Europe?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 24, 2019, 08:03:14 am
And our "neutral" media decided they didn't want the left to be branded as reds, so they started printing maps showing Republicans as red and Democrats as blue. This was a gross mischaracterization, but it fit their fake news purposes.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 24, 2019, 08:03:41 am
The Nazis are far from extinct.

The rise of the ultra-right across the first world shows that relatively clearly.

You have it in Britain, in Italy, In France, in Spain and in more European countries and Lord knows you have it in the States!

It renewed its public face with the onset of the Middle Eastern and African civil commotions and the resultant refugees, because it finally had a tangible fact that all but the wilfully blind could not avoid seeing: the changing face of the city streets and the people trying to ride trucks and trains and boats and well, probably not 'planes, to cross into Europe. In France, those refugees wise enough to know that the UK is an even softer touch, with thousands of liberal whites screaming against scanning uninvited guests, did and still do their best to get across the Channel into England. An added advantage they have is the already huge population of non-whites, a diaspora of black and brown within which all who enter illegally have little trouble disappearing, and then re-emerging with brand new identities, should they so desire, rather than stay "invisibly lost" in the crowd.

In France, at the ferry terminal ports, some locals feed these people and encourage them. Of course they do! The better their health and the fitter they are, the sooner and more able they will be to get the hell out of France and into the UK! There's nothing humanitarian about it - it's clear self-interest in moving their problem next door.

No, one cannot deny them their right to want a better life; one can deny them the ability to drop in uninvited. Recent stirs about London no longer being a "British" city, as in a white one, shows just how divided the country has become, with those with poor sight (alluded to above) chanting that 'tis not so, despite the evidence that those who live there see every day.

Unfortunately, that has all beome entangled with the idea that Brexit will supply the solution, when in fact it is totally irrelevant, as anybody who has looked at it coldly, knows. Refugee rights are limited to the first safe state of entry, so they are legally obliged to stay, for example, in Turkey, in Italy, in Greece or even Spain. They don't ride an inflatable from North Africa along the Atlantic and onto British beaches!

They clearly have no intentions of staying where they first hit "safety".

It's a deep problem, and I honestly believe it's going to end in those forseen rivers of blood.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 24, 2019, 08:05:45 am
And our "neutral" media decided they didn't want the left to be branded as reds, so they started printing maps showing Republicans as red and Democrats as blue. This was a gross mischaracterization, but it fit their fake news purposes.

Yeah, when did that start.  I just noticed it recently and thought that the press made it up that way.  Democrats should be "red".  I agree. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 24, 2019, 08:13:55 am
The Nazis are far from extinct.

The rise of the ultra-right across the first world shows that relatively clearly.

You have it in Britain, in Italy, In France, in Spain and in more European countries and Lord knows you have it in the States!

It renewed its public face with the onset of the Middle Eastern and African civil commotions and the resultant refugees, because it finally had a tangible fact that all but the wilfully blind could not avoid seeing: the changing face of the city streets and the people trying to ride trucks and trains and boats and well, probably not 'planes, to cross into Europe. In France, those refugees wise enough to know that the UK is an even softer touch, with thousands of liberal whites screaming against scanning uninvited guests, did and still do their best to get across the Channel into England. An added advantage they have is the already huge population of non-whites, a diaspora of black and brown within which all who enter illegally have little trouble disappearing, and then re-emerging with brand new identities, should they so desire, rather than stay "invisibly lost" in the crowd.

In France, at the ferry terminal ports, some locals feed these people and encourage them. Of course they do! The better their health and the fitter they are, the sooner and more able they will be to get the hell out of France and into the UK! There's nothing humanitarian about it - it's clear self-interest in moving their problem next door.

No, one cannot deny them their right to want a better life; one can deny them the ability to drop in uninvited. Recent stirs about London no longer being a "British" city, as in a white one, shows just how divided the country has become, with those with poor sight (alluded to above) chanting that 'tis not so, despite the evidence that those who live there see every day.

It's a deep problem, and I honestly believe it's going to end in those forseen rivers of blood.

Rob


Isn't that one of the main arguments for Brexit?  It seems you're conflicted. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 24, 2019, 09:01:08 am
The Nazis are far from extinct.

The rise of the ultra-right across the first world shows that relatively clearly.


It depends to what degree of precision you call anybody "Nazi"
You can call Nazi a person who at their time followed that ideology
Or you can call Nazi anybody with racist traits.
Or if not racist, maybe xenophobe. Or homophobe or whateverphobe.
Just a Boo-Word to define an enemy and make it easily identifiable.
Then the Nazis are far from extinct. Under special circumstances anybody can become a nazi of this kind.
But what I was talking about is colors.
Rightist (NSDAP) and Leftists (socialists to communists) chose red as their color.
It's not what others called them but what color they chose.

It's just a color.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 24, 2019, 09:03:22 am
Rob, as I'm sure you're fully aware, NAZI translates as "National SOCIALIST German Worker's" party. In spite of the unfortunately successful attempts of our news media to hang that label on the right, in fact it's just another left-wing socialist title.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on June 24, 2019, 09:13:39 am
Rob, as I'm sure you're fully aware, NAZI translates as "National SOCIALIST German Worker's" party. In spite of the unfortunately successful attempts of our news media to hang that label on the right, in fact it's just another left-wing socialist title.
You are right. But it is not less national than socialist.
It is not "international". It is a "local" - ideology, they didn't speak of "struggle of classes".
That's what Hitler wanted. To make Germany great again. (no ugly comparisons intended, but that was it) after WWI, Versailles, humiliation and the stab-in-the-back legend.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 24, 2019, 09:17:46 am
Ah, but it was socialism at work, Rab. With socialism you always end up with a dictator, even though, as in Venezuela the dictator pretends to hold elections.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 24, 2019, 09:21:55 am
Rob, as I'm sure you're fully aware, NAZI translates as "National SOCIALIST German Worker's" party. In spite of the unfortunately successful attempts of our news media to hang that label on the right, in fact it's just another left-wing socialist title.

Well Russ, perhaps because the right includes skin heads and white nationalists who use Nazi emblems as part of their identity, and who support your beloved Donald. Funny how socialism is good when it's for whites only.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 24, 2019, 09:31:44 am
Most of the violence in America is coming from the "left".  On campus violence to shutdown viewpoints of others who the left disagrees with is a common example.


Even before in the 1960's and 1970's, left-wing organizations like The Black Liberation Army, Symbionese Liberation Army, Weathermen, etc. were extremely violent blowing up bombs and killing people and cops.   The Nazi party was rather sedate doing little comparably.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/days-rage-1970s-americas-homegrown-violent-bomb-setting-radical-underground (https://www.lawfareblog.com/days-rage-1970s-americas-homegrown-violent-bomb-setting-radical-underground)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 24, 2019, 09:42:09 am
Well Russ, perhaps because the right includes skin heads and white nationalists who use Nazi emblems as part of their identity, and who support your beloved Donald. Funny how socialism is good when it's for whites only.

There are just as many "wackos" on the left who are violent and support regular politicians like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.  The problem is America has two parties only.  So you have to select one of them.  So each party gets a bad wrap from the outlier groups who should all be in jail.  But 98% of the people are not in these groups or care about their politics.  The average person cares about their taxes, how can they afford to send their kid to college, health care, war, and where they're going to spend their vacation this year.  Of course the liberal anti Trump press always tries to make the links to smear the Republicans.  When a leftist does violence, ,they quickly change the subject to gun control.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 24, 2019, 09:59:59 am
who support your beloved Donald.

Sorry, Omer. "Donald" is a long way from being my "beloved." I don't like his personality. I often wish he'd shut up. But I'll tell you this: he's exactly what we need at the moment. The Democrat coup attempt during and after his election is a clear case in point. It would have been a lot more effective against a Bush or a Romney. Against Donald it's a dud. For the first time since this crap started in the sixties we actually may see some national malefactors end up in the slam. We might even see Hillary questioned under oath. That's called "progress." Donald must be a progressive.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 24, 2019, 10:12:14 am
...  Recent stirs about London no longer being a "British" city...

You mean Londonistan?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 24, 2019, 10:35:54 am
Sorry, Omer. "Donald" is a long way from being my "beloved." I don't like his personality. I often wish he'd shut up. But I'll tell you this: he's exactly what we need at the moment. The Democrat coup attempt during and after his election is a clear case in point. It would have been a lot more effective against a Bush or a Romney. Against Donald it's a dud. For the first time since this crap started in the sixties we actually may see some national malefactors end up in the slam. We might even see Hillary questioned under oath. That's called "progress." Donald must be a progressive.

Just what we need?

I think we can all agree that our air is better than it was in the past, and as photographers having clear vistas is a good thing. So what to make of some of the EPAs standards rollbacks which will allow coal plants to emit more pollutants. And do we really want oil wells in our compositions of previously pristine landscapes?

I don’t see how that’s better.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 24, 2019, 10:46:23 am
Frankly, Omer, when we can get India and China to rein in their pollution, THEN I’ll worry about our coal plants and oil wells. With fracking and horizontal drilling it takes damned little surface presence to generate the kind of oil production the U.S.A. now enjoys. Stuff like that pales in comparison with the crooked political stuff that’s gone on with some of our recent (I define “recent” from the viewpoint of view of 89 years) Democrat administrations. Yes. Trump, or someone like him, is just what we need at the moment, before the left pushes the United States into the kind of socialist disaster we see in Venezuela. Would I prefer somebody who’s smoother? Damn right. I’d love to see Nikki Haley as our first female president. But for the time being, Trump’s doing what has to be done.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 24, 2019, 10:59:28 am
Just what we need?

I think we can all agree that our air is better than it was in the past, and as photographers having clear vistas is a good thing. So what to make of some of the EPAs standards rollbacks which will allow coal plants to emit more pollutants. And do we really want oil wells in our compositions of previously pristine landscapes?

I don’t see how that’s better.

Many rollbacks were needed.  Many I disagree with.  I think Obama instituted too many that were not required or created more problems than they were worth.  So now the pendulum has swung and we may be getting too many reversals.  However, despite the rollbacks, we're not going back to poisoned air or water.  Also, most of the new oil production are not from wells but from underground fracking.  Also, where wells are being dug, there aren't very many people to see them.  Also, we're getting to a point where we won;pt have to depend on Arabs for our oil.  Being oil independent like that would save a lot of American treasure and blood fighting wars in the Middle East.  They could all go to hell, then.  How much is that worth? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 24, 2019, 11:04:44 am
Rob, as I'm sure you're fully aware, NAZI translates as "National SOCIALIST German Worker's" party. In spite of the unfortunately successful attempts of our news media to hang that label on the right, in fact it's just another left-wing socialist title.

Gosh Russ, the DPRK and the PRC must really give you fits.  Hell, DPRK has both “Democratic” AND “Republic” in the name, and as you’re so fond of pedantically pointing out, they mean significantly different things.

In reality, course, you’re likely not bothered one iota because you’ve got one of the absolute worst cases of confirmation bias I’ve ever seen, at least as far as your online persona goes. Carry on.
 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 24, 2019, 11:06:14 am
Many rollbacks were needed.  Many I disagree with.  I think Obama instituted too many that were not required or created more problems than they were worth.  So now the pendulum has swung and we may be getting too many reversals.  However, despite the rollbacks, we're not going back to poisoned air or water.  Also, most of the new oil production are not from wells but from underground fracking.  Also, where wells are being dug, there aren't very many people to see them.  Also, we're getting to a point where we won;pt have to depend on Arabs for our oil.  Being oil independent like that would save a lot of American treasure and blood fighting wars in the Middle East.  They could all go to hell, then.  How much is that worth?

All fair points Alan.  I think you’re understating the impact of fracking, but these are exactly the kind of trade offs that need to be discussed scientifically and rationally, not politically. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 24, 2019, 11:11:31 am
...these are exactly the kind of trade offs that need to be discussed scientifically and rationally, not politically.

And you actually believe that's possible? If so, where? Certainly not in the "news media." Certainly not in Congress, which is where the work should be done. Too busy with preparations for impeachment.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 24, 2019, 11:13:22 am
... these are exactly the kind of trade offs that need to be discussed scientifically and rationally, not politically. 

That is like saying that matters of war and peace should only be discussed by soldiers.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 24, 2019, 11:20:55 am
All fair points Alan.  I think you’re understating the impact of fracking, but these are exactly the kind of trade offs that need to be discussed scientifically and rationally, not politically. 

There are some unknowns regarding fracking's long term potential problem.  But much of the research and evidence so far is that there are not major issues.  Meanwhile, America has become the largest oil producer in the world, even beyond Saudi Arabia. The USA has driven down the cost of oil for everyone in the world.  It's cheaper for everyone to live and eat in the world, quite an accomplishment.  While we can study these things scientifically, it all comes down to politics because government regulation is politics that affect individuals and companies.    And regulations take away someone's freedoms.  So finding the "right" balance is difficult.   In any case, wouldn't it be nice to tell the Saudi prince to go shove it?  Of course, Europe would have to buy  oil from Trump which many Europeans might find just as odious. Meanwhile the Germans are building an oil pipeline to their friends the Russians.  What a crazy world.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 24, 2019, 11:41:38 am
Frankly, Omer, when we can get India and China to rein in their pollution, THEN I’ll worry about our coal plants and oil wells. With fracking and horizontal drilling it takes damned little surface presence to generate the kind of oil production the U.S.A. now enjoys. Stuff like that pales in comparison with the crooked political stuff that’s gone on with some of our recent (I define “recent” from the viewpoint of view of 89 years) Democrat administrations. Yes. Trump, or someone like him, is just what we need at the moment, before the left pushes the United States into the kind of socialist disaster we see in Venezuela. Would I prefer somebody who’s smoother? Damn right. I’d love to see Nikki Haley as our first female president. But for the time being, Trump’s doing what has to be done.

So we need to catch up with China and India in bad air quality?  ::)

You know very well that fracking is not without problems, one being the pollution of underground water.

Russ, if the right concentrates on the past it will be buried, and it knows it. It’s only at Donald’s ego pep rallies where the specter of Clinton raised.

Many rollbacks were needed.  Many I disagree with.  I think Obama instituted too many that were not required or created more problems than they were worth.  So now the pendulum has swung and we may be getting too many reversals.  However, despite the rollbacks, we're not going back to poisoned air or water.  Also, most of the new oil production are not from wells but from underground fracking.  Also, where wells are being dug, there aren't very many people to see them.  Also, we're getting to a point where we won;pt have to depend on Arabs for our oil.  Being oil independent like that would save a lot of American treasure and blood fighting wars in the Middle East.  They could all go to hell, then.  How much is that worth? 

Obviously oil and natural gas are the main energy fuels we have now, but conservatives are mistaken if they believe the majority of US citizens don’t care about pollution. Rather than constantly thinking about the wars of oil, we need to give younger generations the room to create their future that will hopefully be better than our present. The EPA rollbacks are all about keeping dirty industries relevant, but to who’s benefit?

Too late for old guys like us and not good enough for our children.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 24, 2019, 11:56:26 am

Isn't that one of the main arguments for Brexit?  It seems you're conflicted.


No, no conflict in my position.

Brexit can only affect people moving legally from fellow member states; the problems of illegal migrants have nothing to do with it; don't you see the difference? It's those illegals camping at Calais, waiting to hitch a ride across the sea to England, that have rightly scared the shit out of so many Brits. But they are not European migrants; they are from Africa and the Middle East, places with no stake in the EU venture. It was the illustration of a zillion marching refugees that the Brexit camp cleverly displayed on its bus that created the fear (all of them decidedly non-whites), the blind belief that it was all Europe's fault, when the truth is that Europe is fighting the same bloody battle, too! It's as much victim of migration as is Britain, only far more so.

Those illegals will still be turning up and waiting there at Calais, UK membership of Europe or not. Is that more clear than I have been able to make it already? Brexit will not alter that in any way.

Jobs of European member nurses and doctors in Britain are under threat. What happens when or if their fear of local attack because they can't speak with some goddam regional British accent or another comes to a head, and they go back home? There has already been a murder in England of a Pole for no reason other than his being Polish. May promised them job security after Brexit; as with St Trump and Nuclear Deals, that could vanish at the change of leadership. When morality goes out of a nation's character, the evil rises unchecked, and baby, is there evil!

That's the true colour of the rabble for which Boris is standing holding a banner.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 24, 2019, 12:00:54 pm
You know very well that fracking is not without problems, one being the pollution of underground water.

I'm still waiting for a genuine demonstration that that's true, Omer. I see our "media" and our Democrats pushing that idea, but that's about all. James Clark says we need to approach this stuff scientifically. but that's exactly what our "media" and our left-wingers are avoiding. They're into "the big lie," which originated with guess who (a national socialist). It's effective. I'll have to say that. After all, you believe it, and I've always considered you to have both feet on the ground -- well, at least a foot and a half.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 24, 2019, 12:04:53 pm
There are some unknowns regarding fracking's long term potential problem.  But much of the research and evidence so far is that there are not major issues.  Meanwhile, America has become the largest oil producer in the world, even beyond Saudi Arabia. The USA has driven down the cost of oil for everyone in the world.  It's cheaper for everyone to live and eat in the world, quite an accomplishment.  While we can study these things scientifically, it all comes down to politics because government regulation is politics that affect individuals and companies.    And regulations take away someone's freedoms.  So finding the "right" balance is difficult.   In any case, wouldn't it be nice to tell the Saudi prince to go shove it?  Of course, Europe would have to buy  oil from Trump which many Europeans might find just as odious. Meanwhile the Germans are building an oil pipeline to their friends the Russians.  What a crazy world.  :)

1. Any drilling has certain earthquake and oil spill consequences. Fracking with its high pressure techniques more than regular drilling.
2. The Nordstream pipeline is built for natural gas, not oil. Financed 50% by Russia, 50% by EU countries. Same gas as it is now carried by the pipeline through Ukraine.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 24, 2019, 12:19:55 pm
I'm still waiting for a genuine demonstration that that's true, Omer. I see our "media" and our Democrats pushing that idea, but that's about all. James Clark says we need to approach this stuff scientifically. but that's exactly what our "media" and our left-wingers are avoiding. They're into "the big lie," which originated with guess who (a national socialist). It's effective. I'll have to say that. After all, you believe it, and I've always considered you to have both feet on the ground -- well, at least a foot and a half.

Ha! There are times when I can’t tell if I have five or seven fingers:  (Marc Chagall self portrait)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 24, 2019, 12:22:11 pm
Don't feel like the Lone Ranger, Omer. I get into the same configuration from time to time.

Speaking of the Lone Ranger, and getting way off topic: we used to have a pawn shop in Colorado Springs that called himself "The Loan Arranger."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 24, 2019, 12:22:56 pm
Fracking, drilling or otherwise, all of those sources are finite.

The sensible thing to do is to create alternatives. The oil folks know this, and some have hedged their futures as moneymakers by investing in alternative ventures. Some see that as nothing but cynical manoeuvring, but I don't agree: they are thinking ahead. The problem is, they are taking too long in the middle ground. There has to be a push to move faster.

China and India are red herrings. I would be highly surprised if China were not beavering away at alternative technologies, and one day coming up with the solutions that those who sat on their thumb will then have to buy from them. Wait, sanctions! That'll fix 'em.

If you are on a sinking ship, you don't stop closing down the bulkheads because some sections of hull are already flooded: you do your damndest to keep the entire structure afloat. You attend to the wet bits if and when you make port. If you just give up, you die.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 24, 2019, 01:32:09 pm
True, Rob. But nobody has a clue about how long the fuels we now depend on will last. According to Jimmy Carter we were on the verge of running out of fossil fuels back in his day. We now have a lot more than we had then. At the moment the only alternative to fossil fuel energy that seems possibly accessible is nuclear. We’re not there yet. In fact we’re not even close. There may be another alternative nobody’s thought of, but at this point we can be sure neither wind nor solar is that alternative. In the end, human ingenuity always has prevailed. It’ll do it again this time.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 24, 2019, 02:37:43 pm
True, Rob. But nobody has a clue about how long the fuels we now depend on will last. According to Jimmy Carter we were on the verge of running out of fossil fuels back in his day. We now have a lot more than we had then. At the moment the only alternative to fossil fuel energy that seems possibly accessible is nuclear. We’re not there yet. In fact we’re not even close. There may be another alternative nobody’s thought of, but at this point we can be sure neither wind nor solar is that alternative. In the end, human ingenuity always has prevailed. It’ll do it again this time.

I'm working on converting water to gasoline. Would anyone like to invest in my company?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 24, 2019, 03:14:21 pm
The problem with wind and solar, outside the fact they’re left-wing icons, is that neither is a method of storing solar energy. Fossil fuels are such a storage method. It’s storage that we need. We need a fuel that’ll let us, like the train they call the City of New Orleans, be gone five hundred miles when the day is done. You can’t do that with an “electric” car. We’ve made amazing progress in battery storage since I was a kid, but it’s a drop in the bucket compared with what we need. The energy’s there in solar, but it’s intermittent. We can forget about wind unless we can come up with a better method of accessing it than the bird blenders we now have. People will only put up with the desecration of our prairies and the killing of birds for so long before they rebel. If we come up with a really good way to store energy we probably can use nuclear to generate it. Somewhere down the line we’ll figure it out.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 24, 2019, 03:37:11 pm
1. Any drilling has certain earthquake and oil spill consequences. Fracking with its high pressure techniques more than regular drilling.
2. The Nordstream pipeline is built for natural gas, not oil. Financed 50% by Russia, 50% by EU countries. Same gas as it is now carried by the pipeline through Ukraine.

Les, 1. You know life is full of risk.  We kill 40,000 Americans on the road every year.  But we don;t stop driving.  Same with fracking.  There might be some downstream risk.  But meanwhile, it's providing cheap oil and natural gas, the latter which is replacing filthier coal and oil and reducing pollution.  My community of 1100 homes heats with natural gas.  No stinking oil is allowed.  Less schmutz.  More American oil will lessen the world's reliance on Middle East oil and the need to militarily protect that area.  Maybe we should let Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz and it's oil shipments.  We'll be able to sell more American oil.  :)
2. Isn;t a pipeline through the Ukraine "safer" to western European countries than one from Russia? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 24, 2019, 04:04:29 pm
1. At the speeds I drive, especially on the  Autobahn, I don't put any strain on the earth, so it's earthquake safe.

2. I'm no export in the pipelines. But if the Russians built it to standards of their Sputniks Soyuz vehicles, they should be safe. Almost as good as Toyotas.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 24, 2019, 04:13:31 pm
2. I'm no export in the pipelines. But if the Russians built it to standards of their Sputniks Soyuz vehicles, they should be safe. Almost as good as Toyotas.

Until they shut off the gas.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 24, 2019, 04:33:08 pm
That's a good point, but on the other hand, it could open a new market for American-made Tesla batteries.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 24, 2019, 06:56:41 pm
Until they shut off the gas.

Which the USA would never do?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 24, 2019, 07:17:33 pm
Illegal immigration took a hit recently in the US.  The Mexican government has finally agreed to help after a Trump threat of imposing tariffs on their exports to the US.  However, you probably haven;t read about it.  The good news about Mexico helping us decrease illegal immigration into the US will soon fall off the headlines before Trump gets too much credit.  After all, next year is another presidential election and we only want to publish bad news regarding his policies.  In case you haven;t read about it overseas, here is probably the last article you might read about it.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adolfoflores/mexico-deploying-troops-border-stop-immigrants.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 24, 2019, 07:19:54 pm
Until they shut off the gas.

As far as I know, the Russian-Ukrainian pipeline was shut off because the Ukrainians stopped paying for gas. Which wouldn't happened with EU.
On second thought, stopping the future gas purchases from Russia could become Germany's secret weapon.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 24, 2019, 07:30:21 pm
If I remember correctly, during the worst cold war years, Russian never threatened to cut off gas to Europe, knowing quite well that is the weapon they can only use once.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 24, 2019, 07:32:22 pm
As far as I know, the Russian-Ukrainian pipeline was shut off because the Ukrainians stopped paying for gas. Which wouldn't happened with EU.
On second thought, stopping the future gas purchases from Russia could become Germany's secret weapon.


I can just see the headlines: "Germany's NATO Forces Pass Out Wool Blankets in Preparation of Shutting Down Gas Pipeline to Russia."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 24, 2019, 07:43:19 pm
Which the USA would never do?

Cheers,
Bart

Can't quite figure out how the U.S. could do that to a Russian pipe, Bart.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 24, 2019, 09:52:29 pm
Fracking, drilling or otherwise, all of those sources are finite.

The sensible thing to do is to create alternatives. The oil folks know this, and some have hedged their futures as moneymakers by investing in alternative ventures. Some see that as nothing but cynical manoeuvring, but I don't agree: they are thinking ahead. The problem is, they are taking too long in the middle ground. There has to be a push to move faster.

China and India are red herrings. I would be highly surprised if China were not beavering away at alternative technologies, and one day coming up with the solutions that those who sat on their thumb will then have to buy from them. Wait, sanctions! That'll fix 'em.

If you are on a sinking ship, you don't stop closing down the bulkheads because some sections of hull are already flooded: you do your damndest to keep the entire structure afloat. You attend to the wet bits if and when you make port. If you just give up, you die.

No, that is just not the case Rob.  Wind and solar farms are increadably inefficient and can never be base load power sources since they ONLY produce energy 10% to, at most, 30% of the time.  So, each and every time a new wind/solar farm is built, typically a coal/oil/gas plant is built in tandem with it.  This is why the coal/oil/gas companies invest in wind and solar; it helps them sell more oil and gas and coal. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 24, 2019, 09:59:44 pm
The problem with wind and solar, outside the fact they’re left-wing icons, is that neither is a method of storing solar energy. Fossil fuels are such a storage method. It’s storage that we need. We need a fuel that’ll let us, like the train they call the City of New Orleans, be gone five hundred miles when the day is done. You can’t do that with an “electric” car. We’ve made amazing progress in battery storage since I was a kid, but it’s a drop in the bucket compared with what we need. The energy’s there in solar, but it’s intermittent. We can forget about wind unless we can come up with a better method of accessing it than the bird blenders we now have. People will only put up with the desecration of our prairies and the killing of birds for so long before they rebel. If we come up with a really good way to store energy we probably can use nuclear to generate it. Somewhere down the line we’ll figure it out.

Storage is the least of the worries!  Production is the biggest. 

A solar or wind farm needs to be 500 times larger then a nuclear power plant to have the potential to generate the same amount of power. 

Being so large, you need cheap land to make it worth wild.  So land is often used far outside of a city, which means you need long range power lines to bring it to market.  They are expensive to build and maintain. 

Wind and solar only produce energy 10 to 30 percent of the time, so you need to build multiple farms, and multiple high transmission power lines, to make up for this. Even so, this does not take away the fact that you may just have a less sunny and windy year.  (It is a false to believe that if it is not sunny then it should be windy and vis versa.  This is not true.) 

Neither wind nor solar is by any means cheap.  It cost a lot to mine the ores and minerals.  It cost a lot to refine them.  It cost a lot to manufacture the panels or wind mills.  It cost a lot to transport them.  You need significantly more concrete, metal, glass, building materials to build these farms just because they need to be 500 times larger in size.  This make the meager energy produce more expensive to make. 

List goes on and on. 

Nuclear is it. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 24, 2019, 11:20:54 pm
You need a combination of alternative energy generation and storage.

1. Putting the solar panels of the house roofs and feeding the electrical energy into large batteries in the garage would alleviate (at least partially) the need to carry the energy over long distances.

2. Adding thermal batteries in the backyard could help in cooling and heating the house.

3. More efficient house design and better wall and window insulation would help, too.

The cumulative effect of just these 3 approaches might help a great deal.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 25, 2019, 12:01:45 am
The problem with wind and solar, outside the fact they’re left-wing icons, is that neither is a method of storing solar energy. Fossil fuels are such a storage method. It’s storage that we need. We need a fuel that’ll let us, like the train they call the City of New Orleans, be gone five hundred miles when the day is done. You can’t do that with an “electric” car. We’ve made amazing progress in battery storage since I was a kid, but it’s a drop in the bucket compared with what we need. The energy’s there in solar, but it’s intermittent. We can forget about wind unless we can come up with a better method of accessing it than the bird blenders we now have. People will only put up with the desecration of our prairies and the killing of birds for so long before they rebel. If we come up with a really good way to store energy we probably can use nuclear to generate it. Somewhere down the line we’ll figure it out.

Wind and solar energy is not stored, it’s fed into the power grid to augment what a traditional power plant generates. People with solar panels on their roof get a kind of credit for the amount of energy their panels generate into the grid.

The right is underestimating the understanding by the general public of the need to protect the environment. The devastating floods in New Orleans and Houston had no political preference, and the drought in the Southwest is occurring in red states. There is no avoiding it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 25, 2019, 12:13:47 am
Wind and solar energy is not stored, it’s fed into the power grid to augment what a traditional power plant generates. People with solar panels on their roof get a kind of credit for the amount of energy their panels generate into the grid.

That's the current way of capturing the wind and solar energy. With large batteries, that electricity could be stored locally and only the excess would be fed into the power grid.
 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 25, 2019, 01:40:27 am
None of this works on a hot windless dark day or night when maximum electricity is required to operate air conditioning. Only the existing fossil fuel plant could provide that electricity operating at full capacity. So while you could save some consumption of fossil fuels, the cost to maintain and man and operate the full capacity traditional fossil fuel energy plant still exists.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 25, 2019, 01:49:23 am
Very true, at least for the foreseeable future. But the dependence on oil and gas could be reduced, and also some of the activities which contribute to global pollution and warming (developing new oil wells, fracking, transport of fuel, etc.). Nothing is absolute in this world, we just get more shades of gray.

   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 25, 2019, 03:12:20 am
You mean Londonistan?

Actually the thing about London being not British was from ex-comedian and current tax exile John Cleese. Lindonistan was the work of alt-right blogger and generally lowlife Katie Hopkins. For those not familiar with this pond life she started out by winning Apprentice and then found that she could make a living by writing inflammatory garbage for newspapers.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 25, 2019, 03:19:56 am
The problem with wind and solar, outside the fact they’re left-wing icons

Don’t worry, Russ, you can still watch Fox on a solar powered TV.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 25, 2019, 07:45:47 am
Don’t worry, Russ, you can still watch Fox on a solar powered TV.

However, to quote one of the 2020 Presidential Candidates:
Quote
Democrats can no more turn the clock back to the 1990s, than Republicans can return us back to the 1950's.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 07:45:53 am
You need a combination of alternative energy generation and storage.

1. Putting the solar panels of the house roofs and feeding the electrical energy into large batteries in the garage would alleviate (at least partially) the need to carry the energy over long distances.

2. Adding thermal batteries in the backyard could help in cooling and heating the house.

3. More efficient house design and better wall and window insulation would help, too.

The cumulative effect of just these 3 approaches might help a great deal.

This is all true, however it only works for single family homes with large roofs and backyards.  The majority of people today live in cities, and the trends are showing this is increasing, with little roof space per capita and pretty much zero space for thermal batteries.  Additionally, manufacturing uses significantly more energy than a residence, and the available roof space of a plant would not be able to hold enough solar panels to generate the electricity it needs, let alone produce it consistently.  So, if you really want to get rid of fossil fuels I would suggest you stop living in a fairly land and start thinking about nuclear, the only other base load power supply other than fossil fuels. 

Second, those solar roof panels only work, in terms of price, because the government has implemented both tax breaks to manufacturers and rebates to purchasers.  They would not be able to stand on there own without those. 

Third, and this is something I am surprised many environmentalist ignore, is the environmental impact.  Wind and solar farms need to be clear cut, which destroys natural habitats.  Wind mills kill large bird, many of which are threatened or endangered.  Solar panels cant be recycled (I know they are trying to figure this out in Europe, but no one has come up with a solution yet) and are usually put into land fills at their end of life.  They have high concentrations of lead, cadmium and other other toxic elements, which never loose the toxicity. 

Last, batteries are very inefficient.  When you charge a battery only to use the power later, you loose 20% to 40% of the power depending on the age, design of the battery and the length of time between charging and usage.  A modern electrical grid, powered with a base load power source, is a much better option since you are not loosing energy due to storage. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 25, 2019, 08:02:24 am
This is all true, however it only works for single family homes with large roofs and backyards.  The majority of people today live in cities, and the trends are showing this is increasing, with little roof space per capita and pretty much zero space for thermal batteries.  Additionally, manufacturing uses significantly more energy than a residence, and the available roof space of a plant would not be able to hold enough solar panels to generate the electricity it needs, let alone produce it consistently.  So, if you really want to get rid of fossil fuels I would suggest you stop living in a fairly land and start thinking about nuclear, the only other base load power supply other than fossil fuels. 

Second, those solar roof panels only work, in terms of price, because the government has implemented both tax breaks to manufacturers and rebates to purchasers.  They would not be able to stand on there own without those. 

Third, and this is something I am surprised many environmentalist ignore, is the environmental impact.  Wind and solar farms need to be clear cut, which destroys natural habitats.  Wind mills kill large bird, many of which are threatened or endangered.  Solar panels cant be recycled (I know they are trying to figure this out in Europe, but no one has come up with a solution yet) and are usually put into land fills at their end of life.  They have high concentrations of lead, cadmium and other other toxic elements, which never loose the toxicity. 

Last, batteries are very inefficient.  When you charge a battery only to use the power later, you loose 20% to 40% of the power depending on the age and design of the battery.  A modern electrical grid is a much better option since you are not loosing energy due to storage.


No one is living in a "fairy land", solar & wind are not expected by anyone to be total replacements for other methods of power generation. They will be useful in those places in which they are useful. Why do we keep having to repeat this.

As for tax subsidies of solar and wind, of what industry is that more true than of nuclear? And I am someone who is in favour of nuclear, we should be using it. Why does no one ever calculate the subsidies to Big Oil? Free market arguments don't apply, none of these society-wide technologies would ever be implemented by any corporation or group of corporations. They all require public input and wider research, things that only public bodies would ever undertake. This is a non-argument.

The re-use of discarded panels is a real issue. But so are abandoned oil and gas wells (90,000 of them in Alberta alone) so please let's not pretend this is a new problem. And clear-cutting never bothered anyone who wanted cheap lumber, so far as I can tell.

All technologies have cost and benefits, what else is new?

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 25, 2019, 08:06:59 am
Thanks for the interesting and valuable information, Joe. It can get indeed very complex.

However, there are a few good stories:
Apple Park's huge roof is covered completely with solar panels, and one of their solar farms is in desolate country near the town of Yerington, Nevada with low population of birds and animals. Apple with all their facilities  is now running 100% on the green energy.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40554151/how-apple-got-to-100-renewable-energy-the-right-way
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 08:19:30 am

No one is living in a "fairy land", solar & wind are not expected by anyone to be total replacements for other methods of power generation. They will be useful in those places in which they are useful. Why do we keep having to repeat this.

As for tax subsidies of solar and wind, of what industry is that more true than of nuclear? And I am someone who is in favour of nuclear, we should be using it. Why does no one ever calculate the subsidies to Big Oil? Free market arguments don't apply, none of these society-wide technologies would ever be implemented by any corporation or group of corporations. They all require public input and wider research, things that only public bodies would ever undertake. This is a non-argument.

The re-use of discarded panels is a real issue. But so are abandoned oil and gas wells (90,000 of them in Alberta alone) so please let's not pretend this is a new problem. And clear-cutting never bothered anyone who wanted cheap lumber, so far as I can tell.

All technologies have cost and benefits, what else is new?

So most of this argument is, "hey we did it before with this industry, so why not with wind and solar?" 

Kind of like China saying, "you guys polluted the world with fossil fuels, now it's our turn!" 

Yes, solar will be useful on roofs, but clear cutting land for a very dilute and intermittent form of energy is foolish.  Same thing with wind, not to mention regardless of where a wind mill is placed, they will always be a threat to birds. 

By the way, yes, without tax subsidies, fossils fuels would have continued to grow in use.  Wind and solar are such an expensive form of energy, they would not be here today without both subsidies and rebates.  The only reason Nuclear is so expensive right now is the government red tape; literally if any other power source needed to deal with the amount of red tape nuclear does, nothing would ever get built.  I would argue if you removed this red tape, nuclear would be a good option for private companies to invest in creating new innovations as well, just like private companies did at the advent of oil, coal and natural gas industry.  Also, nothing is yet standardized; most of all nuclear plants are one off designs, which makes them expensive. 

It is simply not the case that governments need to fund innovations.  I don't know where you came up with this.  in late 1800s, the innovations with oil and gas where all privately funded.  The government tried to fund air exploration in the 1890s, but the privately funded Wright Brothers beat the government to it.  There are plenty of other examples. 

Lumber companies are required to replant trees, not to mention it makes business sense to do so.  And even if they did not, the land would naturally reforest itself (albeit over a longer period of time).  Wind and solar farms remain clear cut lands for the duration of their use.  Even if the land was abandoned, the amount of concrete used would make it much harder for natural reforestation to happen since the concrete would need to decay first.  No concrete, or other forms of land development, is used during lumber explorations.  Although this was not previously true, lumber companies only harvest the old growth trees, which are more spotty and distributed throughout the forest just due to over harvesting in decades past.  Young trees are not worth harvesting and left in place, so not everything is destroyed. 

On top of this, many wind and solar farms are being built in deserts, which there are fewer of and take significantly longer to return to nature.  Contrary to popular belief, deserts are not empty of life, and nearly all desert animals die when being moved to a new habitat, even if it is relocated to a different spot in the same desert. 

Last, all energy sources have cost and benifits.  But with wind and solar, the cost are a lot more and the benefits are pretty small. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 08:47:51 am
Thanks for the interesting and valuable information, Joe. It can get indeed very complex.

However, there are a few good stories:
Apple Park's huge roof is covered completely with solar panels, and one of their solar farms is in desolate country near the town of Yerington, Nevada with low population of birds and animals. Apple with all their facilities  is now running 100% on the green energy.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40554151/how-apple-got-to-100-renewable-energy-the-right-way

Thanks for the article.  I was only able to skim it right now. 

As stated before, putting wind and solar farms in deserts still destroys natural habitats of animals that do not fair well at all of being relocated. 

I would love to know at the exact size of the farms they are using and how much land was destroyed to make these farms.  Also, how much total energy is Apple using and what percentage of this is the total amount of energy used in CA?  How many times more energy is the entire state of CA using than Apple headquarters?  After multiplying this by the total size of Apple's energy farms, how much land would that be?  What percentage of the size of CA would that amount of land take up?  See where I am getting at here. 

Last, is Apple using all green energy for their manufacturing overseas, and are all mining and refining processes by third parties using green energy?  If not, and I suspect this is the case, they are not really 100% green energy are they?  They are actually using green energy only for their headquarters, which has a much smaller energy requirement then mining, refining and manufacturing. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 25, 2019, 08:58:09 am
Storage is the least of the worries!  Production is the biggest. 
Nuclear is it.

Exactly, Joe. but because of "The China Syndrome," since 1979 the left, including the news media, has been deathly afraid of nuclear. The lousy reporting on the Three Mile Island meltdown, which happened the same year, and the Japanese earthquake and tsunami in 2011, neither of which resulted in a single injury from radiation, people are even more frightened. In between we had a demonstration of Russian incompetence at Chernobyl that resulted in widespread contamination and death. More fright.

Nuclear can solve all of our energy production problems if Hollywood will get smarter, but I'm not going to hold my breath until that happens.

But even unlimited production capability won't get you five hundred miles down the road. We need a way to store energy the same way fossil fuels store energy. It's probably gotta be something besides batteries, though there may be huge breakthroughs in battery technology somewhere down the line. Thee's a lot of work going on in that field. But it's gotta be relatively inexpensive, unlike gas prices in California at the moment. Replacing batteries in current electric cars is almost like buying a new car. That ain't gonna cut it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 25, 2019, 09:38:54 am
Exactly, Joe. but because of "The China Syndrome," since 1979 the left, including the news media, has been deathly afraid of nuclear. The lousy reporting on the Three Mile Island meltdown, which happened the same year, and the Japanese earthquake and tsunami in 2011, neither of which resulted in a single injury from radiation, people are even more frightened. In between we had a demonstration of Russian incompetence at Chernobyl that resulted in widespread contamination and death. More fright.

Nuclear can solve all of our energy production problems if Hollywood will get smarter, but I'm not going to hold my breath until that happens.

But even unlimited production capability won't get you five hundred miles down the road. We need a way to store energy the same way fossil fuels store energy. It's probably gotta be something besides batteries, though there may be huge breakthroughs in battery technology somewhere down the line. Thee's a lot of work going on in that field. But it's gotta be relatively inexpensive, unlike gas prices in California at the moment. Replacing batteries in current electric cars is almost like buying a new car. That ain't gonna cut it.

The Japanese didn’t have a nuclear catastrophe probably because the plant was built with government regulations. The libertarian view of unregulated business always seems to conveniently omit the very real human capacity for greed and corruption.

But hey, no one will stop you and Joe from moving next door to an unregulated/self-regulated nuclear power plant. Let us know how it goes, alright?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 25, 2019, 09:46:04 am
It is simply not the case that governments need to fund innovations.

You’re typing that on the internet, right?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 25, 2019, 09:56:15 am
The Japanese didn’t have a nuclear catastrophe probably because the plant was built with government regulations.

ROTFL! So you believe Chernobyl wasn't?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 25, 2019, 10:31:34 am
Exactly, Joe. but because of "The China Syndrome," since 1979 the left, including the news media, has been deathly afraid of nuclear. The lousy reporting on the Three Mile Island meltdown, which happened the same year, and the Japanese earthquake and tsunami in 2011, neither of which resulted in a single injury from radiation, people are even more frightened. In between we had a demonstration of Russian incompetence at Chernobyl that resulted in widespread contamination and death. More fright.

Nuclear can solve all of our energy production problems if Hollywood will get smarter, but I'm not going to hold my breath until that happens.

But even unlimited production capability won't get you five hundred miles down the road. We need a way to store energy the same way fossil fuels store energy. It's probably gotta be something besides batteries, though there may be huge breakthroughs in battery technology somewhere down the line. Thee's a lot of work going on in that field. But it's gotta be relatively inexpensive, unlike gas prices in California at the moment. Replacing batteries in current electric cars is almost like buying a new car. That ain't gonna cut it.

You might be crediting Hollywood with more power than they actually have.

Your comments about price of electric technology is confusing. It's usually conservatives who trust that innovation will always disrupt things, something with which it's hard to disagree. Except when the so-called "left" is in favour of some disruption, then it's bad, I guess.

People often point to the price of new technologies, citing that as evidence (or maybe even proof?) that it holds no promise. It wasn't that long ago that people were saying that "full-frame" sensors would never become mainstream because of wafer failure rates (etc.). Since when has new technology been cheap or reliable out of the gate?

Some of the promises about solar/wind won't pan out, some will.

If the price of gasoline doubles or triples in the medium term (5-10 years, say) electric cars will become much more viable, regardless of the price of a replacement battery. They likely will not be useful in pulling your sailboat down the interstate, but a low-maintenance e-car with reasonable range (200 km) will look awfully good to someone who is not within walking distance of a grocery store or their dentist. This is already the case for many people. If the price of gasoline does double or triple, it will mean major changes, because a lot of people will at that point stop buying gasoline-engined cars. What would be the point of buying something you can't afford to operate. But of course there will be applications where the high stored energy properties of fossil fuels will be advantageous for years to come.

Is there any sensible reason why discussions of technology roll-out need to be laced with current-day infantile black vs white political debate? Surely the need for virtue signalling is merely ego-related. The perception that solar/wind is a "lefty" idea (not true) is enough to denigrate them, end of discussion. We can do better than this, folks.

In any case, the opinions of a few entrenched people on a photo forum are irrelevant. All over the planet people are spending tons of cash implementing those very technologies that you claim can't work.


Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 10:36:38 am
It is simply not the case that governments need to fund innovations.

You’re typing that on the internet, right?

Hey, I never said that some industries did not arise from government investment, only that most industries did not.  Furthermore, the amount of times government got it wrong is much larger then when they got it right.  A broken clock is right twice a day, right? 

Anyway, it was not really until Cisco (a private company) entered the realm that the Internet really took off. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 10:47:47 am
You might be crediting Hollywood with more power than they actually have.

Your comments about price of electric technology is confusing. It's usually conservatives who trust that innovation will always disrupt things, something with which it's hard to disagree. Except when the so-called "left" is in favour of some disruption, then it's bad, I guess.

People often point to the price of new technologies, citing that as evidence (or maybe even proof?) that it holds no promise. It wasn't that long ago that people were saying that "full-frame" sensors would never become mainstream because of wafer failure rates (etc.). Since when has new technology been cheap or reliable out of the gate?

Some of the promises about solar/wind won't pan out, some will.

If the price of gasoline doubles or triples in the medium term (5-10 years, say) electric cars will become much more viable, regardless of the price of a replacement battery. They likely will not be useful in pulling your sailboat down the interstate, but a low-maintenance e-car with reasonable range (200 km) will look awfully good to someone who is not within walking distance of a grocery store or their dentist. This is already the case for many people. If the price of gasoline does double or triple, it will mean major changes, because a lot of people will at that point stop buying gasoline-engined cars. What would be the point of buying something you can't afford to operate. But of course there will be applications where the high stored energy properties of fossil fuels will be advantageous for years to come.

Is there any sensible reason why discussions of technology roll-out need to be laced with current-day infantile black vs white political debate? Surely the need for virtue signalling is merely ego-related. The perception that solar/wind is a "lefty" idea (not true) is enough to denigrate them, end of discussion. We can do better than this, folks.

In any case, the opinions of a few entrenched people on a photo forum are irrelevant. All over the planet people are spending tons of cash implementing those very technologies that you claim can't work.

The left really wants wind and solar to work, which are by their very nature, impossible to make work on a large scale.  This is a natural problem of the diluteness and intermittency of the energy, not a problem of technologies.  We have already far past the inflection point of the advances in wind and solar; future gains will be very small.  Innovation insofar as energy production is flat lining for wind and solar.  Wind and solar are doomed by their nature and every one (right or left) who takes a thorough look at them comes to this conclusion.  Even top environmentalist are preaching this.  The left keeps on pushing it down our throat even though the technology will never work.  Not really an apples to oranges comparison when talking about what the left wants versus what the right wants. 

Funning you should bring up sensor technology when talking about government investments in new technologies.  How much government investment was put into Kodak when they developed the first sensor?  How much government investment was put into Sony when they brought their technology to fruition? 

Insofar as battery powered electric cars, this is another technology that will fail.  Hydrogen fuel-cell, being heavily researched by Toyota (a private company and the number one hyrbid car manufacturer) will more then likely replace battery powered vehicles just due to pure convenience of not needing to be charged over a long period of time.  On top of this, when gas gets as expensive as you say, making bio-fuel will become profitable.  Since there is already an in ground pipe infrastructure to transport gasoline, changing over to bio-fuels will be very easy and painless.  This will be made even easier when the investment is there from private companies to come up with technologies to figure out how to extract bio-oils from algae, which can grow pretty much any where extremely fast and are very oil rich.  The price of gasoline is too low for it to be worth investing the money, but when it does, I feel this will be the next transportation technology. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 10:52:24 am
Exactly, Joe. but because of "The China Syndrome," since 1979 the left, including the news media, has been deathly afraid of nuclear. The lousy reporting on the Three Mile Island meltdown, which happened the same year, and the Japanese earthquake and tsunami in 2011, neither of which resulted in a single injury from radiation, people are even more frightened. In between we had a demonstration of Russian incompetence at Chernobyl that resulted in widespread contamination and death. More fright.

Nuclear can solve all of our energy production problems if Hollywood will get smarter, but I'm not going to hold my breath until that happens.

But even unlimited production capability won't get you five hundred miles down the road. We need a way to store energy the same way fossil fuels store energy. It's probably gotta be something besides batteries, though there may be huge breakthroughs in battery technology somewhere down the line. Thee's a lot of work going on in that field. But it's gotta be relatively inexpensive, unlike gas prices in California at the moment. Replacing batteries in current electric cars is almost like buying a new car. That ain't gonna cut it.

This is an unfortunate reality. 

I predict that we will go down the wind and solar rabbit hole in this country, seeing massive increases the price of energy along with ever growing increases in our carbon emissions (from the additional base load fossil fuel plants built to produce energy the 70% to 90% of the time when wind/solar cant) for a couple of decades.  Then, one day someone here will look at France and say, "hey, they get 95% of their electricity from nuclear, they have never had an accident and their electricity is really really cheap, the cheapest in Europe actually.  Maybe, just maybe ..." 

I only hope it takes just a couple of decades, not 4 or 5 until we get it. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 25, 2019, 10:55:19 am
The left really wants wind and solar to work, which are by their very nature, impossible to make work on a large scale.  This is a natural problem of the diluteness and intermittency of the energy, not a problem of technologies.  We have already far past the inflection point of the advances in wind and solar; future gains will be very small.  Innovation insofar as energy production is flat lining for wind and solar.  Wind and solar are doomed by their nature and every one (right or left) who takes a thorough look at them comes to this conclusion.  Even top environmentalist are preaching this.  The left keeps on pushing it down our throat even though the technology will never work.  Not really an apples to oranges comparison when talking about what the left wants versus what the right wants.
Well, the right is advocating coal, which seems like a losing proposition for the future too.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 25, 2019, 10:56:48 am
Germany, that has one of the highest renewable electric grids, (close to 40%) also pay the highest for "free" electricity. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-energy-retail/german-consumers-paying-record-prices-for-power-portal-idUSKCN1P9233 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-energy-retail/german-consumers-paying-record-prices-for-power-portal-idUSKCN1P9233)

A KWH in America costs US$.13 or .11 Euro.   A KWH in Germany costs EUro.30 or US$.34 two to three times the cost in America.  Of course, these high costs affect the poorest who need energy to stay warm, prepare their food, and have lighting. 
https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/ (https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/)

In spite of their renewables, their carbon use and CO2 production has remained flat.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/449701/co2-emissions-germany/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/449701/co2-emissions-germany/)


Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 25, 2019, 10:59:22 am
You might be crediting Hollywood with more power than they actually have.

Your comments about price of electric technology is confusing. It's usually conservatives who trust that innovation will always disrupt things, something with which it's hard to disagree. Except when the so-called "left" is in favour of some disruption, then it's bad, I guess.

People often point to the price of new technologies, citing that as evidence (or maybe even proof?) that it holds no promise. It wasn't that long ago that people were saying that "full-frame" sensors would never become mainstream because of wafer failure rates (etc.). Since when has new technology been cheap or reliable out of the gate?

Some of the promises about solar/wind won't pan out, some will.

If the price of gasoline doubles or triples in the medium term (5-10 years, say) electric cars will become much more viable, regardless of the price of a replacement battery. They likely will not be useful in pulling your sailboat down the interstate, but a low-maintenance e-car with reasonable range (200 km) will look awfully good to someone who is not within walking distance of a grocery store or their dentist. This is already the case for many people. If the price of gasoline does double or triple, it will mean major changes, because a lot of people will at that point stop buying gasoline-engined cars. What would be the point of buying something you can't afford to operate. But of course there will be applications where the high stored energy properties of fossil fuels will be advantageous for years to come.

That’s probably true, Robert, assuming we can come up with windmill farms and solar farms not much larger than a coal or oil or gas-fired power plant, and that don’t clobber or fry wildlife. And yes, wow! we may have an e-car that can go 200 km without having to be plugged in at least overnight. Golly, that’s a whole 124 miles. That can get me up to St. Augustine for a shooting trip, but it can’t get me back home again. Oh, and that kind of technology isn’t going to do much – anything -- for long-haul trucking, or even long-haul rail. It doesn't even address the question of overseas ship traffic. I guess we could build ships with wind propulsion. We used to do that with square riggers.

The point is, we need a way to store energy that’s a hell of a lot more efficient than batteries. At the moment, that way is fossil fuels. And in the case of fossil fuels the storage already has taken place. All we have to do at the moment is release it. I’m sure we’ll find an answer somewhere down the line, but it probably ain’t gonna happen soon. Oh, and if you’re depending on a doubling or tripling of the price of gasoline to drive this revolution, you’re going to have to wait a while.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 10:59:46 am
Well, the right is advocating coal, which seems like a losing proposition for the future too.

Yes, I agree.  It is dirty.  I wish it were gone, but at the end of the day it works, and works well.  I just wish people would see the light for nuclear so we could get off of coal as fast as possible. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 25, 2019, 11:03:28 am
This is an unfortunate reality. 

I predict that we will go down the wind and solar rabbit hole in this country, seeing massive increases the price of energy along with ever growing increases in our carbon emissions (from the additional base load fossil fuel plants built to produce energy the 70% to 90% of the time when wind/solar cant) for a couple of decades.  Then, one day someone here will look at France and say, "hey, they get 95% of their electricity from nuclear, they have never had an accident and their electricity is really really cheap, the cheapest in Europe actually.  Maybe, just maybe ..." 

I only hope it takes just a couple of decades, not 4 or 5 until we get it. 

If the Democrats win the presidency and take the Senate in 2020, I agree with your prediction.  We will also have a lot of other social programs that will bankrupt us even quicker. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 25, 2019, 11:10:24 am
Yes, I agree.  It is dirty.  I wish it were gone, but at the end of the day it works, and works well.  I just wish people would see the light for nuclear so we could get off of coal as fast as possible. 
China, who does not have to comply with reducing carbon emissions until 2030 per Paris Accord, plans to build 850 coal-fired electric plants around the world.  While trying to reduce pollution in their own country, they think little about choking the rest of us.  The west is living in a dreamworld if they think their renewables are going to change anything on a global scale.  In addition, our higher prices for renewables make us live more poorly and make our products less competitive due to the higher cost of energy. The Chinese Communists may be bastards, but they're smart bastards.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 11:28:44 am
If the Democrats win the presidency and take the Senate in 2020, I agree with your prediction.  We will also have a lot of other social programs that will bankrupt us even quicker.

What I find even funnier about this whole wind/solar vs. nuclear thing is that Germany is trying to get its neighbors off of nuclear. 

France's (which literally today gets 95% of its electricity from nuclear) electricity prices are about a third of Germany's and they have lower emissions.  Meanwhile, Germany has been closing nuclear plants left and right, putting up wind/solar like crazy, along with additional coal plants, watching their energy increase in price and nothing has happened with getting emissions down. 

But hey, nuclear is clearer not the winner.   ;D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 25, 2019, 11:29:42 am
China, who does not have to comply with reducing carbon emissions until 2030 per Paris Accord, plans to build 850 coal-fired electric plants around the world.  While trying to reduce pollution in their own country, they think little about choking the rest of us.  The west is living in a dreamworld if they think their renewables are going to change anything on a global scale.  In addition, our higher prices for renewables make us live more poorly and make our products less competitive due to the higher cost of energy. The Chinese Communists may be bastards, but they're smart bastards.   

We need to progress beyond the Tragedy of the Conmons.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 25, 2019, 11:31:18 am
China, who does not have to comply with reducing carbon emissions until 2030 per Paris Accord, [...]

Warning: Fake news (and Alan has been told so multiple times before), the facts are as follows.

China was expected to increase emissions before they would plateau in 2030. Part of the reason is that they produce a shitload of products for the rest of the world (USA no exception), and they have an expanding urbanized population. Facts of life that were part of the assumptions of the Paris agreement.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 25, 2019, 11:40:17 am
Exactly, Bart. Everybody is required to be terrified of "climate change," except the Chinese and the Indians. According to the best guesses on the left, the world will become a cinder within those 30 years. :-X
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on June 25, 2019, 12:06:19 pm
I remember reading Ansel Adams had a big falling out at one point with the Sierra club over his support of nuclear power. A long running debate.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 25, 2019, 12:12:57 pm
Ansel had a brain.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 25, 2019, 12:19:50 pm
ROTFL! So you believe Chernobyl wasn't?

Chernobyl was a flawed design and mistakes. Or maybe not enough red tape?  ::)


Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 25, 2019, 12:23:07 pm
Ansel had a brain.

Smart enough to loathe Ronald.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on June 25, 2019, 12:28:11 pm
Smart enough to loathe Ronald.

He absolutely did. Refused to meet with him and present him with a print which had become a bit of a tradition.

Adams didn’t pick a side. He picked a moral stand point and stuck to that rather than a “team”. I admire that, it’s very rare.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 25, 2019, 12:31:48 pm
Smart enough to loathe Ronald.

Well, as is the case with most of us his brain didn't always work well.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 25, 2019, 12:39:49 pm
That’s probably true, Robert, assuming we can come up with windmill farms and solar farms not much larger than a coal or oil or gas-fired power plant, and that don’t clobber or fry wildlife. And yes, wow! we may have an e-car that can go 200 km without having to be plugged in at least overnight. Golly, that’s a whole 124 miles. That can get me up to St. Augustine for a shooting trip, but it can’t get me back home again. Oh, and that kind of technology isn’t going to do much – anything -- for long-haul trucking, or even long-haul rail. It doesn't even address the question of overseas ship traffic. I guess we could build ships with wind propulsion. We used to do that with square riggers.

The point is, we need a way to store energy that’s a hell of a lot more efficient than batteries. At the moment, that way is fossil fuels. And in the case of fossil fuels the storage already has taken place. All we have to do at the moment is release it. I’m sure we’ll find an answer somewhere down the line, but it probably ain’t gonna happen soon. Oh, and if you’re depending on a doubling or tripling of the price of gasoline to drive this revolution, you’re going to have to wait a while.

Funny, that's exactly what I said. There are applications where the energy storage of fossil fuels is essential, as things now stand.

Doubling and tripling of fuel costs doesn't seem so outlandish to me. Millions of new consumers coming online all wanting cars. Not many new big oil fields have been discovered lately, have they? I haven't heard of any. So price increases will eventually work their way through the system. Will it be 20 years, 40 years, I don't know and neither do you. It takes 15-20 years to commission, design and build nuclear reactors, so the timeframes we're discussing are all in the same order of magnitude. Irrelevant in any case. It doesn't take much of an increase in gasoline, coupled with the high cost (purchasing, insuring, maintaining etc.) of automobiles means that any increase is going to have large consumption effects. The car companies are already very worried about millennials indifference to cars in general.

But one other thing is that you should stop analysing things through your own individual lens. Maybe 200 km before re-charging does not suit your purpose, so that you will continue to purchase a gasoline car even if the price of fuel did double, but why do you assume that your personal circumstances reflect how other people live, because they most assuredly do not. There are very few countries where travelling large distances are part of people's routine daily lives.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 25, 2019, 12:42:35 pm
The left really wants wind and solar to work, which are by their very nature, impossible to make work on a large scale.  This is a natural problem of the diluteness and intermittency of the energy, not a problem of technologies.  We have already far past the inflection point of the advances in wind and solar; future gains will be very small.  Innovation insofar as energy production is flat lining for wind and solar.  Wind and solar are doomed by their nature and every one (right or left) who takes a thorough look at them comes to this conclusion.  Even top environmentalist are preaching this.  The left keeps on pushing it down our throat even though the technology will never work.  Not really an apples to oranges comparison when talking about what the left wants versus what the right wants. 

Funning you should bring up sensor technology when talking about government investments in new technologies.  How much government investment was put into Kodak when they developed the first sensor?  How much government investment was put into Sony when they brought their technology to fruition? 

Insofar as battery powered electric cars, this is another technology that will fail.  Hydrogen fuel-cell, being heavily researched by Toyota (a private company and the number one hyrbid car manufacturer) will more then likely replace battery powered vehicles just due to pure convenience of not needing to be charged over a long period of time.  On top of this, when gas gets as expensive as you say, making bio-fuel will become profitable.  Since there is already an in ground pipe infrastructure to transport gasoline, changing over to bio-fuels will be very easy and painless.  This will be made even easier when the investment is there from private companies to come up with technologies to figure out how to extract bio-oils from algae, which can grow pretty much any where extremely fast and are very oil rich.  The price of gasoline is too low for it to be worth investing the money, but when it does, I feel this will be the next transportation technology.

Almost all high-tech advances originate from public financing of pure research (Kodak and Toyota did develop solid-state physics) either directly, via university research grants, or in the case of the US via NASA and military research funding.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 25, 2019, 01:08:17 pm
Funny, that's exactly what I said. There are applications where the energy storage of fossil fuels is essential, as things now stand.

Doubling and tripling of fuel costs doesn't seem so outlandish to me. Millions of new consumers coming online all wanting cars. Not many new big oil fields have been discovered lately, have they? I haven't heard of any. So price increases will eventually work their way through the system. Will it be 20 years, 40 years, I don't know and neither do you. It takes 15-20 years to commission, design and build nuclear reactors, so the timeframes we're discussing are all in the same order of magnitude. Irrelevant in any case. It doesn't take much of an increase in gasoline, coupled with the high cost (purchasing, insuring, maintaining etc.) of automobiles means that any increase is going to have large consumption effects. The car companies are already very worried about millennials indifference to cars in general.

But one other thing is that you should stop analysing things through your own individual lens. Maybe 200 km before re-charging does not suit your purpose, so that you will continue to purchase a gasoline car even if the price of fuel did double, but why do you assume that your personal circumstances reflect how other people live, because they most assuredly do not. There are very few countries where travelling large distances are part of people's routine daily lives.

When you talk about the intensity of oil prospecting you always need to take into account the price of oil. Recently the price has been down – relatively. In fact it’s been low enough that companies have stopped prospecting altogether. The last thing in the world they need is more wells. There’s plenty of oil out there.

If fuel prices double or triple there’s going to be a lot of pain. It’s not just that you’ll have to spend more to drive the kids to pre-school. The cost of everything will rise because transportation is involved in almost everything we consume. It won’t take any 20 or 30 years for these costs to cause prices to rise throughout the system. The increases will track the rise in fuel prices quite closely. And that fact has nothing to do with my personal preferences, which you seem to think matter a great deal.

As far as nukes are concerned, it takes 15-20 years to bring up a nuke nowadays because of the fear that’s been generated by crap like “The China Syndrome.” Most of the delay is caused by administrative bullshit designed to make frightened people feel more comfortable. There’s no reason why, with the designs available right now, a nuke can’t be brought up in five years or less. At the moment, France derives about 75% of its power from nukes. The technology is already there. I haven’t worked in the field for decades now, but I still have my short snorter bill from the night we brought up a small nuke to power the radar site at Sundance, Wyoming. Properly handled, nuclear technology is safer than coal or oil or gas-fired power.

I’ll leave it there and bypass your editorial on my “personal circumstances.” It’s an area where you haven’t a clue. Not the only one.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 01:12:12 pm
Almost all high-tech advances originate from public financing of pure research (Kodak and Toyota did develop solid-state physics) either directly, via university research grants, or in the case of the US via NASA and military research funding.

The purpose of the government is to keep us safe, so military funding for research does not really bother me.  NASA is another anomaly; there was really no point to go the moon other then bragging rights on who got their first.  I am glad that we went, but in reality no private company would do that since the ROI would not be there. 

Now, aside from this, this does not imply certain innovations would not have been publicly discovered and funded, which was the case prior to our government giving out funding for research.  You cant blame a capitalist for using free money to do research. But the fact is, many many products never were initiated by the government. 

And I don't really think research money given to universities really fall under this.  Professors research, it's what they do.  Those are public universities get some public money to do so, while others at private universities get, perhaps, less.  If government money dried up, assume our taxes when down too, researchers would be able to find moneys elsewhere. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 01:17:57 pm
The Japanese didn’t have a nuclear catastrophe probably because the plant was built with government regulations. The libertarian view of unregulated business always seems to conveniently omit the very real human capacity for greed and corruption.

But hey, no one will stop you and Joe from moving next door to an unregulated/self-regulated nuclear power plant. Let us know how it goes, alright?

Same old straw man argument, "you get rid of the government and suddenly everything is unsafe."

Sorry, this is just not the case.  Furthermore, nowhere did I say that I felt all red tap should be taken away.  Only that it needs to be lowered immensely; of course containment domes need to be made.  The irrational fear of nuclear is the only reason why we so much red tape. 

Furthermore, Chernobyl, the worse case scenario, a reactor without a containment dome on fire and exploding, still did not produce the deaths people imagine or believe it did.   To date, only about 120ish people have died as a result of exposure.  The only effect exposure has is an increase in thyroid cancer, which is one of the most treatable cancers and people often live for decades with it.  Now not to discount cancer, but a nuclear plant is not as dangerous as you are trying to make out.  It is the safest form of energy ever. 

More people have died in one year in USA from falling off roofs while installing solar panels than have died in the entire history of nuclear power in the entire world. 

You know what is unsafe, coal emissions.  Coal emissions have caused more health concerns than anything else.  I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 25, 2019, 01:23:51 pm
... More people have died in one year in USA from falling off roofs while installing solar panels that have died in the entire history of nuclear power in the entire world... 

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 25, 2019, 02:06:00 pm
Warning: Fake news (and Alan has been told so multiple times before), the facts are as follows.

China was expected to increase emissions before they would plateau in 2030. Part of the reason is that they produce a shitload of products for the rest of the world (USA no exception), and they have an expanding urbanized population. Facts of life that were part of the assumptions of the Paris agreement.

Cheers,
Bart
What does that have to do with allowing China to build 850 coal-fired plants in other countries? That's just a nod to their industries make these plants in allowing them to do it. Meanwhile they're polluting the world with even more CO2. Frankly the Chinese Bamboozled the people in Paris. They were dopes for letting China get away with this. And the bottom line is that without China on board, you will have no impact on co2 production going on in the world as China is already producing 30% of it. More than double the next second country, the US at 14%. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 25, 2019, 02:09:05 pm
Same old straw man argument, "you get rid of the government and suddenly everything is unsafe."

Sorry, this is just not the case.  Furthermore, nowhere did I say that I felt all red tap should be taken away.  Only that it needs to be lowered immensely; of course containment domes need to be made.  The irrational fear of nuclear is the only reason why we so much red tape. 

Furthermore, Chernobyl, the worse case scenario, a reactor without a containment dome on fire and exploding, still did not produce the deaths people imagine or believe it did.   To date, only about 120ish people have died as a result of exposure.  The only effect exposure has is an increase in thyroid cancer, which is one of the most treatable cancers and people often live for decades with it.  Now not to discount cancer, but a nuclear plant is not as dangerous as you are trying to make out.  It is the safest form of energy ever. 

More people have died in one year in USA from falling off roofs while installing solar panels than have died in the entire history of nuclear power in the entire world. 

You know what is unsafe, coal emissions.  Coal emissions have caused more health concerns than anything else.  I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant.

You are not addressing the fact that nuclear has been safe precisely because of government oversight. And until recently most of us felt safe flying the skies. But how did Boeing get complacent without the FAA knowing?

The problem is who makes the decision of how much “red tape” is good or not? Sure, more people die by lightning than...whatever. But do you not want to transport your family in a car that is safer than those of 30yrs past?

The smog of Pittsburgh in the late ‘40s was cleaned up simply because people wanted to live better. But why did the industries allow that smog to get oppressively bad in the first place?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 02:32:48 pm
You are not addressing the fact that nuclear has been safe precisely because of government oversight. And until recently most of us felt safe flying the skies. But how did Boeing get complacent without the FAA knowing?

The problem is who makes the decision of how much “red tape” is good or not? Sure, more people die by lightning than...whatever. But do you not want to transport your family in a car that is safer than those of 30yrs past?

The smog of Pittsburgh in the late ‘40s was cleaned up simply because people wanted to live better. But why did the industries allow that smog to get oppressively bad in the first place?

Nuclear is safe because it is not an inherently dangerous power source, and this is due to the fact that it is good for business to have it that way.  If a nuclear power plant melts down, it is gone, done, no further ROI.  So it is good business to make sure it does not fail.  This is exactly what companies, on their own, are doing right now, trying to make it absolutely fool proof and come up with the next generation of reactors that are more efficient and powerful.  But government has gotten in the way so much so it is impossible to get a new nuclear plant built, and even harder with newer better designs. 

Pretty funny, there are safer better designs but because of how slow government runs, the government would rather you build an older type plant instead of a new one. 

The red tape is so thick that coal plants release more radiation then what nuclear plants are allowed to.  How silly is that. 

Insofar as Boeing, what's your point.  I believe the accident was caused by a programing glitch no one realized existed until an accident occurred.  It's tragic but how do you foresee it until after the fact.  Most responses on how the government could have prevented it are filled with hindsight bias.  The government did nothing, nor would have been able to, to prevent it.  And do you really think Boeing is fixing the problem due to government?  No!.  They are fixing it because they want to continue selling planes.  If they ignored it, no one would want to fly in a Boeing plane and they would loose business.  It just make sense to fix the problem. 

It also makes sense to make planes safer and safer as time goes on.  Do you really think a company would make planes to the same safety standards of the 30s if they could?  Come one, you're being irrational. 

Cars you say, well the cars of 30 years ago were not less safe because of less red tape.  They were less safe because innovations we have today had not yet been invented.  The government did not just all of a sudden think up some safety innovations and products and force them onto the car makers.  The car makers thought of these things and implemented them before the government even had a whiff of them.  Stop kidding yourself. 

Ahhh, the smog of Pittsburgh.  Guess what, no one really knew how bad smog was for your health pre 1940s. The industries let it get that bad simply because no one, including them, knew any better.  It was not until the 1948 Donora smog crisis that people started to take it seriously, Of course, when they found out how unsafe it was, they cleaned it up.  So what is the point?  It is a great example of a local government getting together and implementing a policy that hd direct results.  Not a large federal government run amuck with regulations, some of which no one can really explain. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 25, 2019, 03:11:10 pm
Joe Kitchen:


Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 25, 2019, 03:23:24 pm
Almost all high-tech advances originate from public financing of pure research (Kodak and Toyota did develop solid-state physics) either directly, via university research grants, or in the case of the US via NASA and military research funding.

Research for a few millions or billions is one thing.  But what you have with renewables, are governments underwriting new industry and production, not research.  They are picking winners and losers.  They're tripling the cost of electricity (see Germany above).  And it appears solar and wind renewables are not doing anything regarding CO2 production that will make any difference in climate change, even assuming they are related.  What you don;t know is had government not underwritten wind and solar, maybe private industry would be investigating another area and spending their money developing a totally new product that will work better.  Instead, government regulations and subsidies are soaking up all the available financing that would be available to investigate other areas which is now being funneled into wind and solar.  Because of government interference with the free markets, we appear to be going down a path that will do nothing about the " CO2 problem". 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 25, 2019, 03:25:00 pm
I’ll leave it there and bypass your editorial on my “personal circumstances.” It’s an area where you haven’t a clue. Not the only one.

Are you deliberately mis-reading what I wrote or do you confuse personal insult for conversation?

The only reason I mentioned your personal circumstances was to highlight the fact that driving long distances, something that e-cars are not that good at right now, and it's you who brought up the example, is that what we take for granted in N.A., routinely driving long distances, is not a fact of life for much of the world. I don't understand why you would take umbrage at what was a pretty innocuous comment.

If you lost the tendency to take personal digs at people who disagree with you, more people might be willing to listen. I don't assume that you're stupid if you disagree with me, you should do the same.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 25, 2019, 03:30:24 pm
The purpose of the government is to keep us safe, so military funding for research does not really bother me.  NASA is another anomaly; there was really no point to go the moon other then bragging rights on who got their first.  I am glad that we went, but in reality no private company would do that since the ROI would not be there. 

Now, aside from this, this does not imply certain innovations would not have been publicly discovered and funded, which was the case prior to our government giving out funding for research.  You cant blame a capitalist for using free money to do research. But the fact is, many many products never were initiated by the government. 

And I don't really think research money given to universities really fall under this.  Professors research, it's what they do.  Those are public universities get some public money to do so, while others at private universities get, perhaps, less.  If government money dried up, assume our taxes when down too, researchers would be able to find moneys elsewhere.

I didn't say any of those things. And I didn't minimize the creativity or validity of private interests to engineer useful products from publicly available information. I just think that it's important to keep in mind that neither Toyota nor Sony nor any other corporation would fund multi-decade research into something for which there is no guaranteed outcome. That is not a value judgement on my part, that's not what they're for and there is no reason to expect it from them.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 25, 2019, 03:38:25 pm
Nuclear is safe because it is not an inherently dangerous power source, and this is due to the fact that it is good for business to have it that way.  If a nuclear power plant melts down, it is gone, done, no further ROI.  So it is good business to make sure it does not fail.  This is exactly what companies, on their own, are doing right now, trying to make it absolutely fool proof and come up with the next generation of reactors that are more efficient and powerful.  But government has gotten in the way so much so it is impossible to get a new nuclear plant built, and even harder with newer better designs. 

Pretty funny, there are safer better designs but because of how slow government runs, the government would rather you build an older type plant instead of a new one. 

The red tape is so thick that coal plants release more radiation then what nuclear plants are allowed to.  How silly is that. 

Insofar as Boeing, what's your point.  I believe the accident was caused by a programing glitch no one realized existed until an accident occurred.  It's tragic but how do you foresee it until after the fact.  Most responses on how the government could have prevented it are filled with hindsight bias.  The government did nothing, nor would have been able to, to prevent it.  And do you really think Boeing is fixing the problem due to government?  No!.  They are fixing it because they want to continue selling planes.  If they ignored it, no one would want to fly in a Boeing plane and they would loose business.  It just make sense to fix the problem. 

It also makes sense to make planes safer and safer as time goes on.  Do you really think a company would make planes to the same safety standards of the 30s if they could?  Come one, you're being irrational. 

Cars you say, well the cars of 30 years ago were not less safe because of less red tape.  They were less safe because innovations we have today had not yet been invented.  The government did not just all of a sudden think up some safety innovations and products and force them onto the car makers.  The car makers thought of these things and implemented them before the government even had a whiff of them.  Stop kidding yourself. 

Ahhh, the smog of Pittsburgh.  Guess what, no one really knew how bad smog was for your health pre 1940s. The industries let it get that bad simply because no one, including them, knew any better.  It was not until the 1948 Donora smog crisis that people started to take it seriously, Of course, when they found out how unsafe it was, they cleaned it up.  So what is the point?  It is a great example of a local government getting together and implementing a policy that hd direct results.  Not a large federal government run amuck with regulations, some of which no one can really explain.

Cars are safer today because regulation and law suits forced the car companies to come up with those improvements.

As I stated earlier, I think we should use nuclear energy. But your arguments regarding corporate benevolence is falling on deaf ears. Unless someone forces them to, companies have had a long history of bad behaviour. The oil industry leaves abandoned oil and gas rigs all over the place. The nuclear industry would do the same unless there were stringent regulations forcing them to. Suggesting that they, or any other industry sector, does not need formal supervision does not match history.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 25, 2019, 03:41:19 pm
...was to highlight the fact that driving long distances, something that e-cars are not that good at right now, and it's you who brought up the example, is that what we take for granted in N.A., routinely driving long distances, is not a fact of life for much of the world. ...

My 2012 Acura TL gas tank holds 18.5 gallons compared to my 2019 Lincoln MKC which holds 15.7 gallons.  The Lincoln drives me crazy, It seems like I'm filling it up every few days.  True, it only gets 19.2 gpm compared to the Acura which get 22.2mpg.  But when I fill up the Acura, the range it shows is 475 miles compared to around 300 miles for the Lincoln.   Something is screwy somewheres.  Range is important when you drive 15,000+ miles per year.  (includes both my wife and me total for both cars).  And my wife and I live in a typical suburban area in New Jersey, not Texas or some other Plains state. 

Having said that, I've driven a company owned Prius regularly when I worked.  All the driving was in the 5 boros of NYC.  It was a peppy car and nice for running around in traffic.  My biggest complaint is that the cost of the battery takes away from comfortable features that a non-electric car could provide at the same total cost for the electric car.  also, i believe depreciation on electrics are greater because the battery eventually has to be replaced at great cost.  Like buying a used camera with too many shutter operations. :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 25, 2019, 03:50:28 pm
Cars are safer today because regulation and law suits forced the car companies to come up with those improvements.

As I stated earlier, I think we should use nuclear energy. But your arguments regarding corporate benevolence is falling on deaf ears. Unless someone forces them to, companies have had a long history of bad behaviour. The oil industry leaves abandoned oil and gas rigs all over the place. The nuclear industry would do the same unless there were stringent regulations forcing them to. Suggesting that they, or any other industry sector, does not need formal supervision does not match history.

I agree that some regulation is required in many industries although companies today have found that it is good marketing to provide safe products and be a good steward in your industry.  It also avoids liability lawsuits which can wipe out your company.  On the other hand, government regulation can become oppressive not only against rich corporations, but individuals and smaller companies.  While it's important to protect things, you don;t want to shoot yourself in the foot either.  I think the pendulum has swung too far toward regulation.  It's gotten to the point where government picks winners and losers. (See my earlier post).  That's not good for anyone.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 25, 2019, 03:52:37 pm
Cars are safer today because regulation and law suits forced the car companies to come up with those improvements.

ROTFL! Regulation has required car companies to meet absurd fuel consumption standards. The result has been that they've had to build a bunch of lower-end, small, relatively unsafe cars. Between 2014 and 2016 U.S. traffic deaths increased by well over 4,000 per year. In 2017 they dropped slightly, but there's nothing at all to indicate that government control improves human welfare.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 25, 2019, 03:59:17 pm
ROTFL! Regulation has required car companies to meet absurd fuel consumption standards. The result has been that they've had to build a bunch of lower-end, small, relatively unsafe cars. Between 2014 and 2016 U.S. traffic deaths increased by well over 4,000 per year. In 2017 they dropped slightly, but there's nothing at all to indicate that government control improves human welfare.

The car companies are selling more SUVs and crossover SUV's.  Many sedans like Chevrolet Impala are being discontinued after decades of production as more people buy crossover SUV's which have less mileage.  The cheaper price of gasoline I think has helped the SUV and bigger automobile market again.  So people should be driving safer. 

Curious what's happening in Europe, Canada and Australia.  Are people buying larger less efficient cars? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 25, 2019, 04:01:55 pm
... Curious what's happening in Europe, Canada and Australia.  Are people buying larger less efficient cars? 

In Europe, it is about parking. My friend switched from his Mercedes to a Smart car, which he can park sideways, if necessary, in the same spot.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 25, 2019, 04:10:47 pm
In Europe, it is about parking. My friend switched from his Mercedes to a Smart car, which he can park sideways, if necessary, in the same spot.

Just gave me a great idea.  I can buy a Smart car and keep it inside the back of my SUV.  That way, when I drive to NYC in my SUV, I can pull out the Smart car for driving and parking in Manhattan.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 25, 2019, 04:16:46 pm
The car companies are selling more SUVs and crossover SUV's.  Many sedans like Chevrolet Impala are being discontinued after decades of production as more people buy crossover SUV's which have less mileage.  The cheaper price of gasoline I think has helped the SUV and bigger automobile market again.  So people should be driving safer. 

Absolutely, Alan. This year I traded in my Odyssey and bought a beautiful brand new Honda Pilot – an SUV. I love it. SUV’s are selling well. As you point out that’s partly because the price of gas has dropped, even though our previous administration did everything in its power to limit fracking and keep the price of gas high. But because of absurd “Corporate Average Fuel Economy” (CAFE) standards set by Trump’s predecessor, auto companies have to build small cars to offset the SUV production. Happily, the Trump administration is proposing that economy standards be set at 2020 levels until 2026. That may help.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 04:20:02 pm
I agree that some regulation is required in many industries although companies today have found that it is good marketing to provide safe products and be a good steward in your industry.  It also avoids liability lawsuits which can wipe out your company.  On the other hand, government regulation can become oppressive not only against rich corporations, but individuals and smaller companies.  While it's important to protect things, you don;t want to shoot yourself in the foot either.  I think the pendulum has swung too far toward regulation.  It's gotten to the point where government picks winners and losers. (See my earlier post).  That's not good for anyone.

I agree with this.  Some regulations can be good.  Many though just get the way for no apparent reason. 

I just had my house completely rewired.  You cant have lights in cloests anymore in Philly.  Why, because you could break a light bulb and spread glass through out the closet.  What genius thought of this; cant you break a light bulb in a room and spread the glass all over?  You cant have outlets in closets either, because they could start fires.  Well, cant an outlet anywhere start a fire?  You need to have an outlet every 12 feet around the perimeter, period.  I have an outlet behind a radiator that will never be used to satisfy this regulation.  The electrician even told me that he needed to put it there even though it makes no sense because the city would not pass the inspection if it was not there. 

It's stuff like this that screws things up.  An outlet behind a radiator makes no sense what so ever.  But if you make up a regulation and then give it to a bureaucrat, they suddenly cant think for themselves and never allow for common sense exceptions.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 25, 2019, 04:25:36 pm
Cars are safer today because regulation and law suits forced the car companies to come up with those improvements.

As I stated earlier, I think we should use nuclear energy. But your arguments regarding corporate benevolence is falling on deaf ears. Unless someone forces them to, companies have had a long history of bad behaviour. The oil industry leaves abandoned oil and gas rigs all over the place. The nuclear industry would do the same unless there were stringent regulations forcing them to. Suggesting that they, or any other industry sector, does not need formal supervision does not match history.


Ralph Nadar.

Regarding the volume of cars: this may be a misconception insofar as some places go. There was a 40% drop in sales in Britain a month or two ago; many urban kids no longer even want a car or get a driving licence. The things are losing their appeal unless you live far out there and have to travel huge distances to work or buy food. What used to be our weekly drive to Safeway for the things we needed for home has become something that a lot of women now do by taxi: a couple of them gets together and gets picked up, does what it wants to do, goes for a coffee and a chat; another buzz on the cellphone and a Jeeves appears to take 'em home. Pay as you go; no upfront expenses, payments, contracts, fuel, maintenance, washing, nada. What's not to like? We oldies and our wheels fixation are becoming passé.

Nuclear. Did I mention that in the UK, both our own govt. in tandem at times with France and China have tried to come up with a new nuclear power plant? They got so much ground broken and then it appeared to abort because costs were soaring beyond any quoted figures before the work properly began. Nuclear, to be safe and useful, and its waste to be safely dispose of, is a friggin' nightmare and not the stroll down easy street its advocates think. It's no panacea to me, it's a nightmare waiting for folks to fall asleep. And really, it seems to be that worse than the immediate effects of a catastrophe at work, the greater danger is the waste material that remains toxically active for thousands of years.

All of that ignores the terrorist target aspect of such a structure. You may remember the international chaos that was caused at Heathrow, I think, by a drone incident a few months ago? All the money riding on transport, and they still were powerless to find a civilian with a radio control. Yeah, living downhill of a big dam can be just as unsettling, but the one danger does not negate the other.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 04:29:52 pm
Cars are safer today because regulation and law suits forced the car companies to come up with those improvements.

As I stated earlier, I think we should use nuclear energy. But your arguments regarding corporate benevolence is falling on deaf ears. Unless someone forces them to, companies have had a long history of bad behaviour. The oil industry leaves abandoned oil and gas rigs all over the place. The nuclear industry would do the same unless there were stringent regulations forcing them to. Suggesting that they, or any other industry sector, does not need formal supervision does not match history.

Maybe I am being a little facetious in my anti-regulation stick.  However, I think you can agree that in many cases regulation is hold industry back.  Nuclear is a great example. 

Putting the minimum amount of radiation released of nuclear power plants much lower than what is released by non-nuclear activities, like burning coal, is kind of a ridiculous regulation.  Should there be a regulation for this, perhaps.  Should it be lower then what you get when you burn a non-nuclear substance, probably not. 

There are plenty of others. 

I have faith though.  Eventually the majority of America will be screwed by high electricity prices, and people will demand change.  Nuclear will be adopted; I have no doubt. 

I just wish some of the new start ups would start offering IPOs!   ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 25, 2019, 04:31:13 pm
There was a 40% drop in sales in Britain a month or two ago; many urban kids no longer even want a car or get a driving licence.
Yeah. They just take an Uber/Lyft. Oh wait... those are cars.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 25, 2019, 04:35:39 pm

Ralph Nadar.

Regarding the volume of cars: this may be a misconception insofar as some places go. There was a 40% drop in sales in Britain a month or two ago; many urban kids no longer even want a car or get a driving licence. The things are losing their appeal unless you live far out there and have to travel huge distances to work or buy food. What used to be our weekly drive to Safeway for the things we needed for home has become something that a lot of women now do by taxi: a couple of them gets together and gets picked up, does what it wants to do, goes for a coffee and a chat; another buzz on the cellphone and a Jeeves appears to take 'em home. Pay as you go; no upfront expenses, payments, contracts, fuel, maintenance, washing, nada. What's not to like? We oldies and our wheels fixation are becoming passé.

Nuclear. Did I mention that in the UK, both our own govt. in tandem at times with France and China have tried to come up with a new nuclear power plant? They got so much ground broken and then it appeared to abort because costs were soaring beyond any quoted figures before the work properly began. Nuclear, to be safe and useful, and its waste to be safely dispose of, is a friggin' nightmare and not the stroll down easy street its advocates think. It's no panacea to me, it's a nightmare waiting for folks to fall asleep. And really, it seems to be that worse than the immediate effects of a catastrophe at work, the greater danger is the waste material that remains toxically active for thousands of years.

All of that ignores the terrorist target aspect of such a structure. You may remember the international chaos that was caused at Heathrow, I think, by a drone incident a few months ago? All the money riding on transport, and they still were powerless to find a civilian with a radio control. Yeah, living downhill of a big dam can be just as unsettling, but the one danger does not negate the other.

Rob, Nuclear waste is recyclable. Once reactor fuel (uranium or thorium) is used in a reactor, it can be treated and put into another reactor as fuel. France, Great Britain and Japan, among other nations do this. France recycles most of its waste. Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn't do that. One reason it doesn't is that Hollywood and the news media have made people so afraid of nuclear power it simply isn't worth it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 25, 2019, 04:49:21 pm
Yeah. They just take an Uber/Lyft. Oh wait... those are cars.

Or hop on public transport. There's loads of it, and the more people use it the better it will become.

That said, and you could well be right about those folks just using another car, the point remains that as an item of lust and ego, it may be singing its swan-song. Also, if you don't drive, you don't get into the aimless trips mindset, which can only be good for those who have no alternative but the highway.

An electric car might really suit me best of all. I drive so little these days - still under 30,000 klicks in almost nine years. A small thing like a golf buggy would be fine, if the rest of the traffic was no larger and faster. As for SUVs doing the school run, do me a favour! Is your local school up a mountain track or in a forest with no roads? That Range Rover had two purposes: display hubbies wealth; protect the passengers from other equally silly transport devices.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 25, 2019, 04:49:50 pm

Ralph Nadar.

Regarding the volume of cars: this may be a misconception insofar as some places go. There was a 40% drop in sales in Britain a month or two ago; many urban kids no longer even want a car or get a driving licence. The things are losing their appeal unless you live far out there and have to travel huge distances to work or buy food. What used to be our weekly drive to Safeway for the things we needed for home has become something that a lot of women now do by taxi: a couple of them gets together and gets picked up, does what it wants to do, goes for a coffee and a chat; another buzz on the cellphone and a Jeeves appears to take 'em home. Pay as you go; no upfront expenses, payments, contracts, fuel, maintenance, washing, nada. What's not to like? We oldies and our wheels fixation are becoming passé.

Nuclear. Did I mention that in the UK, both our own govt. in tandem at times with France and China have tried to come up with a new nuclear power plant? They got so much ground broken and then it appeared to abort because costs were soaring beyond any quoted figures before the work properly began. Nuclear, to be safe and useful, and its waste to be safely dispose of, is a friggin' nightmare and not the stroll down easy street its advocates think. It's no panacea to me, it's a nightmare waiting for folks to fall asleep. And really, it seems to be that worse than the immediate effects of a catastrophe at work, the greater danger is the waste material that remains toxically active for thousands of years.

All of that ignores the terrorist target aspect of such a structure. You may remember the international chaos that was caused at Heathrow, I think, by a drone incident a few months ago? All the money riding on transport, and they still were powerless to find a civilian with a radio control. Yeah, living downhill of a big dam can be just as unsettling, but the one danger does not negate the other.

How does France handle terrorists, waste, safety, etc.?  Most of their production is from nuclear.  If it works for them, why not us? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 04:53:03 pm

Nuclear. Did I mention that in the UK, both our own govt. in tandem at times with France and China have tried to come up with a new nuclear power plant? They got so much ground broken and then it appeared to abort because costs were soaring beyond any quoted figures before the work properly began. Nuclear, to be safe and useful, and its waste to be safely dispose of, is a friggin' nightmare and not the stroll down easy street its advocates think. It's no panacea to me, it's a nightmare waiting for folks to fall asleep. And really, it seems to be that worse than the immediate effects of a catastrophe at work, the greater danger is the waste material that remains toxically active for thousands of years.

All of that ignores the terrorist target aspect of such a structure. You may remember the international chaos that was caused at Heathrow, I think, by a drone incident a few months ago? All the money riding on transport, and they still were powerless to find a civilian with a radio control. Yeah, living downhill of a big dam can be just as unsettling, but the one danger does not negate the other.

Rob, this is all BS!

Nuclear power plants are expensive because of the regulations, period.  That is why they have become too expensive to build.  A second, yet smaller issue, is nothing has been standardized yet; they are all one off designs.  This is mainly due to the fact that not enough of them have been built yet for a standard to develop, which brings us back to the first issue. 

Second, in the event of a meltdown, the containment dome holds in all of the radiation.  To this date, aside from Chernobyl, which had no containment dome, all of the destruction and death from any nuclear plant malfunction was a direct result of mass hysteria.  There was never, nor has there been, any threat from the radiation in any event other then Chernobyl.  Also, the threat from Chernobyl was much less then what people have been told.  Like I said before only about 120 people have died from radiation exposure at Chernobyl. 

Third, nuclear waste is not as dangerous as people make it out to be.  It is a solid.  It can not spill out and flow all over the place.  It would remain where ever it happened to land.  Anyway, the short term containers are incredibly well built and it would take an severe action to break them.  So it is highly unlikely the waste would somehow be exposed.  On top of that, nuclear power produces an extremely small amount of waste that is completely contained somewhere.  Uranium is extremely energy dense, so much so that you would only use up about a soup can size amount of it in your entire life if you only ever used nuclear for all of your energy.  Any other base line power source produces significantly more waste per capita and almost all of it is released into the atmosphere in the form of carbon emissions. 

Forth, nuclear power plants are a really really, and I mean really, bad terrorist target.  The fuel rods are only, at most, 20% radioactive material, but I think most are only 5%.  Point being, you cant make a nuclear bomb with it because you need 99% or higher fissionable material to do so.  So, it makes no sense to try and steal it for that purpose.  Using it in a dirty bomb would not do anything either since the explosion would spread the material so far apart fission would nearly stop.  You can actually safely handle the pellets in the fuel rods safely by themselves.  Insofar as exposing the core, the domes are built so thick not even a nuclear bomb can rupture them, and even if it did, the bomb would produce a much bigger problem then exposing the core would.  Stealing the short term waste containers also would not be practical since they are so big and heavy.  Trying to blow them up is also nearly impossible.  To quote Richard Brant, it would have to be a really stupid terrorist to try and attack a nuclear power plant.  There are a lot better and significantly softer targets to worry about. 

Last your comment about the drone, intentionally or not, is nothing but a red herring.  The reason a drone poses so much threat to an airport is because it could fly into a plane engine and bring it down.  However, no drone is going to be able to destroy a containment dome or a temporary nuclear waste container at a nuclear power plant.  This is not even a comparison worth thinking about. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 04:54:24 pm
Yeah. They just take an Uber/Lyft. Oh wait... those are cars.

Personally I walk. My grocery is about a half mile away.  No need to drive unless it is raining.  Even then, I have this thing called an umbrella.   8)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 25, 2019, 04:58:01 pm
Or hop on public transport. There's loads of it, and the more people use it the better it will become.

That said, and you could well be right about those folks just using another car, the point remains that as an item of lust and ego, it may be singing its swan-song. Also, if you don't drive, you don't get into the aimless trips mindset, which can only be good for those who have no alternative but the highway.

An electric car might really suit me best of all. I drive so little these days - still under 30,000 klicks in almost nine years. A small thing like a golf buggy would be fine, if the rest of the traffic was no larger and faster. As for SUVs doing the school run, do me a favour! Is your local school up a mountain track or in a forest with no roads? That Range Rover had two purposes: display hubbies wealth; protect the passengers from other equally silly transport devices.

In America, the shift is going to crossover SUV's, not traditional SUVs.  Crossovers are basically sedan bodies with a SUV look and higher cabin sitting positions.  Frankly, my regular sedan drives smoother but the higher view in a SUV is nice.  And safer to drive.  But the drive is coarser.  Well, you do have a choice. 

Arguing that it's more fun to take a bus falls on deaf ears.  There's nothing like rolling up the windows, putting on some great music sound speakers, and getting comfortable in an auto from the garage in your house to the place you're going.   I also love just driving around.  Getting out in the country driving country roads are an escape.  I think you've forgotten how much fun it could be. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 25, 2019, 05:03:05 pm
Oh, how can I forget.  As a medium format camera landscape shooter, I put over 50 pounds of Mamiya RB67 equipment and tripod in my trunk.  How would I get around without a car? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 25, 2019, 05:32:09 pm
In America, the shift is going to crossover SUV's, not traditional SUVs.  Crossovers are basically sedan bodies with a SUV look and higher cabin sitting positions.  Frankly, my regular sedan drives smoother but the higher view in a SUV is nice.  And safer to drive.  But the drive is coarser.  Well, you do have a choice. 

Arguing that it's more fun to take a bus falls on deaf ears.  There's nothing like rolling up the windows, putting on some great music sound speakers, and getting comfortable in an auto from the garage in your house to the place you're going.   I also love just driving around.  Getting out in the country driving country roads are an escape.  I think you've forgotten how much fun it could be.

I think this is the generational difference that is setting millennials apart from others. 

Technically I am a Xennial, but I hate driving, I absolutely hate it.  I find nothing fun about it.  This is why I live in a city, so I don't have to drive for everything.  It's great going out for a dinner and drink, perhaps to meet friends, and not having to worry about getting a DUI because you had one extra drink.  It's great to be able to walk to the store and the bar and the park and anywhere else, and not dealing with traffic.  I cant believe people actually put up with traffic every day. 

The only time I consistently drive for are my photo shoots.  I have way too much equipment (like about 500 lbs of it) to bring any other way.  Even then though, I cant stand it. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 25, 2019, 06:09:32 pm
Meanwhile, in the Commie America 🤣

“Fresno City leaders offer money to gang members in effort to reduce drive-by shootings”

https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/in-effort-to-reduce-drive-by-shootings-fresno-city-leaders-offer-money-to-gang-members/
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 25, 2019, 06:10:23 pm
Driving a car is becoming a luxury. I know people who gave up owning a car altogether, especially the ones living in Toronto downtown, or if they live in suburbs they are now forced into 7-year leases, to keep the monthly payments still affordable.  Renting cars is also more expensive than it used to be.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 25, 2019, 06:17:48 pm
Oh, how can I forget.  As a medium format camera landscape shooter, I put over 50 pounds of Mamiya RB67 equipment and tripod in my trunk.  How would I get around without a car?
20 years ago, I carried 50 lbs of photo gear in a backpack and an extra bag, sometimes on rather challenging coastal trails. I downsized it now to about 10-15 lbs.
 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 25, 2019, 06:18:36 pm
Meanwhile, in the Commie America 🤣

“Fresno City leaders offer money to gang members in effort to reduce drive-by shootings”

https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/in-effort-to-reduce-drive-by-shootings-fresno-city-leaders-offer-money-to-gang-members/

Still better to live in Fresno than subsidize red America with tax exempt status ;)

Man of God wants to kill gays. (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/church-pastor-lgbt-people-killed-death-grayson-fritts-baptist-a8958846.html)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 25, 2019, 06:26:17 pm
Nuclear is safe because it is not an inherently dangerous power source, and this is due to the fact that it is good for business to have it that way.  If a nuclear power plant melts down, it is gone, done, no further ROI.  So it is good business to make sure it does not fail.  This is exactly what companies, on their own, are doing right now, trying to make it absolutely fool proof and come up with the next generation of reactors that are more efficient and powerful.  But government has gotten in the way so much so it is impossible to get a new nuclear plant built, and even harder with newer better designs. 

Pretty funny, there are safer better designs but because of how slow government runs, the government would rather you build an older type plant instead of a new one. 

The red tape is so thick that coal plants release more radiation then what nuclear plants are allowed to.  How silly is that. 

Insofar as Boeing, what's your point.  I believe the accident was caused by a programing glitch no one realized existed until an accident occurred.  It's tragic but how do you foresee it until after the fact.  Most responses on how the government could have prevented it are filled with hindsight bias.  The government did nothing, nor would have been able to, to prevent it.  And do you really think Boeing is fixing the problem due to government?  No!.  They are fixing it because they want to continue selling planes.  If they ignored it, no one would want to fly in a Boeing plane and they would loose business.  It just make sense to fix the problem. 

It also makes sense to make planes safer and safer as time goes on.  Do you really think a company would make planes to the same safety standards of the 30s if they could?  Come one, you're being irrational. 

Cars you say, well the cars of 30 years ago were not less safe because of less red tape.  They were less safe because innovations we have today had not yet been invented.  The government did not just all of a sudden think up some safety innovations and products and force them onto the car makers.  The car makers thought of these things and implemented them before the government even had a whiff of them.  Stop kidding yourself. 

Ahhh, the smog of Pittsburgh.  Guess what, no one really knew how bad smog was for your health pre 1940s. The industries let it get that bad simply because no one, including them, knew any better.  It was not until the 1948 Donora smog crisis that people started to take it seriously, Of course, when they found out how unsafe it was, they cleaned it up.  So what is the point?  It is a great example of a local government getting together and implementing a policy that hd direct results.  Not a large federal government run amuck with regulations, some of which no one can really explain.



Actually Joe, I agree with you.
Of course it makes sense for companies to make an effort to stay in business. It also makes perfect sense for them to make a profit. But if profit requires cutting corners, well then.

Air pollution was known as far back as the 13th century:
https://www.history.com/topics/natural-disasters-and-environment/water-and-air-pollution

In the latter part of the 13th century, in an effort to reduce air pollution, England’s King Edward I threatened Londoners with harsh penalties if they didn’t stop burning sea-coal. However, the king’s regulations–and those of subsequent leaders–had little effect.

People back then didn’t know the science of pollution but they certainly knew where the problem was coming from.

As for the Donora tragedy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Donora_smog

Lawsuits were filed against U.S. Steel, which never acknowledged responsibility for the incident, calling it "an act of God".[3] While the steel company did not accept blame, it reached a settlement in 1951 in which it paid about $235,000, which was stretched over the 80 victims who had participated in the lawsuit, leaving them little after legal expenses were factored in. Representatives of American Steel and Wire settled the more than $4.6 million claimed in 130 damage suits at about 5% of what had been sought, noting that the company was prepared to show at trial that the smog had been caused by a "freak weather condition" that trapped over Donora "all of the smog coming from the homes, railroads, the steamboats, and the exhaust from automobiles, as well as the effluents from its plants."[4][7] U.S. Steel closed both plants by 1966.

So “act of god” and “freak weather conditions” were the defense of the factories. Right.

Also:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_St._Louis_smog

Clearly it was known how air pollution was created.


As for Boeing, from Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings

The 737 MAX's new Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), part of the automated flight controls, was suspected of sending each aircraft into a dive in response to erroneous data from an angle of attack (AoA) sensor. With FAA's agreement[1], Boeing did not include information about MCAS in flight crew manuals, and pilots only learned of the system after the Lion Air crash. U.S. pilots confronted Boeing for omitting MCAS documentation and made aviation safety reports about the airplane's uncommanded maneuvers. Aviation engineers criticized Boeing's safety analysis for allowing MCAS to exceed certified limits of control and to repeatedly pitch the airplane down, while using only one of two AoA sensors, which created a single point of failure. In addition, a cockpit indicator did not warn pilots when the two sensors differed. Boeing asserted the indicator was not critical, but said mistakes in the software disabled it. Boeing insisted the aircraft was safe, but admitted that MCAS was a factor in both accidents. The company said its communication about the 737 MAX was unacceptably inconsistent.

And there’s more here, in which the CEO tries to blame the pilots of the two crashes:
https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/boeing-ceo-puts-partial-blame-on-pilots-of-crashed-737-max-aircraft-for-not-completely-following-procedures.html


As for cars:
https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/timeline/index.html

The first Federal Safety Standards for cars become effective January 1, 1968. These new standards help protect drivers against unreasonable risk of crashes occurring as a result of the design, construction or performance of motor vehicles.

NHTSA is officially established by the Highway Safety Act. NHTSA is responsible for reducing deaths, injuries and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. This is accomplished by setting and enforcing safety performance standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and through grants to State and local governments to enable them to conduct effective local highway safety programs.

In addition, NHTSA investigates safety defects in motor vehicles, sets and enforces fuel economy standards, helps States and local communities reduce the threat of drunk drivers, promotes the use of seat belts, child safety seats and air bags, investigates odometer fraud, establishes and enforces vehicle anti-theft regulations and provides consumer information on motor vehicle safety topics.


And then there’s Ralph Nader’s Unsafe at any Speed. The book helped usher in many safety features, but the conservative group Human Events voted it an honorable mention in its Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries list. LOL.

And from Wikipedia:
Senate hearings prompted by the book led to the creation of the Department of Transportation and the predecessor agencies of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 1966.

Interestingly, in 1966 GM conducted a campaign of harassment and intimidation(and I thought Libertarians were a peaceful lot) for which Nader successfully sued.

As for nuclear power, the U.S. Regulatory Nuclear Commission is curiously without much information regarding safety. So the RNC has its share of critics, much of it being its lack of enforcement of station problems.

————

PS I’m well aware of the benefits of innovation of the private sector. How could one not be in this digital age? But believing that companies are inherently moral and ethical is either Pollyannish or cynical.

As that old joke goes, Take Google...please.

The End.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 25, 2019, 07:49:04 pm
No one is suggesting we shouldn;t be good stewards of the environment or have safety on our minds.  The question is where to stop.  Let me give you an example for a personal decision in this area. 

NYC building codes require not only smoke detectors in new office building construction to alert on fire.  But also to install water sprinkler systems that will put out fires when detected.  The sprinkler portion used to be an option but is now mandatory like smoke detectors.

However, there are no requirements for sprinklerization in single family home like yours and mine although codes require home smoke detectors.  Why not?  Aren't you and your kids valuable enough to have them?  Why only at the office?  Well, no one is stopping you from including them when your home is being built or adding them afterwards.  However, it costs money and there are certain aesthetic complaints where sprinkler heads have to be installed in ceilings.  But the main objection is money. People figure smoke detectors are enough.  They don't want to spend money on sprinklers.  But only sprinklers will put out the fire.  Meanwhile, in 2017 in the USA, 2,630 people, or 77 percent of all fire deaths, occurred in the home.

So here is the moral and financial conundrum.  Should your local building codes require sprinklerization?  Will you now install them anyway?  (PS- I don;t have them in my home but do have smoke detectors.  However, these alert locally.  They are not tied to the fire department or to my central service burglar company).


https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2018/September-October-2018/Features/2017-US-Fire-Loss-Report/Overview-of-the-2017-US-fire-experience (https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2018/September-October-2018/Features/2017-US-Fire-Loss-Report/Overview-of-the-2017-US-fire-experience)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 25, 2019, 11:32:05 pm
We're here  in beautiful Banff,  enjoying nature.   It's so much fun to read a couple days worth of posts that pretty much repeat all the arguments from the climate change thread that Ray and I moderated a while back.   The same wrong stuff keeps getting posted when some simple research could get you the correct answer.   It's too difficult to collect things via a tablet so I shall not try.   I'll just settle back,  ignore those who should be ignored,  and chuckle over the rest.   

Good to see renewable energy in a thread about this Constitution.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 26, 2019, 01:27:37 am
I'm glad that you are enjoying Banff, Alan. No point getting distracted by the discussions about renewable energy and American constitution. Not only are the Rockies beautiful at this time of year, but Canada boasts also one of the most reasonable prices for cocaine.

A new UNODC report was published stating that in 2017 585,000 people died from drug overdoses worldwide, 70,0000 just in USA. Production of cocaine rose 25% relative to previous year. 70% of it grown in Columbia. Canada ranks second in the world for cocaine use, partly due to a good dealer network and bargain prices.

Quote
Despite being the most expensive drug in the world, the price of cocaine in Canada compared to the rest of the world might make it hard to quit. It costs about $85 per gram here compared to the global average of $120.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-ranks-second-in-the-world-for-cocaine-use-and-feeling-conflicted-about-it-report

Just watch out for bears. In 2010, there was a delicate situation in the neighbouring province, where a sloth of bears was recruited to guard a small marijuana farm.

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/quot-grizzly-quot-discovery-during-b-c-drug-bust-1.543597
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 26, 2019, 02:26:12 am
Follow up on renewable energy from Germany. Due to breezier weather than usual, last year they achieved very respectable results from their wind farms.

Quote
The share of renewable energies in electricity consumption increased significantly in the first six months of the year. Above all, the windy weather meant that green electricity has covered 44 percent of electricity consumption. This results from calculations of the energy association BDEW. For comparison: In the same period last year, it was 39 percent. The largest amount of green electricity was  produced with 55.8 billion kilowatt hours of wind turbines on land: They delivered 18 percent more than in the first half of 2018. Wind power at sea even increased by 30 percent to 12 billion kilowatt hours.

Solar plants supplied around 24 billion kilowatt hours, one billion more than in the same period of the previous year. From other sources of energy - especially biomass and hydropower - came to 36.7 billion kilowatt hours, 0.5 billion more than in the first half of 2018.

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/windkraft-boom-oekostrom-anteil-in-deutschland-steigt-auf-rekordwert-a-1274318.html
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 26, 2019, 07:02:45 am
Follow up on renewable energy from Germany. Due to breezier weather than usual, last year they achieved very respectable results from their wind farms.

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/windkraft-boom-oekostrom-anteil-in-deutschland-steigt-auf-rekordwert-a-1274318.html

And what happens when you get a year like 2016 when it was less sunny and less windy? 

I suspect they burn more coal since that is what they do.  France will just continue to use its nuclear power without worrying about emissions. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 26, 2019, 07:51:41 am
Well, you can look at the situation as half sunny and mostly windy, or partly cloudy and not so windy.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 26, 2019, 08:08:48 am
Well, you can look at the situation as half sunny and mostly windy, or partly cloudy and not so windy.

Listen, I do not mean to confrontational here; I know I come off as so.  It's just that wind/solar has so many problems that are unavoidable with such a small amount of power outsource per acre with a very high cost of production, why bother even trying.  Not to mention there is no real life proof what so ever that using wind/solar helps lower carbon emissions.  We should be concentrating all of our attention on nuclear, which I think is where we eventually will end up.  I just want us there in a couple decades not 5 or 6. 

Anyway, just because it is not sunny does not mean it will be windy, and vis versa.  They just got lucky in 2018, and I'd rather not rely on luck. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 26, 2019, 08:19:06 am
And what happens when you get a year like 2016 when it was less sunny and less windy? 

I suspect they burn more coal since that is what they do.  France will just continue to use its nuclear power without worrying about emissions.


But it does worry about emissions: Paris, for one, is a city regularly at danger levels of pollution and diesel is (or is about to be) banned from some cities. There may or may not be immediate pollution from nuclear plants, but I am far from convinced about its relative safety in the grander scheme of things. There is never something for nothing, not even lunches. Hell, it's the first law of physics!

Parts of the UK have over thirty-foot tidal rises/falls. The Bay of Biscay has amazing storms and waves. That energy can be harnessed, when there is a will. As with the rest of the alternatives to the unsustainable status quo, people with different beliefs cite costs today, without drawing any comparison with the alternative, future costs which are going to be far greater than monetary ones. Spending what sounds like a lot of money today to secure a future - a viable future where we can live on the surface of Earth rather than copy the mole, is still a more sensible bet than opting for cheaper today, the hell with tomorrow and future generations. I care about them: they are me.

There are no such tides in the Mediterranean; indeed, it has been shown that the Straits of Gibraltar have silted up in the past, leading to the the Med drying out: the proof has been found in the sediments. That said, there are deserts in many of its bordering countries, deserts of no use to man other than for the exploitation thereof for energy-producing farms. China has done a lot of this already, and not because it sees coal as its sustainable future - more as its suicide. The Chinese have never been fools.

If there is going to be anything that will scare the politicians into cooperation, it's going to be mutual survival. I am sure that, sooner or later, the world will be split into zones that produce different, exclusive products for worldwide distribution. Drive through France, fly over much of Britain, and you see lands that are very fertile, better used producing food than cars or tractors: do the same on your way to Nairobi and another truth hits you in the face. Frankly, without looking at the world's bigger picture rather than focussing on the national political and religious, there appears to be little chance of any worthwhile future. There is no need for each tiny country to try to be self-sufficient in all aspects; better to get real and combine across the world than try to dominate. Nobody can; sooner or later all empires crumble.

The thing is, those who still champion fossil fuels never try to explain what happens to all those escaping pollutants. Yes, some carbon falls back down and may be absorbed by the remaining jungles; where do they imagine the lighter than air gasses go? They can't escape gravity even though they may not sink down into more dense air and down to the ground.  All they can do is gather as different layers of toxic cloud. Has everyone forgotten about acid rain, and what it has done to bits of Scandinavia in the past? Much of northern Scotland is apparently what passes for photographic heaven for some people. Do they know that they are looking at a moorland that used to be forest, as it still would be but for our pollutants over the years?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 26, 2019, 08:32:33 am
Listen, I do not mean to confrontational here; I know I come off as so.  It's just that wind/solar has so many problems that are unavoidable with such a small amount of power outsource per acre with a very high cost of production, why bother even trying.  Not to mention there is no real life proof what so ever that using wind/solar helps lower carbon emissions.  We should be concentrating all of our attention on nuclear, which I think is where we eventually will end up.  I just want us there in a couple decades not 5 or 6. 

Anyway, just because it is not sunny does not mean it will be windy, and vis versa.  They just got lucky in 2018, and I'd rather not rely on luck.

Yes, they got lucky in 2018. On the other hand, in the future, there will be more efficient solar panels and wind turbines, bigger and cheaper batteries, and other sources of renewable energy.  I agree on the nuclear energy and coal plants can be always used as a backup or in peak periods.

BTW, in Ontario sources of electricity include nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, gas and biomass. Coal plants have been phased out several years ago.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on June 26, 2019, 08:42:19 am
We're here  in beautiful Banff,  enjoying nature.  It's so much fun to read a couple days worth of posts that pretty much repeat all the arguments from the climate change thread that Ray and I moderated a while back.   The same wrong stuff keeps getting posted when some simple research could get you the correct answer.   It's too difficult to collect things via a tablet so I shall not try.   I'll just settle back,  ignore those who should be ignored,  and chuckle over the rest.   



Yes, yes, it's been MONTHS since you last reminded us!


Edit: formatting only
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 26, 2019, 08:51:06 am
Yes, they got lucky in 2018. On the other hand, in the future, there will be more efficient solar panels and wind turbines, bigger and cheaper batteries, and other sources of renewable energy.  I agree on the nuclear energy and coal plants can be always used as a backup or in peak periods.

BTW, in Ontario sources of electricity include nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, gas and biomass. Coal plants have been phased out several years ago.

We have already far past the inflection point on gains in the efficiency of solar and wind.  Future gains will be very small while require larger and larger investments.  The physicists whom I have listened to who have looked into this all agree.  We are near the capacity of what solar and wind can give us.  Not to mention, why rely on a technology that only produces power 10% to 30% of the time. 

Insofar as batteries, they are a horrible option.  As mentioned before you loose 20% to 40% of power when you charge a battery and use the energy later.  Having a modern grid to draw power from is a much better and cheaper option.  For this to work, you need a base line power source, which wind and solar will never be due their intermittency.  Only nuclear and fossil fuels can do this. 



I should add, I think solar is great on roofs, but not in solar farms.  If you own a single family house and you want to install solar panels, I would be all for it.  If it was not that my roof will need to be replaced in a hand full of years, I would consider it.  But I'm not installing panels only to have to have them removed and reinstalled when the roof is replaced.  However, solar farms make no sense.  There are much better uses of land, even if you just leave it alone for nature to use, especially when you consider a nuclear plant used significantly less land and produces a lot of power on demand.  I am against wind turbines anywhere.  They kill large predator birds regardless of position, which is not good for the environment. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 26, 2019, 09:08:21 am
Insofar as batteries, they are a horrible option.  As mentioned before you loose 20% to 40% of power when you charge a battery and use the energy later.

Which still beats wasting 100% of the solar/wind energy because it isn't harvested, to begin with.

There are numerous other possibilities for storage of energy, like hydro-pumped or other kinetic energy based systems, air-compressed storage, Salt basins, conversion to Hydrogen gas, etc. They all have less than 100% efficiency, but that only changes the Total-Cost-of-Ownership, in particular, and the time it takes to break even. It will be a combination of technologies that need to be used in tandem, and regionally distributed (the wind usually blows somewhere else if not here, same for solar energy farms in addition to privately owned PVs).

There are also alternatives like Tidal energy, or Geothermal energy that need to be developed further if local geographic situations offer opportunities.

And in the longer term, Thorium reactors look promising.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 26, 2019, 09:27:23 am
Which still beats wasting 100% of the solar/wind energy because it isn't harvested, to begin with.

There are numerous other possibilities for storage of energy, like hydro-pumped or other kinetic energy based systems, air-compressed storage, Salt basins, conversion to Hydrogen gas, etc. They all have less than 100% efficiency, but that only changes the Total-Cost-of-Ownership, in particular, and the time it takes to break even. It will be a combination of technologies that need to be used in tandem, and regionally distributed (the wind usually blows somewhere else if not here, same for solar energy farms in addition to privately owned PVs).

There are also alternatives like Tidal energy, or Geothermal energy that need to be developed further if local geographic situations offer opportunities.

And in the longer term, Thorium reactors look promising.

Cheers,
Bart

Please stop kidding yourself. 

Why spend so much money on wind and solar and then so much more on batteries, or whatever else, when you know you will be loosing at least 20% of the power generated.  It makes no damn sense.  Just spend the money on a reliable base load power source, such as nuclear. 

Hydro-basin and using water storage to spin turbines later can only work when there is a dam like design.  These are expensive to build.  Plus, you can't use salt water due to it corrosiveness.  So you need to use fresh water, and there are a lot better things to do with fresh water then letting it sit somewhere.  (Fresh water is only 1% of the total amount of water on the planet and is more valuable then people think.) 

Converting water to Hydrogen requires a lot of energy, which is why nearly all commercially available hydrogen comes from other sources, like fossil fuels.  I don't see this working either. 

I don't know how much energy it takes to compress gas, but I am assuming a lot more then can be harvested by releasing it. 

You're whole argument that wind blows somewhere and the sun shines somewhere ignores the financial fact that in order to take advantage of that, you need to build many multiple wind/solar farms and long range transmission lines with the knowledge that most of the time, the majority of them will not be producing and transporting power.  This is an incredible waste of resources and money better spent elsewhere.  Not to mention the shear amount of land required for a plan like this will put a great toll on the environment. 

Tidal energy is a lost cause; on the small scale, it may work, but not so great.  The reason, since waves don't actually move the water laterally (only up and down), you cant just place a turbine in the water and have it spin.  You need to build a devise which takes advantage of the vertical movement of the water and then transfers the energy through levers and gears to a turbine.  This makes it it a fairly complex machine that needs to be built with many points for failure over time.  Not to mention having something constantly half submerged half exposed in a salt water environment will greatly accurate rust and deterioration. 

Geothermal is great, where you can use it.  Unfortunately these areas are not so common. 

Yes, Thorium reactors do look promising.  We have good nuclear technology now, and that is where we should be putting our money in while waiting for Thorium reactors to become available. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 26, 2019, 09:27:52 am
Follow up on renewable energy from Germany. Due to breezier weather than usual, last year they achieved very respectable results from their wind farms.

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/windkraft-boom-oekostrom-anteil-in-deutschland-steigt-auf-rekordwert-a-1274318.html (https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/windkraft-boom-oekostrom-anteil-in-deutschland-steigt-auf-rekordwert-a-1274318.html)

What good is it?   With 40% of their electric grid on renewables, they're still producing the same amount of CO2.  And it's costing Germans 2-1/2 times what America pays for electricity.  Germany pays more for electricity than other European countries even though they have one of the highest renewable grids.  If this example is what happens  with renewables, we're chasing them down Alice's rabbit hole. It's no solution to the problem. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 26, 2019, 09:30:13 am
We have already far past the inflection point on gains in the efficiency of solar and wind.  Future gains will be very small while require larger and larger investments.  The physicists whom I have listened to who have looked into this all agree.  We are near the capacity of what solar and wind can give us.  Not to mention, why rely on a technology that only produces power 10% to 30% of the time. 

Insofar as batteries, they are a horrible option.  As mentioned before you loose 20% to 40% of power when you charge a battery and use the energy later.  Having a modern grid to draw power from is a much better and cheaper option.  For this to work, you need a base line power source, which wind and solar will never be due their intermittency.  Only nuclear and fossil fuels can do this. 

I should add, I think solar is great on roofs, but not in solar farms.  If you own a single family house and you want to install solar panels, I would be all for it.  If it was not that my roof will need to be replaced in a hand full of years, I would consider it.  But I'm not installing panels only to have to have them removed and reinstalled when the roof is replaced.  However, solar farms make no sense.  There are much better uses of land, even if you just leave it alone for nature to use, especially when you consider a nuclear plant used significantly less land and produces a lot of power on demand.  I am against wind turbines anywhere.  They kill large predator birds regardless of position, which is not good for the environment.

Every little bit helps. I have retired friends (couple) who live in the summer for 6 months in a rather large and modern house on an island in Georgian Bay (part of Lake Huron). Totally off the grid. Several solar panels, few batteries, airtight wood stove for heat and light cooking, propane gas stove and outdoor BBQ, gas generator for outdoor power tools. Quite comfortable home with hot water, toilets emptying into a septic tank, laundry machine, super-efficient fridge, equally super-efficient freezer, phones and laptop computers. Once or twice a week, they drive their little boat to the marina on the mainland, and from there they drive their Corolla Matrix to the supermarket in the nearest town. Very happy with a very small environmental footprint. In the winter, they are in Mexico. 

As to the solar panels on my roof, I feel the same way as you, no point installing it now, if I'll have to replace the shingles within 10 years.
But new solar panels which will double as insulated roof tiles and will last a long time, would be a very practical alternative to shingles which need to be replaced every 15-20 years.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 26, 2019, 09:30:18 am
What good is it?   With 40% of their electric grid on renewables, they're still producing the same amount of CO2.  And it's costing Germans 2-1/2 times what America pays for electricity.  Germany pays more for electricity than other European countries even though they have one of the highest renewable grids.  If this example is what happens  with renewables, we're chasing them down Alice's rabbit hole. It's no solution to the problem.

+1
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 26, 2019, 09:34:17 am
Which still beats wasting 100% of the solar/wind energy because it isn't harvested, to begin with.

Unless you live in a city where you can't do it, Bart. look out at the fields and see the crops and the cows harvesting solar energy. We harvest solar energy constantly.

Quote
And in the longer term, Thorium reactors look promising.

Yes.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 26, 2019, 09:52:14 am
Please stop kidding yourself. 

Why spend so much money on wind and solar and then so much more on batteries, or whatever else, when you know you will be loosing at least 20% of the power generated.  It makes no damn sense.  Just spend the money on a reliable base load power source, such as nuclear. 

Hydro-basin and using water storage to spin turbines later can only work when there is a dam like design.  These are expensive to build.  Plus, you can't use salt water due to it corrosiveness.  So you need to use fresh water, and there are a lot better things to do with fresh water then letting it sit somewhere.  (Fresh water is only 1% of the total amount of water on the planet and is more valuable then people think.) 

Converting water to Hydrogen requires a lot of energy, which is why nearly all commercially available hydrogen comes from other sources, like fossil fuels.  I don't see this working either. 

I don't know how much energy it takes to compress gas, but I am assuming a lot more then can be harvested by releasing it. 

You're whole argument that wind blows somewhere and the sun shines somewhere ignores the financial fact that in order to take advantage of that, you need to build many multiple wind/solar farms and long range transmission lines with the knowledge that most of the time, the majority of them will not be producing and transporting power.  This is an incredible waste of resources.  Not to mention the shear amount of land required for a plan like this will put a great toll on the environment. 

Tidal energy is a lost cause; on the small scale, it may work, but not so great.  The reason, since waves don't actually move the water laterally (only up and down), you cant just place a turbine in the water and have it spin.  You need to build a devise which takes advantage of the vertical movement of the water and then transfers the energy through levers and gears to a turbine.  This makes it it a fairly complex machine that needs to be built with many points for failure over time.  Not to mention having something constantly half submerged half exposed in a salt water environment will greatly accurate rust and deterioration. 

Geothermal is great, where you can use it.  Unfortunately these areas are not so common. 

Yes, Thorium reactors do look promising.  We have good nuclear technology now, and that is where we should be putting our money in while waiting for Thorium reactors to become available. 

NYC tried tidal production of electricity in an experiment.  They installed a generator underwater in the East River by the 59th Street Bridge.  Since the East River (and Hudson Rover) are not rivers, but tidal estuaries that flow both ways depending on the time of day and tides, the generator would get the horizontal flow to move the turbine blades.  Then when the tide reversed, the generator would turn 180 degrees and capture the flow from the other direction.  They were able to produce enough electricity to light a small nearby supermarket.  I don;t know what happened to the project, but I haven't heard about it in decades. 

Another long term energy and financial savings project in NYC has been in effect for decades.  Con Ed, our utility, produces electricity for much of the city in their carbon burning plants.  The steam produced to turn the electric turbines is not let to escape into the atmosphere.  Rather, it is pumped in huge underground steam pipes throughout the city (mainly Manhattan) to office other commercial and industrial buildings.  (If you visited Manhattan, especially in winter, you may have noticed steam coming from the manholes or where underground work is going on).  They use the steam to heat and provide the energy for steam absorbers that product air conditioning in the building.  So less electricity is needed to run the city's buildings.  Of course, Con Ed charges for both the electricity and the steam they furnish even though the steam is just a by-product of the need to produce electricity.  So it's a win-win for them too. 

Another energy conservation idea was the Citicorp Bldg.  That's the one with the 45 degree slanted roof.  The idea was to install solar panels on it to provide electricity.  Frankly, it was a publicity stunt because the power generated would have only provided enough power for one of its 59 floors.   Of course, the shape of its roof has now made it one of the Big Apple's icons. 
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Foe8sE57wqiNDYQu_FAXNDXqyOk=/0x0:2304x1536/1200x800/filters:focal(968x584:1336x952)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52174507/1108781537_c640d20c1e_o.0.jpeg)
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Foe8sE57wqiNDYQu_FAXNDXqyOk=/0x0:2304x1536/1200x800/filters:focal(968x584:1336x952)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52174507/1108781537_c640d20c1e_o.0.jpeg (https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Foe8sE57wqiNDYQu_FAXNDXqyOk=/0x0:2304x1536/1200x800/filters:focal(968x584:1336x952)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52174507/1108781537_c640d20c1e_o.0.jpeg)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 26, 2019, 10:00:14 am
NYC tried tidal production of electricity in an experiment.  They installed a generator underwater in the East River by the 59th Street Bridge.  Since the East River (and Hudson Rover) are not rivers, but tidal estuaries that flow both ways depending on the time of day and tides, the generator would get the horizontal flow to move the turbine blades.  Then when the tide reversed, the generator would turn 180 degrees and capture the flow from the other direction.  They were able to produce enough electricity to light a small nearby supermarket.  I don;t know what happened to the project, but I haven't heard about it in decades. 

Another long term energy and financial savings project in NYC has been in effect for decades.  Con Ed, our utility, produces electricity for much of the city in their carbon burning plants.  The steam produced to turn the electric turbines is not let to escape into the atmosphere.  Rather, it is pumped in huge underground steam pipes throughout the city (mainly Manhattan) to office other commercial and industrial buildings.  (If you visited Manhattan, especially in winter, you may have noticed steam coming from the manholes or where underground work is going on).  They use the steam to heat and provide the energy for steam absorbers that product air conditioning in the building.  So less electricity is needed to run the city's buildings.  Of course, Con Ed charges for both the electricity and the steam they furnish even though the steam is just a by-product of the need to produce electricity.  So it's a win-win for them too. 

Another energy conservation idea was the Citicorp Bldg.  That's the one with the 45 degree slanted roof.  The idea was to install solar panels on it to provide electricity.  Frankly, it was a publicity stunt because the power generated would have only provided enough power for one of its 59 floors.   Of course, the shape of its roof has now made it one of the Big Apple's icons. 
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Foe8sE57wqiNDYQu_FAXNDXqyOk=/0x0:2304x1536/1200x800/filters:focal(968x584:1336x952)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52174507/1108781537_c640d20c1e_o.0.jpeg)
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Foe8sE57wqiNDYQu_FAXNDXqyOk=/0x0:2304x1536/1200x800/filters:focal(968x584:1336x952)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52174507/1108781537_c640d20c1e_o.0.jpeg (https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Foe8sE57wqiNDYQu_FAXNDXqyOk=/0x0:2304x1536/1200x800/filters:focal(968x584:1336x952)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52174507/1108781537_c640d20c1e_o.0.jpeg)

With regards to tidal energy, I was talking about the most common approach of placing something in the ocean near the coast to take advantage of the waves.  The only issue is that even fairly close to the coast, the water does not really move laterally.  It only starts moving towards the coast when the depth is 3 or 4 feet, where the crest starts to break, and there it is too low for a turbine to fit. 

With a tidal estuaries it could produce some electricity, but I have to wonder how much it could actually produce.  What would be the ROI.  Judging by the fact that NYC gave up on the project, it must not be that great.  Not to mention damming up the whole tidal estuary with turbines is not an environmentally friendly thing to do. 

Of course, I think we are all for more efficient uses of energy like you sited above. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 26, 2019, 10:16:15 am
With regards to tidal energy, I was talking about the most common approach of placing something in the ocean near the coast to take advantage of the waves.  The only issue is that even fairly close to the coast, the water does not really move laterally.  It only starts moving towards the coast when the depth is 3 or 4 feet, where the crest starts to break, and there it is too low for a turbine to fit. 

With a tidal estuaries it could produce some electricity, but I have to wonder how much it could actually produce.  What would be the ROI.  Judging by the fact that NYC gave up on the project, it must not be that great.  Not to mention damming up the whole tidal estuary with turbines is not an environmentally friendly thing to do. 

Of course, I think we are all for more efficient uses of energy like you sited above. 

Just remembered another energy savings application I was involved with 45 years ago.  NY Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, a huge medical facility with loads of buildings located on Manhattan's upper west side, uses the Hudson River to cool its buildings in the summer.  The 55 degree Hudson River salt water is pumped up from the river with huge 450hp pumps installed 50 feet underground in the park next to the river, to heat exchangers in the buildings.  These circulate cold water through the cooling coils in the HVAC air distribution systems.  And everyone stays cool during the summer.  Imagine how much carbon was saved from burning over the decades.  This was not mandated by government.  It was a smart investment made by private industry. 

Of course, this system works unlike some of the others I mentioned.  There has to be a good return on investment, otherwise it won't get done.  It's a waste if it costs too much as many of the renewables do now. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 26, 2019, 10:20:59 am
Every little bit helps. I have retired friends (couple) who live in the summer for 6 months in a rather large and modern house on an island in Georgian Bay (part of Lake Huron). Totally off the grid. Several solar panels, few batteries, airtight wood stove for heat and light cooking, propane gas stove and outdoor BBQ, gas generator for outdoor power tools. Quite comfortable home with hot water, toilets emptying into a septic tank, laundry machine, super-efficient fridge, equally super-efficient freezer, phones and laptop computers. Once or twice a week, they drive their little boat to the marina on the mainland, and from there they drive their Corolla Matrix to the supermarket in the nearest town. Very happy with a very small environmental footprint. In the winter, they are in Mexico. 

As to the solar panels on my roof, I feel the same way as you, no point installing it now, if I'll have to replace the shingles within 10 years.
But new solar panels which will double as insulated roof tiles and will last a long time, would be a very practical alternative to shingles which need to be replaced every 15-20 years.

I investigated adding solar to my roof.  It turns out, my 10-year old house is so energy efficient, it really doesn;t pay to install solar even with the government rebates. The insulation is great and I switched over all my lighting to LEDs.   The payback now would be something like 20+ years.  Beside roof replacement issues, you have to deal with maintenance, repairs, batteries that lose their efficiency, etc.  Frankly, it would be a big headache. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 26, 2019, 10:23:45 am
...

With a tidal estuaries it could produce some electricity, but I have to wonder how much it could actually produce.  What would be the ROI.  Judging by the fact that NYC gave up on the project, it must not be that great.  Not to mention damming up the whole tidal estuary with turbines is not an environmentally friendly thing to do.  ...

I think Mob bodies floating down the river were clogging up the turbines.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 26, 2019, 10:32:11 am
I investigated adding solar to my roof.  It turns out, my 10-year old house is so energy efficient, it really doesn;t pay to install solar even with the government rebates. The insulation is great and I switched over all my lighting to LEDs.   The payback now would be something like 20+ years.  Beside roof replacement issues, you have to deal with maintenance, repairs, batteries that lose their efficiency, etc.  Frankly, it would be a big headache.

Alan, I'll bet you'd agree that we all ought to stop saying "government rebates," and call a spade a spade: "taxpayer rebates." Robin Hood didn't have a corner on the extraction market."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 26, 2019, 11:22:21 am
I investigated adding solar to my roof.  It turns out, my 10-year old house is so energy efficient, it really doesn;t pay to install solar even with the government rebates. The insulation is great and I switched over all my lighting to LEDs.   The payback now would be something like 20+ years.  Beside roof replacement issues, you have to deal with maintenance, repairs, batteries that lose their efficiency, etc.  Frankly, it would be a big headache.

Well this is good to know.

We had to completely replace the roof in our foyer last autumn, plywood and all, and added R30 insulation when we did.  We did this in November and our foyer went from cool and breezy to warm and comfortable.  I plan on doing the same with the main roof. 

I live in a row house and have a flat roof with no attic, so I cant do this unless the roof is up or our plaster and lath ceiling is down.  I have no intention of removing the plaster; did that in the kitchen and what a dusty mess that was, so looks like I will be waiting. 

Just as an aside, if you own an older house with plaster and you need to replace a wall, I highly recommend using real plaster and lath.  Our kitchen walls are drywall and they fell cheap.  My other plaster walls are solid.  I wish I could back and use real plaster and lath in the kitchen. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 26, 2019, 11:38:51 am
Alan, I'll bet you'd agree that we all ought to stop saying "government rebates," and call a spade a spade: "taxpayer rebates." Robin Hood didn't have a corner on the extraction market."

That's true.  The bad thing is that it's mainly richer people who take advantage of solar panels and rebates.  Poorer people can't afford the panels but continue to pay taxes that the richer people get with the rebates.  So from a social standpoint, energy rebates favor the rich not the people who need a break.  (Like rebates for $100,000 electric Tesla's.)


Additionally, because carbon plants have to continue to operate to provide power when renewables don;t work at night or when the wind doesn;t blow, electric companies have to charge more per KWH because they're selling less carbon produced electricity.  After all, they still have to run and maintain their carbon plants.  They also have to pay renewable homes which send power back into the grid from their roof solar panels.  So the poorer people who can't afford higher rates and are still on grid power pay more for electricity.  Meanwhile, the rich people with the panels pay less.  But you won't hear about this unfairness from the press or politicians so biased is their reporting.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 26, 2019, 11:56:50 am
Well this is good to know.

We had to completely replace the roof in our foyer last autumn, plywood and all, and added R30 insulation when we did.  We did this in November and our foyer went from cool and breezy to warm and comfortable.  I plan on doing the same with the main roof. 

I live in a row house and have a flat roof with no attic, so I cant do this unless the roof is up or our plaster and lath ceiling is down.  I have no intention of removing the plaster; did that in the kitchen and what a dusty mess that was, so looks like I will be waiting. 

Just as an aside, if you own an older house with plaster and you need to replace a wall, I highly recommend using real plaster and lath.  Our kitchen walls are drywall and they fell cheap.  My other plaster walls are solid.  I wish I could back and use real plaster and lath in the kitchen. 

Good luck with your construction.  When my wife I considered moving 6 years ago to where we are now, I estimated spending $300 month on electric and gas utilities.  I'm actually spending around $175 due to the insulation efficiency of my single-family home.  (double pane windows and 6 inch insulation to the attic ceiling, garage, and all exterior walls. I also switched to LED lighting.)  It's been a pleasant surprise.  On the other hand, I just spent $1900 for repairs to my air conditioning system.  It's only ten years old and should not have had problems.  They don't make things like they use too.  I wonder what it costs to maintain a solar panel system over twenty years?  Another cost politicians and the media don;t talk about.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 26, 2019, 12:20:47 pm
Thanks! 

My wife and I were budgeting about $36K for the renovations, but ended up spending around $48K.  Ultimately I was being a little short on the kitchen.  We were planning on just replacing the cabinets and appliances, but after getting the old cabinets down, the plaster was in really bad shape.  So that had to go, then we noticed the nearly 100 years old framing needed to be replaced.  And then the subfloor under the sink folded in half.  Thankfully none of the joist were damaged.  We also had to rewire the house, replace all major plumbing, a radiator, and repaint the entire interior, which needed about 35 gallons of paint.  You don't quite realize how expensive paint is until you need to repaint the entire building. 

We were expecting a lot of work when we put in the bid, so this was not a surprise.  Also, the house is in good shape from a foundation and engineering standpoint, it was just cosmetically nothing was done to it since the 70s.  We were the only bidders too, so we got them down a pretty decent amount, and bought the house about $100K lower then market value for a house that is now in the shape that ours is.  Also, we'd rather have it this way, especially with the kitchen.  So many kitchens done by flipper make no sense. 

I wish I could insulate my two exterior walls, but they are double wythe baring brick and you should never insulate baring brick walls except with closed cell foam.  We looked into this, and the cost is just not worth what I would save in the long run. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 26, 2019, 12:21:29 pm
We should ask Rob to change the title of this thread to something more appropriate.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 26, 2019, 12:23:36 pm
We should ask Rob to change the title of this thread to something more appropriate.

The American Constitution Construction

?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 26, 2019, 01:12:54 pm
We should ask Rob to change the title of this thread to something more appropriate.

Looney Tunes Echo Chamber ??
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 26, 2019, 01:22:26 pm
The American Constitution Construction

?
Construction sounds better than Constipation
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 26, 2019, 01:22:58 pm
Construction sounds better than Constipation

Eating too much cheese again? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 26, 2019, 03:00:07 pm
Thanks! 

My wife and I were budgeting about $36K for the renovations, but ended up spending around $48K.  Ultimately I was being a little short on the kitchen.  We were planning on just replacing the cabinets and appliances, but after getting the old cabinets down, the plaster was in really bad shape.  So that had to go, then we noticed the nearly 100 years old framing needed to be replaced.  And then the subfloor under the sink folded in half.  Thankfully none of the joist were damaged.  We also had to rewire the house, replace all major plumbing, a radiator, and repaint the entire interior, which needed about 35 gallons of paint.  You don't quite realize how expensive paint is until you need to repaint the entire building. 


You did all of that for 48K ???????  Wow.  We're doing the same right now and the painting bid was 13.5k alone. (Joe's not kidding about paint, y'all)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 26, 2019, 04:07:46 pm
You did all of that for 48K ???????  Wow.  We're doing the same right now and the painting bid was 13.5k alone. (Joe's not kidding about paint, y'all)

Well, my wife and I are both photographers, not stock brokers, so we had to do some of the work ourselves to stay within budget.  This is included removing the wallpaper (every wall had wallpaper on it) and painting ourselves.  Thankfully we have plaster walls, which can be steamed to hell and back and not really be effected.  I (personally) also demoed the kitchen to the baring walls and joists, installed a new subfloor, new framing, walls, new finished floor and tile backsplash.  (Although I am fairly good at carpentry, I knew enough to have a professional hang the cabinets and hired that out.)  Our kitchen is also only 12x12 feet, so the cost of my raw materials was not too high and we did not get custom cabinets.  (I did have one of my clients price custom cabinets out; they alone would have cost about the same as what we spent entirely and decided ... next house.)  We also got a crazy 40% discount on KitchenAid appliances from an in-law through a work perk, which helped out as well.  Along with this, I choose to repair all of the lath and plaster in the holes left by the electricians. 

Although we did go all in on the rewiring (had knob & tube previously), only major plumbing was replaced, namely the stack, sanitary "T," kitchen drain line.  We also had three radiator lines, both kitchen water lines and the kitchen gas line moved, and the kitchen sink vent repaired.  So it was not every pipe in the house, just the major ones and some of the radiator lines.  We have a row house with flat roofs, which are cheaper to replace then angled roofs, so the foyer roof was only $1500 to replace.  Also, our floors were in good shape, so we only had them buffed with one new coat, not sanded down to bare wood and then three layers added on.  This saved a good deal as well. 

I figure if we had hired everything out, we would have probably spent another $35K to $40K on additional labor, which we would not have had after the above expenses and the down payment, so there was really no option but to do it ourselves.  Although a fairly involved project that I realize most would not have taken on, my wife and I don't get daunted easily, and after what we saw was available on the market, especially with the kitchens, we decided this was the best option for us. 

Aside from the paint, another object that surprised me was the cost of new radiators.  We removed the kitchen wall to the dining room and choose to replace the old cast iron radiator with thinner modern Hudson Reed one, which I had noticed on projects I have photographed in NYC.  The new radiator was $700; I was floored when I saw this.  Radiators are damn expensive. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 26, 2019, 04:24:43 pm
Joe, Good luck on your renovations.  I'm sure they look great when you're all done.  Are you doing anything for photography?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 27, 2019, 08:13:36 am
Not sure if I will ever get around to photographing my kitchen like I do professionally with other projects.  Not that I dont like my kitchen, but I have literally photographed $1M kitchens, so an image of my meager project is not going to really impress a client or perspective client.  So what is the point to put a few hours of effort into the image.  But here a few pics taken with my cell phone from start to finish. 

I am not completely done yet.  I have some touch ups with the backsplash, still need to finish the baseboards and add the shoe & top molding and figure our something for the threshold of the door. 

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 27, 2019, 08:20:52 am
Good job Joe,  At my age, doing renovations would drive me crazy and be a real physical strain.  That's funny.  Because being in construction when I worked, and managing it, you'd think I'd like doing it for myself.  Meanwhile, I ordered a custom wall unit - desk/cabinet.  The furniture maker was suppose to deliver it last November!!!.  And he's holding 1/3 of $ as deposit.  I want to shoot him.  I've run out of threats.   He keeps promising. Sound familiar? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 27, 2019, 09:35:07 am
Good job Joe,  At my age, doing renovations would drive me crazy and be a real physical strain.  That's funny.  Because being in construction when I worked, and managing it, you'd think I'd like doing it for myself.  Meanwhile, I ordered a custom wall unit - desk/cabinet.  The furniture maker was suppose to deliver it last November!!!.  And he's holding 1/3 of $ as deposit.  I want to shoot him.  I've run out of threats.   He keeps promising. Sound familiar?
I didn't know a Trump owned a custom cabinet company.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 27, 2019, 09:50:28 am
I didn't know a Trump owned a custom cabinet company.

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 27, 2019, 09:56:04 am
Good job Joe,  At my age, doing renovations would drive me crazy and be a real physical strain.  That's funny.  Because being in construction when I worked, and managing it, you'd think I'd like doing it for myself.  Meanwhile, I ordered a custom wall unit - desk/cabinet.  The furniture maker was suppose to deliver it last November!!!.  And he's holding 1/3 of $ as deposit.  I want to shoot him.  I've run out of threats.   He keeps promising. Sound familiar?

I did not have anything like this happen.  However the delivery man who delivered my oven rolled it off of the truck and bent all of the knobs.  So I had to refuse delivery and have another one sent; I was without an oven for about a month.  I also order the standard wine refrigerator, which had the handle on the left side, assuming that you could switch the orientation, like nearly every other refrigerator on the market.  This was not the case, but it was really my fault for not reading the fine print.  Fortunately KitchenAid was great to deal with and they took care of this for me. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 27, 2019, 10:08:13 am
I didn't know a Trump owned a custom cabinet company.

Actually, Trump would not have put up with my cabinet maker.  He would have already fired and sued him.  When Trump builds, he pushes to get them done on time.  When you build real estate, you want to start collecting rent money to pay the bank off who's always on your back.  The quicker you get the job done, the quicker you can do that.  Time means money.  Most construction jobs of any size are contracted out with LD's (Liquidated Damages).  There's a completion date.  If the contractor misses it due to his delays, he has to pay the building owner damages for every day he's late.  For example, let's say the LD damages are $1000/ day.  If the contractor is late 30 days, he gets $30,000 taken off his contract. That's a big incentive to get the work done on time.    Additionally, the building owner may have the right to hire additional workers who don't work for the contractor and back bill the contractor for that labor. 

The story that Trump is known for is the NYC Wollman ice skating rink in Central Park.   He made his bones and became a NYC icon builder because of it.  He became the "can-do" builder that helped get him into the White House.

"Donald J. Trump refurbished the Central Park -skating rink two and a half months ahead of his own speedy six-month schedule and $750,000 below his own projected $3 million budget, having taken over the project after the city spent six years and $12 million unsuccessfully trying to get the job done."


https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/15/nyregion/about-new-york-pssst-here-s-a-secret-trump-rebuilds-ice-rink.html (https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/15/nyregion/about-new-york-pssst-here-s-a-secret-trump-rebuilds-ice-rink.html)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 27, 2019, 11:26:55 am
On topic,  the Supremes decided by 5-4 that Federal courts have no role on adjudicating Gerrymandered Congressional districts.   The majority more or less involved the "Originalist Doctrine" in the ruling written by Chief Justice Roberts.   I guess this means that the equal protection clause and one person over vote are no longer applicable.   I wonder if this court would have taken Brown v Board of Education or maybe they would have let Plessy v Ferguson stand.

It's likely we will begin seeing some interesting court decisions in the coming years.   It's quite telling that many nominees from President Trump are refusing to comment on the standing of the Brown decision.   Lots of stuff to ponder for Constitutional Law scholars.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 27, 2019, 12:07:43 pm
On topic,  the Supremes decided by 5-4 that Federal courts have no role on adjudicating Gerrymandered Congressional districts.   The majority more or less involved the "Originalist Doctrine" in the ruling written by Chief Justice Roberts.   I guess this means that the equal protection clause and one person over vote are no longer applicable.   I wonder if this court would have taken Brown v Board of Education or maybe they would have let Plessy v Ferguson stand.

It's likely we will begin seeing some interesting court decisions in the coming years.   It's quite telling that many nominees from President Trump are refusing to comment on the standing of the Brown decision.   Lots of stuff to ponder for Constitutional Law scholars.
Roberts voted with the conservatives in this one but with the liberals on not allowing citizenship question on the census. Roberts is swinging both ways and trying to preserve the Court before the Democrats pack it with more liberal justices.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 27, 2019, 12:18:44 pm
On topic,  the Supremes decided by 5-4 that Federal courts have no role on adjudicating Gerrymandered Congressional districts.   The majority more or less involved the "Originalist Doctrine" in the ruling written by Chief Justice Roberts.   I guess this means that the equal protection clause and one person over vote are no longer applicable.   I wonder if this court would have taken Brown v Board of Education or maybe they would have let Plessy v Ferguson stand.

It's likely we will begin seeing some interesting court decisions in the coming years.   It's quite telling that many nominees from President Trump are refusing to comment on the standing of the Brown decision.   Lots of stuff to ponder for Constitutional Law scholars.

Allen, is this in reference to the recent Delegates v. Bethune-Hill ruling where two Trump appointees surprised us and sided with the liberals, essentially giving the Dems a win in Virginia? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 27, 2019, 12:40:29 pm
On topic,  the Supremes decided by 5-4 that Federal courts have no role on adjudicating Gerrymandered Congressional districts.   The majority more or less involved the "Originalist Doctrine" in the ruling written by Chief Justice Roberts.   I guess this means that the equal protection clause and one person over vote are no longer applicable.   I wonder if this court would have taken Brown v Board of Education or maybe they would have let Plessy v Ferguson stand.

It's likely we will begin seeing some interesting court decisions in the coming years.   It's quite telling that many nominees from President Trump are refusing to comment on the standing of the Brown decision.   Lots of stuff to ponder for Constitutional Law scholars.

For a brief moment my heart rose, and I dreamed of a transition to a musical theme for a couple of posts. Sadly, my optimism was greater than where I'd placed it.

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 27, 2019, 01:12:10 pm
For a brief moment my heart rose, and I dreamed of a transition to a musical theme for a couple of posts. Sadly, my optimism was greater than where I'd placed it.

;-)

Motown rules.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 27, 2019, 02:24:04 pm
Allen, is this in reference to the recent Delegates v. Bethune-Hill ruling where two Trump appointees surprised us and sided with the liberals, essentially giving the Dems a win in Virginia?
No that was a different case and involved state districts.  This one was Congressional districts, Maryland and North Carolina IIRC.  It's really complicated and highlights the problem with originalism.  My personal view is Gerrymandering is evil and my home state of Maryland is to blame.  States will now have. To decide whether to vote for independent commissions as a number have done.  I think this decision violate the equal protection clause but the court felt differently.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 27, 2019, 02:31:19 pm
For a brief moment my heart rose, and I dreamed of a transition to a musical theme for a couple of posts. Sadly, my optimism was greater than where I'd placed it.

;-)

I thought about it too, and this is what I found:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9poCAuYT-s
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 27, 2019, 03:02:22 pm
No that was a different case and involved state districts.  This one was Congressional districts, Maryland and North Carolina IIRC.  It's really complicated and highlights the problem with originalism.  My personal view is Gerrymandering is evil and my home state of Maryland is to blame.  States will now have. To decide whether to vote for independent commissions as a number have done.  I think this decision violate the equal protection clause but the court felt differently.

I don;t think the court knows what do to about it.  It's been going on for 200 years.  First One party takes over State government and draws district lines to help its party.  So the court says no good.  Redraw.  So they redraw.  Then when the other party takes over state government, they redraw the lines to fit their party.  And then the federal court is called in again to referee.  I think the US Supreme Court is just tired of being a party to the games.  Let the states deal with these state issues.  If the state supreme court thinks there's a violation of their state's constitution, and their state residents' voting rights are being violated, then they can rule on it if they want and correct the lines.  Just keep the feds out of it.  In any case, the feds made it a state rights issue.  Now leave them alone with this silly nonsense.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 27, 2019, 03:07:16 pm
No that was a different case and involved state districts.  This one was Congressional districts, Maryland and North Carolina IIRC.  It's really complicated and highlights the problem with originalism.  My personal view is Gerrymandering is evil and my home state of Maryland is to blame.  States will now have. To decide whether to vote for independent commissions as a number have done.  I think this decision violate the equal protection clause but the court felt differently.

Just saw this wright up.  I have mixed feelings on the decision and not sure which side I would agree with. 

As a principle I am a stanch supporter of state's rights and the 10th amendment.  However, not for the conservative reasoning of we don't want a federal government running things.  I am more pragmatic and feel it is impossible for a single government to govern a large swath of land with varying cultures effectively over the long run and doing so will eventual cause a revolution.  Look at Ancient Greece, Rome, the Persian Empire, Ottoman Empire, French Empire, British Empire (admittedly they were much more benevolent), what is unfolding with Brexit (right or wrong).  Strong central governments eventually helped lead to their demise, albeit with additional reasons too.  I see no reason why this would not happen to the USA as well if the federal government got strong enough. 

So it is reassuring that this is staying in the States. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 27, 2019, 04:49:47 pm
Just saw this wright up.  I have mixed feelings on the decision and not sure which side I would agree with. 

As a principle I am a stanch supporter of state's rights and the 10th amendment.  However, not for the conservative reasoning of we don't want a federal government running things.  I am more pragmatic and feel it is impossible for a single government to govern a large swath of land with varying cultures effectively over the long run and doing so will eventual cause a revolution.  Look at Ancient Greece, Rome, the Persian Empire, Ottoman Empire, French Empire, British Empire (admittedly they were much more benevolent), what is unfolding with Brexit (right or wrong).  Strong central governments eventually helped lead to their demise, albeit with additional reasons too.  I see no reason why this would not happen to the USA as well if the federal government got strong enough. 

So it is reassuring that this is staying in the States.


I would have interpreted it in quite the opposite manner. States (within a single country) having different laws is nuts to me.

A common legal system has little to do with different cultures within the same country. If you extrapolate in the British case, you'd have had sharia law decades ago in some towns and the certitude of that increasing in proportion to birth rates. I wonder what the good folks of France would think...

Either you are a country of equal rights and a common legal system or you are a loose federation wide open to departures. That's part of the cause of Scottish Nationalism: it has a lot of its own, different laws, and that tempts further distancings to seem sensible courses to some.

Not all countries want to be that closely tied together; fears of a federal Europe scare some countries out of their pants, and in that particular case, I agree that it would be an ill-matched bundle of tribes that could never hold that close a relationship for all sorts of historical and ethnic reasons.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 27, 2019, 04:55:00 pm
... States (within a single country) having different laws is nuts to me...

The US is not a single country, it is a federation.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 27, 2019, 05:12:48 pm
The US is not a single country, it is a federation.


Interesting. Does everyone singing the national song and flying the ubiquitous flag know they are not really doing that at all? Maybe the flyers of Dixie know/knew.

No wonder folks find it hard to come to stable deals with it these days: who the hell do they have that speaks with the collective voice, with whom other countries can negotiate with confidence? Bad idea. You need a new constitution that throws such confusions into the distant past.

Loose means the wheels can fly right off!

But hey, aren't we speaking of the USSR?

:-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on June 27, 2019, 07:45:21 pm
On topic,  the [U.S. Supreme Court] decided by 5-4 that Federal courts have no role on adjudicating Gerrymandered* Congressional districts.   The majority more or less involved the "Originalist Doctrine" in the ruling written by Chief Justice Roberts.   I guess this means that the equal protection clause and one person over vote are no longer applicable.

The rationale for the Supreme Court's decision was not the "originalist doctrine,"** but rather the "political question" doctrine, a longstanding legal theory that U.S. courts should confine their rulings to "justiciable" issues.

Quote
In such a case the claim is said to present a “political question” and to be nonjusticiable—outside the courts’ competence and therefore beyond the courts’ jurisdiction. . . . Among the political question cases the Court has identified are those that lack “judicially discoverable and manageable standards. . . ."

The opinion of the Court (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf) does not purport to be an originalist interpretation of the constitution, and the dissent acknowledges that "the majority does not frame that point as an originalist constitutional argument."

The "equal protection" clause (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html) of the constitution continues to operate as a restriction on state legislative attempts to discriminate against certain protected groups (e.g. on the basis of race) or to undermine the principle of one-person-one-vote.

Let the states deal with these state issues.  If the state supreme court thinks there's a violation of their state's constitution, and their state residents' voting rights are being violated, then they can rule on it if they want and correct the lines.  Just keep the feds out of it.

Actually, the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to determine whether the state legislatures have properly regulated congressional elections—but that authority is vested in the Congress (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec4.html), not the courts.

The Court acknowledged that election districts designed to favor one party or another may seem unfair, but that the state legislators and Congress are better equipped than the courts to frame a remedy.

Quote
Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is “incompatible with democratic principles,” . . . does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary.
____
*"Gerrymandering" is an American political term for delineating the boundaries of election districts to favor some candidates over others.  Cf. British "rotten boroughs."

**"Originalism" is a theory of U.S. legal interpretation that gives priority to the "original intent" of the body that drafted the constitution or a statute rather than to the subsequent case law based on the original language.  In that sense, it challenges the Anglo-American common law tradition (the importance of adhering to precedent) in favor of a civil law approach similar to that which predominates in Europe and many other countries.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 27, 2019, 07:51:01 pm
Chris, thanks for the above post, much appreciated.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 27, 2019, 07:51:53 pm
Well said, Chris. A fine summing up of the situation.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on June 27, 2019, 07:52:52 pm
Chris, thanks for the above post, much appreciated.

So, where do I send the bill for my fee?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 27, 2019, 07:54:26 pm
So, where do I send the bill for my fee?

I can pay in kind. Any of my images for you to print :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 27, 2019, 07:55:34 pm
+1
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 27, 2019, 08:32:08 pm
Hi Chris,  is hard for me to cut and paste on my  tablet while on Banff.   You cited Congress role on one of your links.   That has more to do with the timing of elections than apportionment of seats.   The Democrats addressed this in HR 1 early in this legislative session but it will never come to a vote on the Senate for the same reason Justice Garland was never voted on.   Even if it did I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.   More worrisome is that the court might strike down independent commissions that were enacted by either voter initiative or referendum because it was NOT an act from the state legislature.

Also it is instructive to see what is happening in Florida after the state vote to enfranchised ex- felons.   Governor and dlegislature want to undercut this.   Voting rights are on peril.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on June 27, 2019, 08:43:46 pm
You cited Congress role on one of your links.   That has more to do with the timing of elections than apportionment of seats.

The Court's opinion explicitly acknowledges the authority of Congress to address what it considers to be improperly-drawn congressional districts:

Quote
[T]he Framers gave Congress the power to do something about partisan gerrymandering in the Elections Clause.  [Slip opinion (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf), p. 32.]
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 27, 2019, 09:02:58 pm

I would have interpreted it in quite the opposite manner. States (within a single country) having different laws is nuts to me.

A common legal system has little to do with different cultures within the same country. If you extrapolate in the British case, you'd have had sharia law decades ago in some towns and the certitude of that increasing in proportion to birth rates. I wonder what the good folks of France would think...

Either you are a country of equal rights and a common legal system or you are a loose federation wide open to departures. That's part of the cause of Scottish Nationalism: it has a lot of its own, different laws, and that tempts further distancings to seem sensible courses to some.

Not all countries want to be that closely tied together; fears of a federal Europe scare some countries out of their pants, and in that particular case, I agree that it would be an ill-matched bundle of tribes that could never hold that close a relationship for all sorts of historical and ethnic reasons.
Rob, As Slobodan said, we're a federation.  The US was founded when 13 sovereign states decided to federate.  But the founders were terrified by royals like your George III and centralized governments of history.  They wanted a very weak central government. So they gave enumerated powers to the central government.  Things like printing money, making treaties with other countries, manning an army and going to war, a post office, the right to regulate interstate commerce.  All other power would flow to each of the individual states and their people who would decide how they want to live.  So some states have capital punishment and some don't, some states have income taxes and others don't, some states have a maximum speed limit of 75, other may have 65mph.  Each state has its own constitution, legislature, rules, police, etc.  The US Constitution also has its Bill of Rights.  Things like freedom of speech, the press, religion, etc. that no state law can abrogate.  So the people are protected against oppressive state government as well.

Regarding how we know we're Americans and of one tribe if we have 50 different states.  Great question.  I'm reminded that for 70 years or so after the USA was founded, people would say the plural "Well, the United States are ........"  The Civil War changed that.  Afterwards, people began saying the singular, "Well, the United States is....."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 27, 2019, 10:41:58 pm
The Court's opinion explicitly acknowledges the authority of Congress to address what it considers to be improperly-drawn congressional districts:
that's fine if you have faith that the court will not reverse course.   I do not have that faith and find Justice Kagan more persuasive than Justice Roberts.   If we continue to have minority popular vote Presidents there will be a Constitutional crisis.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 08:53:14 am
that's fine if you have faith that the court will not reverse course.   I do not have that faith and find Justice Kagan more persuasive than Justice Roberts.   If we continue to have minority popular vote Presidents there will be a Constitutional crisis.
I think Roberts agrees with Kagan. It will may be unfair.
 The problem Roberts thought was there was no effective way for the Supreme Court to enforce fare line drawing. There was no definition of what is fair. Or how would it be implemented and forced by the Supreme Court. So he deferred back to the States to avoid the never ending problem with trying to be a referee on the federal level.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 28, 2019, 09:38:10 am
If we continue to have minority popular vote Presidents there will be a Constitutional crisis.

Really, Alan? And what do you think will be the shape of that crisis? Maybe an uprising similar to the French revolution? Guillotines and tumbrils? Fact of the matter is that getting rid of the electoral college will require an amendment to the Constitution, meaning approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratification by three-fourths of the states. You really think a majority of what the Democrats consider "flyover" states would ratify such a thing? The first time a state tries to throw its electoral college votes to the national majority vote in contradiction to the actual vote within their state, that's when the Constitutional crisis is going to take place, and the result's not going to be good for the left.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 28, 2019, 09:51:44 am
Really, Alan? And what do you think will be the shape of that crisis? Maybe an uprising similar to the French revolution? Guillotines and tumbrils? Fact of the matter is that getting rid of the electoral college will require an amendment to the Constitution, meaning approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratification by three-fourths of the states. You really think a majority of what the Democrats consider "flyover" states would ratify such a thing? The first time a state tries to throw its electoral college votes to the national majority vote in contradiction to the actual vote within their state, that's when the Constitutional crisis is going to take place, and the result's not going to be good for the left.

On top of that, popular votes are a horrible idea.  Most who advocate for them, do so under the assumption that a two party system would still be in effect.  However, the fact is that the electoral college is what encourages a two party system.  It is almost always the case that a third party candidate, regardless of how popular he/she might be, gets no electoral votes and is essentially doomed to obscurity.  Look at Ross Perot; he was the most popular third party candidate in recent history and still got 0 electoral votes.  This has the effect that there will almost always be a majority support for the winner, and in the few cases where not, a still very close to majority support. 

A popular votes would allow any number of people to run and would almost certainly create a situation where the winner has only a fraction of support of the country.  For example, it would not be out of the question for four candidates to run, each from one of the four corners of the country.  Since all politics is local, it could very well be the case that each candidate gets about 25% of the vote, with the winner just squeaky out a little more then everyone else with most of the votes coming in from his/her corner of the country. 

For those advocating for the popular, do you really think a situation happening like I listed above would be better & less disenfranchising then having a couple rare situations where a candidate who wins the electoral college only slightly looses the popular vote?  No!  A candidate like I just described would never be accepted as legitimate by the 3/4 of the country who did not vote for him/her. 

In a popular vote scenario, pretty much all of the the main players the Dems have right now would proceed right onto the general election, not to mention a few Rebs would as well.  This would create nothing but chaos. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 28, 2019, 10:52:29 am
"A Constitutional Republic, if you can keep it." It's obvious that the Democrats don't want to keep it. Problem is that Democrats live in big cities and haven't a clue what the real world is like. So far, Republicans have been able to protect the Dems from painful reality, but if the Electoral College disappears everyone's gonna have to face that reality, just as the people of Venezuela have had to face it, and the people of North Korea have had to face it. I could go on, but to save Alan further pain I'll stop there.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 28, 2019, 11:23:11 am
A lighter point of view https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/06/us-supreme-court-rules-bricking-people-up-in-wine-cellars-is-legal-as-long-as-its-done-for-partisan-purposes/ (https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/06/us-supreme-court-rules-bricking-people-up-in-wine-cellars-is-legal-as-long-as-its-done-for-partisan-purposes/).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 28, 2019, 11:28:53 am
I'm confused about the recent discussion regarding "gerrymandering". As a matter of interest, doesn't everyone think it's a bad thing that should be outlawed, prevented from happening, discouraged, something?

Or are people ok with it if their "side" wins? If so, how can one justify that?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 28, 2019, 11:36:41 am
Nobody likes it, Robert, but the question is whether or not there’s a way to stop it. The Supreme Court can’t really do it, and they run great risk if they try to do it. Let’s face it, whether or not a voting district has been gerrymandered depends on your own point of view. That’s what the Supremes were getting at when they shot down decisions by various judges and refused to get into the act. So what’s left? Legislatures. And golly, legislatures never are biased, right? The point is, there’s no real way to stop the practice. It’s gone on since the beginning and it’ll go on until the end. So let’s get on to something we really can deal with.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 28, 2019, 11:37:25 am
A popular vote would allow any number of people to run and would almost certainly create a situation where the winner has only a fraction of support of the country.  For example, it would not be out of the question for four candidates to run, each from one of the four corners of the country.  Since all politics is local, it could very well be the case that each candidate gets about 25% of the vote, with the winner just squeaky out a little more then everyone else with most of the votes coming in from his/her corner of the country. 

The solution employed in countries such as France is to vote over more than one round. All your hypothetical candidates stand in the first round; if none gets more than 50% of the vote, the most popular two stand against each other in the second round and the one with more votes (by definition, more than 50%) wins.

In a place the size of the USA, I suspect it would be a nightmare.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 28, 2019, 11:43:37 am
On top of that, popular votes are a horrible idea.  Most who advocate for them, do so under the assumption that a two party system would still be in effect.  However, the fact is that the electoral college is what encourages a two party system.  It is almost always the case that a third party candidate, regardless of how popular he/she might be, gets no electoral votes and is essentially doomed to obscurity.  Look at Ross Perot; he was the most popular third party candidate in recent history and still got 0 electoral votes.  This has the effect that there will almost always be a majority support for the winner, and in the few cases where not, a still very close to majority support. 

A popular votes would allow any number of people to run and would almost certainly create a situation where the winner has only a fraction of support of the country.  For example, it would not be out of the question for four candidates to run, each from one of the four corners of the country.  Since all politics is local, it could very well be the case that each candidate gets about 25% of the vote, with the winner just squeaky out a little more then everyone else with most of the votes coming in from his/her corner of the country. 

For those advocating for the popular, do you really think a situation happening like I listed above would be better & less disenfranchising then having a couple rare situations where a candidate who wins the electoral college only slightly looses the popular vote?  No!  A candidate like I just described would never be accepted as legitimate by the 3/4 of the country who did not vote for him/her. 

In a popular vote scenario, pretty much all of the the main players the Dems have right now would proceed right onto the general election, not to mention a few Rebs would as well.  This would create nothing but chaos.

That’s an oversimplification. The truth is American politics has become exhaustively expensive and very few organizations and even fewer people would manage it. Ross Perot was a billionaire.

The two party system has led us to what seems an irreconcilable polarization so now people in power are desperately trying to lock in “strength” for their views. Mitch refused to put forth Garland for the Supreme Court because it was a lame duck nomination. Now, of course and unsurprisingly, Mitch has conveniently changed his mind and will recognize a nomination during a Donald lame duck year. That kind of self serving hypocritical bull is being played at the state level. Then there is gerrymandering.

https://www.apnews.com/f30a25baa9b141a6a29113a1e79492a2

Consensus is all but a memory and with the acrimony now hanging over the country, we need a moderating system to mitigate the power of extremism. We need a legitimate third party(at least) to make a more reasoned government. If that requires a popular vote then so be it.

PS  Of course, that is if we actually want a consensus government.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 28, 2019, 11:45:53 am
The solution employed in countries such as France is to vote over more than one round. All your hypothetical candidates stand in the first round; if none gets more than 50% of the vote, the most popular two stand against each other in the second round and the one with more votes (by definition, more than 50%) wins.

In a place the size of the USA, I suspect it would be a nightmare.

Jeremy

It's even a nightmare in France, Jeremy.

Unlike the recent "debaters" the guys who wrote the Constitution were smarter than the average bear. The Electoral College has stood us in good stead. I don't see any reason to dump it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 11:47:03 am
I'm confused about the recent discussion regarding "gerrymandering". As a matter of interest, doesn't everyone think it's a bad thing that should be outlawed, prevented from happening, discouraged, something?

Or are people ok with it if their "side" wins? If so, how can one justify that?
Everyone thinks it's bad but everyone ignores it.  Power rules.  Elections have consequences.  When the Republicans win in a state, they get to draw election districts.  Then, when the Democrats win, they re-draw the lines to their benefit.  It's been going on for 200 years.  The US Supreme Court just decided that each state has to decide which lines are OK in their own state  The Federal COurts won;t referee any longer on it because it's hard for them to decide what's "fair".  Nor do they have the ability to referee 50 states.    So now, each the states have to decide if their own districts are drawn "fairly".  Remember, each state is sovereign with their own constitution, and court system to determine "fairness", if they want too.  There are a lot of things the Feds don;t have to be involved with that are left to the states to decide individually.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 28, 2019, 11:47:17 am
That’s an oversimplification. The truth is American politics has become exhaustively expensive and very few organizations and even fewer people would manage it. Ross Perot was a billionaire.

The two party system has led us to what seems an irreconcilable polarization so now people in power are desperately trying to lock in “strength” for their views. Mitch refused to put forth Garland for the Supreme Court because it was a lame duck nomination. Now, of course and unsurprisingly, Mitch has conveniently changed his mind and will recognize a nomination during a Donald lame duck year. That kind of self serving hypocritical bull is being played at the state level. Then there is gerrymandering.

https://www.apnews.com/f30a25baa9b141a6a29113a1e79492a2

Consensus is all but a memory and with the acrimony now hanging over the country, we need a moderating system to mitigate the power of extremism. We need a legitimate third party(at least) to make a more reasoned government. If that requires a popular vote then so be it.

PS  Of course, that is if we actually want a consensus government.

So what's your solution, Omer?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 28, 2019, 11:55:55 am
Motown rules.

It was the best little diversion rock 'n' roll ever took! Even I could dance to it - sorta, kinda.

And to think that most of the time it was the same small group of session men that made it work. Wow!

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 28, 2019, 11:56:47 am
That’s an oversimplification. The truth is American politics has become exhaustively expensive and very few organizations and even fewer people would manage it. Ross Perot was a billionaire.

The two party system has led us to what seems an irreconcilable polarization so now people in power are desperately trying to lock in “strength” for their views. Mitch refused to put forth Garland for the Supreme Court because it was a lame duck nomination. Now, of course and unsurprisingly, Mitch has conveniently changed his mind and will recognize a nomination during a Donald lame duck year. That kind of self serving hypocritical bull is being played at the state level. Then there is gerrymandering.

https://www.apnews.com/f30a25baa9b141a6a29113a1e79492a2

Consensus is all but a memory and with the acrimony now hanging over the country, we need a moderating system to mitigate the power of extremism. We need a legitimate third party(at least) to make a more reasoned government. If that requires a popular vote then so be it.

PS  Of course, that is if we actually want a consensus government.

Okay, thanks for pointing out all of those truisms. 

However none of this is a critique of my original post on what a popular vote would look like and how the electoral college supports a two party system. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 11:56:52 am
The solution employed in countries such as France is to vote over more than one round. All your hypothetical candidates stand in the first round; if none gets more than 50% of the vote, the most popular two stand against each other in the second round and the one with more votes (by definition, more than 50%) wins.

In a place the size of the USA, I suspect it would be a nightmare.

Jeremy

It would also extend the campaign season which is already unbearingly too long.  Also, can you imagine close votes.  Imagine what happened in Florida with the chads in 2000.  Can you imagine the fights on a national 50 state basis?  All of this is moot because the constitution will not be changed.  The smaller states will never vote to get rid of the electoral college which due to the 50% requirement, forces a two-party country.  "Also rans" are on ego trips. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 28, 2019, 11:59:51 am
Everyone thinks it's bad but everyone ignores it.  Power rules.  Elections have consequences.  When the Republicans win in a state, they get to draw election districts.  Then, when the Democrats win, they re-draw the lines to their benefit.  It's been going on for 200 years.  The US Supreme Court just decided that each state has to decide which lines are OK in their own state  The Federal COurts won;t referee any longer on it because it's hard for them to decide what's "fair".  Nor do they have the ability to referee 50 states.    So now, each the states have to decide if their own districts are drawn "fairly".  Remember, each state is sovereign with their own constitution, and court system to determine "fairness", if they want too.  There are a lot of things the Feds don;t have to be involved with that are left to the states to decide individually.   

One solution would be to remove the drawing of voting districts from the hands of politicians, all of whom are obviously biased. I'm sure that politicians would try to interfere in an arm's length elections service but it would be a second-order effect that you could minimize by transparency regulations along the lines of lobbiest regulations. Just shine a light on it, that usually disinfects things, but as you say, if everyone prefers the disease...

A previous comment mentioned that what's gerrymandered or not depends on your perspective but looking at this https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a699863955a (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a699863955a) shows that it's kind of obvious sometimes, isn't it?

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 12:02:11 pm
That’s an oversimplification. The truth is American politics has become exhaustively expensive and very few organizations and even fewer people would manage it. Ross Perot was a billionaire.

The two party system has led us to what seems an irreconcilable polarization so now people in power are desperately trying to lock in “strength” for their views. Mitch refused to put forth Garland for the Supreme Court because it was a lame duck nomination. Now, of course and unsurprisingly, Mitch has conveniently changed his mind and will recognize a nomination during a Donald lame duck year. That kind of self serving hypocritical bull is being played at the state level. Then there is gerrymandering.

https://www.apnews.com/f30a25baa9b141a6a29113a1e79492a2 (https://www.apnews.com/f30a25baa9b141a6a29113a1e79492a2)

Consensus is all but a memory and with the acrimony now hanging over the country, we need a moderating system to mitigate the power of extremism. We need a legitimate third party(at least) to make a more reasoned government. If that requires a popular vote then so be it.

PS  Of course, that is if we actually want a consensus government.


A popular vote system will just create a parliamentary type system with many, many parties.  I'm not that familiar with them having never lived in one.  But I don't think parliamentary systems are a more "reasoned" government than what we have in the states.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 12:08:08 pm
One solution would be to remove the drawing of voting districts from the hands of politicians, all of whom are obviously biased. I'm sure that politicians would try to interfere in an arm's length elections service but it would be a second-order effect that you could minimize by transparency regulations along the lines of lobbiest regulations. Just shine a light on it, that usually disinfects things, but as you say, if everyone prefers the disease...

A previous comment mentioned that what's gerrymandered or not depends on your perspective but looking at this https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a699863955a (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a699863955a) shows that it's kind of obvious sometimes, isn't it?



Who will pick the people who draw the lines?   How will the picking process be any different with how political parties in power choose Supreme Court nominees?  No.  You'll be back at square one with so-called "independent" commissions.  It will still be a political process, (each State legislature decides the lines), the very point Roberts made in his decision. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 28, 2019, 12:20:36 pm
Looking at the way politicians play the game, you'd be forgiven for thinking that all parties are entirely different, with no shared values, which is obviously not the case. In our own, smaller UK context, one almost never sees cross-party approval in debates: they constantly show themselves at loggerheads on everything. It's so silly and unrealistic, yet that's apparently how they have to play it to get the votes of the faithful.

They all have good and bad ideas; why on Earth can't they use the best of both?

Yes, two main parties are stronger than four or five weaker ones, but unless coalitions can be made to work, seems no way out of the tennis match - the singles one.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 28, 2019, 12:24:06 pm
A popular vote system will just create a parliamentary type system with many, many parties.  I'm not that familiar with them having never lived in one.  But I don't think parliamentary systems are a more "reasoned" government than what we have in the states.

The Netherlands (a Kindom no less!) is a democracy, where the ultimate power resides with politicians who are elected by popular vote. It has been a parliamentary constitutional monarchy with a unitary structure since 1848.

Seems to be functioning pretty well, by forming coalitions, and the people do not go through the streets guillotining those in power.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 28, 2019, 12:25:11 pm
Okay, thanks for pointing out all of those truisms. 

However none of this is a critique of my original post on what a popular vote would look like and how the electoral college supports a two party system.

I don’t think all politics is local. It’s an old term that no longer applies. Additionally, though I didn’t make it clear, I am suggesting a kind of parliamentary system. But even if we keep our current structure, a president backed by a legitimate third party could force a collaboration in Congress, and especially if it also to had a multiple party structure.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on June 28, 2019, 12:38:03 pm
Who will pick the people who draw the lines? . . . You'll be back at square one with so-called "independent" commissions.  It will still be a political process, (each State legislature decides the lines), the very point Roberts made in his decision.

Actually, the Court's opinion also pointed out that, in addition to current or contemplated action by individual states, the national Congress has several proposals before it to address "partisan gerrymandering."

Quote
As noted, the Framers gave Congress the power to do something about partisan gerrymandering in the Elections Clause. The first bill introduced in the 116th Congress would require States to create 15-member independent commissions to draw congressional districts and would establish certain redistricting criteria, including protec- tion for communities of interest, and ban partisan gerrymandering. H. R. 1, 116th Cong., 1st Sess., §§2401, 2411 (2019).

Dozens of other bills have been introduced to limit reliance on political considerations in redistricting. In 2010, H. R. 6250 would have required States to follow standards of compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions in redistricting. It also would have prohibited the establishment of congressional districts “with the major purpose of diluting the voting strength of any person, or group, including any political party,” except when necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. H. R. 6250, 111th Cong., 2d Sess., §2 (referred to committee).

Another example is the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act, which was introduced in 2005 and has been reintroduced in every Congress since. That bill would require every State to establish an independent commission to adopt redistricting plans. The bill also set forth criteria for the independent commissions to use, such as compactness, contiguity, and population equality. It would prohibit consideration of voting history, political party affiliation, or incumbent Representative’s residence. H.R. 2642, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., §4 (referred to subcommittee).

We express no view on any of these pending proposals. We simply note that the avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open.
[Slip opinion (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf), p. 32 ff.]

If the Democrats gain control of the Senate in the 2020 election and maintain control in the House, it's likely that some attempt to restrict the practice will clear Congress.  Of course if Trump is re-elected, it's not clear whether he would sign it.  (Although he has no particular ideological allegiance to the Republican Party and in a second term he might find it expedient to work with the Democrats if they had a majority in both congressional chambers.)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 28, 2019, 12:39:08 pm
The Netherlands (a Kindom no less!) is a democracy, where the ultimate power resides with politicians who are elected by popular vote. It has been a parliamentary constitutional monarchy with a unitary structure since 1848.

Seems to be functioning pretty well, by forming coalitions, and the people do not go through the streets guillotining those in power.

Cheers,
Bart

The Netherlands is also a very homogeneous country in a relatively small geography.  The USA is a very large country with quite mix of different cultures. 

Not sure if your system could work here, just pointing out a major difference that has effected all large empires in history who attempted to implement a strong central government. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 28, 2019, 12:41:00 pm
I don’t think all politics is local. It’s an old term that no longer applies. Additionally, though I didn’t make it clear, I am suggesting a kind of parliamentary system. But even if we keep our current structure, a president backed by a legitimate third party could force a collaboration in Congress, and especially if it also to had a multiple party structure.

I disagree with you saying all politics is local is no longer applicable.  Rest makes sense. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 28, 2019, 01:00:21 pm
Not sure if your system could work here, just pointing out a major difference that has effected all large empires in history who attempted to implement a strong central government.

Maybe you should try a Democracy instead ...?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 28, 2019, 01:55:10 pm
... We need a legitimate third party(at least) to make a more reasoned government...

Who's to say that the third party will be more reasoned, moderate, and centrist?

What needs to happen is to have four parties: 1. loony left, led by the person with learning difficulties, AOC, and Crazy Bernie,  2. centrist Democrats, Biden and Pelosi, 3. Trump party 4. Never-Trump Republicans.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 28, 2019, 02:56:29 pm
Who's to say that the third party will be more reasoned, moderate, and centrist?

What needs to happen is to have four parties: 1. loony left, led by the person with learning difficulties, AOC, and Crazy Bernie,  2. centrist Democrats, Biden and Pelosi, 3. Trump party 4. Never-Trump Republicans.

Yep.

Now, where’s my fiddle?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 03:29:53 pm
Looking at the way politicians play the game, you'd be forgiven for thinking that all parties are entirely different, with no shared values, which is obviously not the case. In our own, smaller UK context, one almost never sees cross-party approval in debates: they constantly show themselves at loggerheads on everything. It's so silly and unrealistic, yet that's apparently how they have to play it to get the votes of the faithful.

They all have good and bad ideas; why on Earth can't they use the best of both?

Yes, two main parties are stronger than four or five weaker ones, but unless coalitions can be made to work, seems no way out of the tennis match - the singles one.

Exactly what our founders wanted.  A divided government.  The worse possible situation is when the President and the House and Senate are all run by the same party.  Then they force through stupid legislation that ticks off half the country like Obamacare under the Democrats and the new tax legislation under the Republicans.  When government is divided, little gets done.  That's great.  No new laws to take your freedoms away.  No more interference in your lives.  The more paralysis in Washington, the better it is.  Only people who like big government want a single political party to run things in Washington.  That way Washington can accrue more political power over our lives.  Better off when they can;t pass anything and leave the rest of us alone. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 03:41:56 pm
Actually, the Court's opinion also pointed out that, in addition to current or contemplated action by individual states, the national Congress has several proposals before it to address "partisan gerrymandering."

If the Democrats gain control of the Senate in the 2020 election and maintain control in the House, it's likely that some attempt to restrict the practice will clear Congress.  Of course if Trump is re-elected, it's not clear whether he would sign it.  (Although he has no particular ideological allegiance to the Republican Party and in a second term he might find it expedient to work with the Democrats if they had a majority in both congressional chambers.)

Maybe.  Then why hasn't Congress passed laws to do this in the last 200 years?  Remember, right now Republicans control more legislatures.  But if that flips and Democrats wind up controlling more state legislatures, they will then be opposed to changing the way district line drawing occurs because they will be in charge.  So they'll continue with Gerrymandering as always.  But your comment on what Roberts said is very interesting.  That's for posting it.  Of course, it's just another reason why the Federal courts  shouldn't get involved.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 28, 2019, 04:59:01 pm
Who will pick the people who draw the lines?   How will the picking process be any different with how political parties in power choose Supreme Court nominees?  No.  You'll be back at square one with so-called "independent" commissions.  It will still be a political process, (each State legislature decides the lines), the very point Roberts made in his decision.

Other countries do this.

Whatever bureau in the US analyzes weather can do so without political interference. I presume that they record what kind of cloud they're looking at without checking with their Senator first. The US Dept of Energy can manage its nuclear waste management mandate without political interference. The highway department can design and maintain highways and plow the snow without politicians getting too much involved, other than funding I mean. Politicians don't show up at the job site and tell the guys how to paint the lane markers, I hope.

You're making excuses, I feel. If the country wanted to create a bureau whose mandate was to manage the elections process free from political party involvement, you could do so. It's done all the time in many other places for decades now. Throwing up your hands and saying nothing can work is not very helpful. One could make a good case that democracy is being sabotaged by bizarre gerrymandering. The country can find all the excuses it wants to justify doing nothing about it, but to a lot of people, most importantly your own citizens, it is beginning to look like a non-functioning democracy. Combine this with reported voter suppression and things are not looking healthy. This undermines everything. Is this really what the "founding fathers" had in mind? I hope not.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 28, 2019, 05:31:15 pm
... Combine this with reported voter suppression and things are not looking healthy. This undermines everything...

Oh, please. The only party that complains about voter suppression and gerrymandering is the losing party. When they win, they do not bother changing a thing, of course. Both parties, using the same system of "voter suppression," gerrymandaring, and electoral college, have been winning and losing interchangeably. If the system would favor just one side, only one side would be winning most of the time. This obviously is not the case.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 28, 2019, 05:54:14 pm
Exactly what our founders wanted.  A divided government.  The worse possible situation is when the President and the House and Senate are all run by the same party.  Then they force through stupid legislation that ticks off half the country like Obamacare under the Democrats and the new tax legislation under the Republicans.  When government is divided, little gets done.  That's great.  No new laws to take your freedoms away.  No more interference in your lives.  The more paralysis in Washington, the better it is.  Only people who like big government want a single political party to run things in Washington.  That way Washington can accrue more political power over our lives.  Better off when they can;t pass anything and leave the rest of us alone.

Don't have any idea what folks wanted all those years ago - probably neither does anyone else. However, you can hardly claim they got what you presume that they wanted. What you've actually got is a friggin'' dysfunctional political system that stands for nothing and everything; that seems unable to use common sense and take guns away from lunatics not because it can't but because the gun people pay so much money to keeping the guns rolling out and the coffins stacking up. Yet, irony of ironies, you get a dozen military coffins coming off aircraft and everbody sobs and reacts with pageantry as if military lives matter where civilian ones don't. There's more than a little ass before elbow in your system, but hey, as long as you don't get any new laws, it's cool, baby, cool! Until it's your kids get shot to hell in school or in the street.

Nope, nobody made it up.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 28, 2019, 06:35:06 pm
Funny, Rob, how many people are risking life and limb to come to this "dysfunctional system."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 28, 2019, 07:02:05 pm
Funny, Rob, how many people are risking life and limb to come to this "dysfunctional system."

Mainly from countries which are even in a bigger mess.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 28, 2019, 07:21:52 pm
As an aside, it looks like Jimmy Carter is still saying Jimmy Carter things and CNN is all over it!  I have to wonder what more is involved then having a former FBI head with a team of 19 lawyers assisted by 41 FBI agents, with full access to all information and witnesses they wanted to see/interview, spending nearly two years to make it a "full investigation?" 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 28, 2019, 07:24:08 pm
Mainly from countries which are even in a bigger mess.


Canada included? Justin Bieber, Celine Dion, etc.?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 28, 2019, 07:39:58 pm
Canada included? Justin Bieber, Celine Dion, etc.?

Actually many Canadians are quite happy that those two are out of Canada.

Comedians seem to do also well in USA - i.e. Jim Carey, Dan Ackroyd, Howie Mandel, Leslie Nielsen and plenty others born In Canada.
Interestingly, David Frum, the political commentator (not that funny) who also wrote speeches for Bush, hails from Canada. He is not too keen on the current speech deliverer.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 07:40:50 pm
Funny, Rob, how many people are risking life and limb to come to this "dysfunctional system."

132,000 risking life and limb came here illegally in May they're so afraid of our government and system. Snuck or swam across the border.   Not including that poor father with his kid who drowned trying to get in to this terrible place.  I guess no one told them how dysfunctional we are. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 28, 2019, 07:47:34 pm
132,000 risking life and limb came here illegally in May they're so afraid of our government and system. Snuck or swam across the border.   Not including that poor father with his kid who drowned trying to get in to this terrible place.  I guess no one told them how dysfunctional we are.

They came from an even more dysfunctional place ...

Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 28, 2019, 07:56:24 pm
I think Roberts agrees with Kagan. It will may be unfair.
 The problem Roberts thought was there was no effective way for the Supreme Court to enforce fare line drawing. There was no definition of what is fair. Or how would it be implemented and forced by the Supreme Court. So he deferred back to the States to avoid the never ending problem with trying to be a referee on the federal level.
Sam Wang, a professor of neuroscience at princeton,  has  done a lot of research on this topic.   He has published at least two law review articles on how to detect Gerrymandered districts that are statistical sound.   His group has filed Amicus briefs in several court cases including NC if I recall correctly.   Roberts and the majority are wrong, the are good tools that can be used and independent commissions already do this.   CA, who have the largest number of districts,  do this in a fair manner.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 28, 2019, 08:04:43 pm
On top of that, popular votes are a horrible idea.  Most who advocate for them, do so under the assumption that a two party system would still be in effect.  However, the fact is that the electoral college is what encourages a two party system.  It is almost always the case that a third party candidate, regardless of how popular he/she might be, gets no electoral votes and is essentially doomed to obscurity.  Look at Ross Perot; he was the most popular third party candidate in recent history and still got 0 electoral votes.  This has the effect that there will almost always be a majority support for the winner, and in the few cases where not, a still very close to majority support. 

A popular votes would allow any number of people to run and would almost certainly
  there  were multiple parties on the early part of our nation's history.   Strom Thurmond got electoral votes on 1948 but winning for states. On 1968 George Wallace won four states.   Both those candidates ran racial segregation campaigns.   IIRC, the framers of the Constitution did not figure political parties into the concept of the electoral college.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 08:05:41 pm
Other countries do this.

Whatever bureau in the US analyzes weather can do so without political interference. I presume that they record what kind of cloud they're looking at without checking with their Senator first. The US Dept of Energy can manage its nuclear waste management mandate without political interference. The highway department can design and maintain highways and plow the snow without politicians getting too much involved, other than funding I mean. Politicians don't show up at the job site and tell the guys how to paint the lane markers, I hope.

You're making excuses, I feel. If the country wanted to create a bureau whose mandate was to manage the elections process free from political party involvement, you could do so. It's done all the time in many other places for decades now. Throwing up your hands and saying nothing can work is not very helpful. One could make a good case that democracy is being sabotaged by bizarre gerrymandering. The country can find all the excuses it wants to justify doing nothing about it, but to a lot of people, most importantly your own citizens, it is beginning to look like a non-functioning democracy. Combine this with reported voter suppression and things are not looking healthy. This undermines everything. Is this really what the "founding fathers" had in mind? I hope not.


It's not so simple.  Drawing lines is a political matter.  It's not like a weather man deciding where to place a weather station. 

For example, let's take a state with two election districts.  The state has one major city.  The rest of the state is rural, basically farm land.  The population is evenly divided between rural and urban with a slight advantage to Democrat in the cities.  Democrats run the legislature since they have more votes.  So how would you draw the lines to make up the two districts? 


Someone might say, let's divide the rural in half and the city in half and then combine them so each district is half urban and half rural.  That sounds fair.  But wait.  The people in this state feels they could have better representation in Congress if they split the districts so that one is all urban and the other rural.  That way, the representative for the farm area who knows the most about farming can represent 100% of the state's farming interests.  He won't waste time on urban issues he knows little about.  And the other representative who represents 100% of the urban area and knows the most about cities can represent the state's urban issues the best in Congress.  He won;t waste time representing the state's farm interest he knows nothing about. 

So now the second solution sounds fair.  But wait.  The urban voters are mainly Democrat and the rural area is mainly Republican. If the legislature votes the second, they'll be a Democrat and Republican in congress.  If they vote the first way,  there will be two Democrats in congress and no Republicans.  That sounds unfair.  But wait.  We originally said that was a fair way to draw the lines.  So now we ask the Supreme COurt to decide what's fair.  How the heck do they know?  Both ways really are fair even though party affiliation is different depending on the method.  That's why this is a political issue that has to be decided by each state's legislature.  The Supreme COurt did the right thing by getting out of the refereeing business because there is no way for it to make it "fair".  As Roberts said, there are no standards to make that determination unless COngress decides to make it  Certainly the courts can't do it because they can't choose between two fair methods or know how the legislature and people of any one state want to set up their representation in Congress.. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 08:07:15 pm
They came from an even more dysfunctional place ...

Bart

Well, if your country is so great, why don't you invite them to go there?  Why would you want them to come here?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 28, 2019, 08:07:24 pm
The solution employed in countries such as France is to vote over more than one round. All your hypothetical candidates stand in the first round; if none gets more than 50% of the vote, the most popular two stand against each other in the second round and the one with more votes (by definition, more than 50%) wins.

In a place the size of the USA, I suspect it would be a nightmare.

Jeremy
some states over here are using rank preference voting that does something similar.   I think one Congressional seat in 2018 was decided in this manner (maybe Maine).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 08:09:54 pm
Sam Wang, a professor of neuroscience at princeton,  has  done a lot of research on this topic.   He has published at least two law review articles on how to detect Gerrymandered districts that are statistical sound.   His group has filed Amicus briefs in several court cases including NC if I recall correctly.   Roberts and the majority are wrong, the are good tools that can be used and independent commissions already do this.   CA, who have the largest number of districts,  do this in a fair manner.

Alan G.  Please see my Post #931.  How would you referee the situation described?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 28, 2019, 08:13:20 pm
Who will pick the people who draw the lines?   How will the picking process be any different with how political parties in power choose Supreme Court nominees?  No.  You'll be back at square one with so-called "independent" commissions.  It will still be a political process, (each State legislature decides the lines), the very point Roberts made in his decision.
you are wrong,  a number of states already do this.   Others have mechanisms in place to prevent Gerrymandering even when the legislature had the decision.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 28, 2019, 08:15:21 pm
The Netherlands is also a very homogeneous country in a relatively small geography.  The USA is a very large country with quite mix of different cultures. 
there is a significant Moroccan population.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 08:17:16 pm
  there  were multiple parties on the early part of our nation's history.   Strom Thurmond got electoral votes on 1948 but winning for states. On 1968 George Wallace won four states.   Both those candidates ran racial segregation campaigns.   IIRC, the framers of the Constitution did not figure political parties into the concept of the electoral college.

The framers missed the implication of requirement that a president must get 51% of the electoral vote to win.  By setting up that rule, people realized very quickly they need to organize into parties to get the majority of popular votes to win.  So that forced the two-party situation for national and then subsequently state elections.  Minor third parties fell into non-existence because they knew they would never win an electoral vote or so few to be able to win the presidency. 

Maybe someone else can explain why you don't need two parties to elect a Prime Minister so that there are many parties in a parliamentary system.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 08:18:57 pm
  there  were multiple parties on the early part of our nation's history.   Strom Thurmond got electoral votes on 1948 but winning for states. On 1968 George Wallace won four states.   Both those candidates ran racial segregation campaigns.   IIRC, the framers of the Constitution did not figure political parties into the concept of the electoral college.
Both were Democrats.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 28, 2019, 08:19:24 pm
Alan G.  Please see my Post #931.  How would you referee the situation described?
it is difficult for me to post links on my tablet.   Your concern has been addressed and I will try to remember to post some stuff when i get back from Canada
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 08:21:16 pm
some states over here are using rank preference voting that does something similar.   I think one Congressional seat in 2018 was decided in this manner (maybe Maine).
Don;t know about the COngressional seat.  But Maine splits its electoral vote for the president based on it's state's popular vote.  I think every other state there's a winner take all for the state's electoral vote.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 28, 2019, 08:23:01 pm
Both were Democrats.
virtually all senators and congressman from the south were Democrats.   This only changed with the Civil Rights legislation and Nixon's southern strategy in 1968.  Neither Wallace or Thurmond ran for President as Democrats
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 28, 2019, 08:23:58 pm
Don;t know about the COngressional seat.  But Maine splits its electoral vote for the president based on it's state's popular vote.  I think every other state there's a winner take all for the state's electoral vote.
I think Nebraska does this as well
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 08:26:41 pm
virtually all senators and congressman from the south were Democrats.   This only changed with the Civil Rights legislation and Nixon's southern strategy in 1968.  Neither Wallace or Thurmond ran for President as Democrats
But you were the one who reminded us they were segregationists. And while not running as Democrats, (there were others who did), they both were Democrats as was the rest of the segregationist south.   I was just pointing out that fact. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 28, 2019, 09:19:36 pm
  there  were multiple parties on the early part of our nation's history.   Strom Thurmond got electoral votes on 1948 but winning for states. On 1968 George Wallace won four states.   Both those candidates ran racial segregation campaigns.   IIRC, the framers of the Constitution did not figure political parties into the concept of the electoral college.

This may be true, but the net effect, intended or not, was exactly that.  Insofar as other parties existing other then the main two, those have been few and far in between and never lasting that long. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 28, 2019, 09:21:22 pm
there is a significant Moroccan population.

35.74M, in other words, a 1/10 ours.  Also, notice I said homogeneous too; probably a more important feature then size insofar as what I was talking about.  How diverse is Morocco? 

PS, also, Morocco is only 4.5407953647617% (just for precision I listed all the decimal points) the size of ours in terms of geography.  Geography was another aspect I listed.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 28, 2019, 09:38:54 pm
It's not so simple.  Drawing lines is a political matter.  It's not like a weather man deciding where to place a weather station. 

For example, let's take a state with two election districts.  The state has one major city.  The rest of the state is rural, basically farm land.  The population is evenly divided between rural and urban with a slight advantage to Democrat in the cities.  Democrats run the legislature since they have more votes.  So how would you draw the lines to make up the two districts? 


Someone might say, let's divide the rural in half and the city in half and then combine them so each district is half urban and half rural.  That sounds fair.  But wait.  The people in this state feels they could have better representation in Congress if they split the districts so that one is all urban and the other rural.  That way, the representative for the farm area who knows the most about farming can represent 100% of the state's farming interests.  He won't waste time on urban issues he knows little about.  And the other representative who represents 100% of the urban area and knows the most about cities can represent the state's urban issues the best in Congress.  He won;t waste time representing the state's farm interest he knows nothing about. 

So now the second solution sounds fair.  But wait.  The urban voters are mainly Democrat and the rural area is mainly Republican. If the legislature votes the second, they'll be a Democrat and Republican in congress.  If they vote the first way,  there will be two Democrats in congress and no Republicans.  That sounds unfair.  But wait.  We originally said that was a fair way to draw the lines.  So now we ask the Supreme COurt to decide what's fair.  How the heck do they know?  Both ways really are fair even though party affiliation is different depending on the method.  That's why this is a political issue that has to be decided by each state's legislature.  The Supreme COurt did the right thing by getting out of the refereeing business because there is no way for it to make it "fair".  As Roberts said, there are no standards to make that determination unless COngress decides to make it  Certainly the courts can't do it because they can't choose between two fair methods or know how the legislature and people of any one state want to set up their representation in Congress..

Well of course it's not simple, no reason it would be. But coming up with a framework to solve the problems you just described and fine-tuning them over the years has go to be better (and is elsewhere) than letting biased elected politicians at it. We've seen where that leads.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 10:06:44 pm
Well of course it's not simple, no reason it would be. But coming up with a framework to solve the problems you just described and fine-tuning them over the years has go to be better (and is elsewhere) than letting biased elected politicians at it. We've seen where that leads.
You my be right.  There may be a better way.  But the Supreme Court just ruled that they were not the ones to resolve the problem.  It's a political issue that has to be solved politically not judicially.  The courts can't decide which method is "fair".  They have no standards they can use.  They would have no way to select which of my two samples are fairs. 

Curious.  Which of my two ways do you see as fairer in my example?  And why? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 10:23:14 pm
Trump can constitutionally bomb Iran without further congressional approval, so says the US Senate.  Whew.  That was a close one.  They were really worried they might actually have to vote to bomb Iran by giving the president direct approval.  And who needs to make that decision.   

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/450775-senate-rejects-attempt-to-curb-trumps-iran-war-powers (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/450775-senate-rejects-attempt-to-curb-trumps-iran-war-powers)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: D Fuller on June 28, 2019, 11:01:15 pm
"A Constitutional Republic, if you can keep it." It's obvious that the Democrats don't want to keep it. Problem is that Democrats live in big cities and haven't a clue what the real world is like. So far, Republicans have been able to protect the Dems from painful reality, but if the Electoral College disappears everyone's gonna have to face that reality, just as the people of Venezuela have had to face it, and the people of North Korea have had to face it. I could go on, but to save Alan further pain I'll stop there.

The US is not a republic because it has the Electoral College. It is a republic because it has Representatives and Senators. You’ve made this claim too many times to let it go unchallenged. It just misunderstands what makes a republic.

That said, It wasn’t very long ago that Republicans were clamoring for the abolition of the Electoral College. Perhaps you don’t remember that.

I don’t think the issue is nearly as clear as you like to think. The Electoral college currently disenfranchises millions of conservative voters in New York, California, Massachusetts, and other consistently Dem voting states. It also disenfranchises millions of liberal voters in Alabama, Texas and other Republican states. Meanwhile, the Senate provides real power to smaller states.

You repeatedly say that the Electoral College gives power and attention to smaller states. I don’t see it. I live in Maine. We get precious little attention from any presidential candidate, and we’re a small swing state. The bulk of the attention from any presidential campaign goes not to the largest states, but to a half-dozen large-ish swing states like Florida and Ohio, and a couple of weird early-election states: New Hampshire  and Idaho. I was a staunch supporter of the Electoral College for most of my life, for reasons similar to what you’ve stared, but I’m just not sure I see it working as I thought it did, or as the framers of the constitution intended.

The framers, as I understand them, imagined it would protect the country from the populist passions of the people. Has it ever actually done that? Throughout history, when populist passions have arisen, has the Electoral College ever stood against that tide? Should it have? If not, what is its actual reason for being?

The function you (and I, formerly) ascribe to the Electoral College is, in fact, a function of the Senate. The function the framers of the constitution ascribed to it has never worked. It might be time to put it to bed.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 28, 2019, 11:14:15 pm
The US is not a republic because it has the Electoral College. It is a republic because it has Representatives and Senators. You’ve made this claim too many times to let it go unchallenged. It just misunderstands what makes a republic.

That said, It wasn’t very long ago that Republicans were clamoring for the abolition of the Electoral College. Perhaps you don’t remember that.

I don’t think the issue is nearly as clear as you like to think. The Electoral college currently disenfranchises millions of conservative voters in New York, California, Massachusetts, and other consistently Dem voting states. It also disenfranchises millions of liberal voters in Alabama, Texas and other Republican states. Meanwhile, the Senate provides real power to smaller states.

You repeatedly say that the Electoral College gives power and attention to smaller states. I don’t see it. I live in Maine. We get precious little attention from any presidential candidate, and we’re a small swing state. The bulk of the attention from any presidential campaign goes not to the largest states, but to a half-dozen large-ish swing states like Florida and Ohio, and a couple of weird early-election states: New Hampshire  and Idaho. I was a staunch supporter of the Electoral College for most of my life, for reasons similar to what you’ve stared, but I’m just not sure I see it working as I thought it did, or as the framers of the constitution intended.

The framers, as I understand them, imagined it would protect the country from the populist passions of the people. Has it ever actually done that? Throughout history, when populist passions have arisen, has the Electoral College ever stood against that tide? Should it have? If not, what is its actual reason for being?

The function you (and I, formerly) ascribe to the Electoral College is, in fact, a function of the Senate. The function the framers of the constitution ascribed to it has never worked. It might be time to put it to bed.

George W Bush won the election because he was able to change WV (a solid blue state prior) into a swing state and get them to vote republican.  He put focus on WV even though people thought it was futile and managed to change it. 

It was those three votes that won him the election.  The electoral vote was 271 to 266; literally if Bush ignored WV he would not have been president.  The vote would have been 269 to 268 favoring Gore. 

A similar episode could happen with Maine.  Also, lets not forget, before FDR, the saying was "as Maine goes, so goes the nation."  You are just a few generations to late to the party, but perhaps a new Maine party will be had before you leave. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 28, 2019, 11:15:51 pm
35.74M, in other words, a 1/10 ours.  Also, notice I said homogeneous too; probably a more important feature then size insofar as what I was talking about.  How diverse is Morocco? 

PS, also, Morocco is only 4.5407953647617% (just for precision I listed all the decimal points) the size of ours in terms of geography.  Geography was another aspect I listed.
you misunderstood.   I was speaking of Moroccans living on The Netherlands.   There are c also people from former and present Dutch colonies,.  It is not as homogeneous  as you pprtrayed in the original post.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 28, 2019, 11:29:20 pm
The US is not a republic because it has the Electoral College. It is a republic because it has Representatives and Senators. You’ve made this claim too many times to let it go unchallenged. It just misunderstands what makes a republic.

That said, It wasn’t very long ago that Republicans were clamoring for the abolition of the Electoral College. Perhaps you don’t remember that.

I don’t think the issue is nearly as clear as you like to think. The Electoral college currently disenfranchises millions of conservative voters in New York, California, Massachusetts, and other consistently Dem voting states. It also disenfranchises millions of liberal voters in Alabama, Texas and other Republican states. Meanwhile, the Senate provides real power to smaller states.

You repeatedly say that the Electoral College gives power and attention to smaller states. I don’t see it. I live in Maine. We get precious little attention from any presidential candidate, and we’re a small swing state. The bulk of the attention from any presidential campaign goes not to the largest states, but to a half-dozen large-ish swing states like Florida and Ohio, and a couple of weird early-election states: New Hampshire  and Idaho. I was a staunch supporter of the Electoral College for most of my life, for reasons similar to what you’ve stared, but I’m just not sure I see it working as I thought it did, or as the framers of the constitution intended.

The framers, as I understand them, imagined it would protect the country from the populist passions of the people. Has it ever actually done that? Throughout history, when populist passions have arisen, has the Electoral College ever stood against that tide? Should it have? If not, what is its actual reason for being?

The function you (and I, formerly) ascribe to the Electoral College is, in fact, a function of the Senate. The function the framers of the constitution ascribed to it has never worked. It might be time to put it to bed.

The Electoral college does not disenfranchise anyone.  Your vote counts only in your state.  If for example you vote for Democrat senator, and the Republican wins, your vote is gone.  So it is with the elector.  The elector represents your state.  But even there it's not as bad for you in Maine and Nebraska as it is in the rest of the states.  In these two states, the electors are allocated based on the popular vote in the state. So in the 2016 presidential election, Trump got 1 elector and Clinton got 3.  So your vote definitely counts.   In the rest of the states except Nebraska, it's a winner take all electors.  There is nothing stopping other states from allocating electors according to the popular vote in their state just like Maine and Nebraska do.  Obviously, most states prefer a winner take all procedure. 
https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/ (https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: D Fuller on June 28, 2019, 11:38:29 pm
The Electoral college does not disenfranchise anyone.  Your vote counts only in your state.  If for example you vote for Democrat senator, and the Republican wins, your vote is gone.  So it is with the elector.  The elector represents your state.  But even there it's not as bad for you in Maine and Nebraska as it is in the rest of the states.  In these two states, the electors are allocated based on the popular vote in the state. So in the 2016 presidential election, Trump got 1 elector and Clinton got 3.  So your vote definitely counts.   In the rest of the states except Nebraska, it's a winner take all electors.  There is nothing stopping other states from allocating electors according to the popular vote in their state just like Maine and Nebraska do.  Obviously, most states prefer a winner take all procedure. 
https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/ (https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine)

Alan, you’re arguing my point for me. The way Maine and Nebraska allocate electors is novel; if it were adopted across the country, it would move us much further toward 1 person/1 vote presidential elections than we currently are. So conservatives in NY and liberals in TX would have a greater voice in presidential elections.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: D Fuller on June 28, 2019, 11:40:57 pm
George W Bush won the election because he was able to change WV (a solid blue state prior) into a swing state and get them to vote republican.  He put focus on WV even though people thought it was futile and managed to change it. 

It was those three votes that won him the election.  The electoral vote was 271 to 266; literally if Bush ignored WV he would not have been president.  The vote would have been 269 to 268 favoring Gore. 

A similar episode could happen with Maine.  Also, lets not forget, before FDR, the saying was "as Maine goes, so goes the nation."  You are just a few generations to late to the party, but perhaps a new Maine party will be had before you leave.

So your argument is that the Electoral College allowed a campaign to win an election by concentrating on three states? And you think this is good? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 29, 2019, 03:13:26 am
In case any non-USAns are curious about what sort of black Alan and Co are attempting to portray as white this time me, here is a simple primer :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/28/the-supreme-courts-shameless-and-shameful-endorsement-of-gerrymandering?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 29, 2019, 04:30:22 am
virtually all senators and congressman from the south were Democrats.   This only changed with the Civil Rights legislation and Nixon's southern strategy in 1968.  Neither Wallace or Thurmond ran for President as Democrats


Heysoos, Alan, I thought you'd written Nikon's southerm strategy, and gone for some brilliant revisionism!

Sadly, not to be...

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 29, 2019, 04:43:58 am
In case any non-USAns are curious about what sort of black Alan and Co are attempting to portray as white this time me, here is a simple primer :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/28/the-supreme-courts-shameless-and-shameful-endorsement-of-gerrymandering?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

That is not a "primer"; it's a partisan rant from an individual who disagrees with a decision.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 29, 2019, 04:49:38 am
The Electoral college does not disenfranchise anyone.  Your vote counts only in your state.  If for example you vote for Democrat senator, and the Republican wins, your vote is gone.  So it is with the elector.  The elector represents your state.  But even there it's not as bad for you in Maine and Nebraska as it is in the rest of the states.  In these two states, the electors are allocated based on the popular vote in the state. So in the 2016 presidential election, Trump got 1 elector and Clinton got 3.  So your vote definitely counts.   In the rest of the states except Nebraska, it's a winner take all electors.  There is nothing stopping other states from allocating electors according to the popular vote in their state just like Maine and Nebraska do.  Obviously, most states prefer a winner take all procedure. 
https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/ (https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine)

interesting. So, what's stopping the other states from adopting a similar system?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 29, 2019, 05:01:24 am
That is not a "primer"; it's a partisan rant from an individual who disagrees with a decision.

Jeremy

Like  "terrorist", the word "rant" serves mainly to define the prejudices of the speaker.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 29, 2019, 07:40:37 am
That is not a "primer"; it's a partisan rant from an individual who disagrees with a decision.

Jeremy

Come on, Jeremy, that's no rant.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 29, 2019, 08:04:32 am
you misunderstood.   I was speaking of Moroccans living on The Netherlands.   There are c also people from former and present Dutch colonies,.  It is not as homogeneous  as you pprtrayed in the original post.

Okay, I get it now.  But how long have Moroccans been there in large enough numbers?  It could very well be that disenfranchisement has not taken root yet.  Remember, the Gauls originally saw themselves as part of Rome shortly after being assimilated into the Empire.  It took about a 100 years for the disenfranchisement to set in. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 29, 2019, 08:07:11 am
In case any non-USAns are curious about what sort of black Alan and Co are attempting to portray as white this time me, here is a simple primer :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/28/the-supreme-courts-shameless-and-shameful-endorsement-of-gerrymandering?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

This is kind of a bias article and completely misses the point of the ruling.  The courts have no authority to draw districts.  What were they to do?  No one likes a judge legislating from the bench, even if they do so in your favor.  Eventually they will be working against you, so best to not even go there. 

In response to your comment directed at the other Jeremy, there is a big difference from an opinion piece by a commentator and a legal analysis written by a lawyer and/or law expert.  This reads like the NY Times' original reporting on the Oberlin case, of which all lawyers and legal experts disagreed with and found the settlement justified. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on June 29, 2019, 08:09:48 am
So your argument is that the Electoral College allowed a campaign to win an election by concentrating on three states? And you think this is good? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I was just pointing out that small states do have a say in the election, contradicting what you said.  Whether you think it is good or not, I'll let you decided.

But make no mistake, in a Popular vote, candidates could easily ignore the middle of the country and still win.  At this point in time, they cant.  Hillary did just that and she lost the rust belt and the election because of it.  I'd rather have a system that forces the candidates pay attention to the whole of the country. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 29, 2019, 09:04:55 am
Right, Joe. Remember: "if you can keep it."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: D Fuller on June 29, 2019, 09:51:53 am
I was just pointing out that small states do have a say in the election, contradicting what you said.  Whether you think it is good or not, I'll let you decided.

But make no mistake, in a Popular vote, candidates could easily ignore the middle of the country and still win.  At this point in time, they cant.  Hillary did just that and she lost the rust belt and the election because of it.  I'd rather have a system that forces the candidates pay attention to the whole of the country.

I don’t think that’s at all clear. When you add a few million conservative voters from CA and NY to the mix, and make Florida and Ohio less important, then regional concerns become important rather than individual state concerns. What happens then? Does the entire “rust belt” (what an awful appellation) become a more unified voting block? If it does, the influence of those people would be increased.

I’d rather have a system that forces candidates to pay attention to the whole country too. If you look at what really happens in presidential elections today, that is not happening. Campaigns spend most of their time and resources in states they perceive as “swing” states. Conservatives take red states for granted, and liberals take blue states for granted.

What you and I both want is not happening now. Further, I’d argue that what the founders wanted (a guard against populism they feared) is not happening either.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 29, 2019, 10:15:25 am
Come on, Jeremy, that's no rant...

You are right, Rob, rant requires a modicum of reasoning. That was just mad blabbering from a loony-left UK newspaper, not understanding and not liking the SCOTUS decision.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 29, 2019, 10:25:54 am
... then regional concerns become important rather than individual state concerns...

The US is a federation of states, not regions. If you want a popular vote, you’d first have to get rid of the federal structure, get rid of the states and the Senate.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: D Fuller on June 29, 2019, 10:27:53 am
The US is a federation of states, not regions. If you want a popular vote, you’d first have to get rid of the federal structure, get rid of the states and the Senate.

That’s just nonsense.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 29, 2019, 10:36:22 am
The US is a federation of states, not regions. If you want a popular vote, you’d first have to get rid of the federal structure, get rid of the states and the Senate.
Or you could just count the votes.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 29, 2019, 10:43:48 am
interesting. So, what's stopping the other states from adopting a similar system?

Because it is just kicking the can down the road. Instead of, e.g., Ohio, saying “I want this guy for my president,” it would be like “Oh, I don’t know... let’s send both (or three, or four) guys and see what happens.” That ultimately leads to a popular vote and defies the purpose of the electoral vote, giving three or four most populous states all the power.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 29, 2019, 11:08:50 am
interesting. So, what's stopping the other states from adopting a similar system?

Cheers,
Bart
Nothing.  They could do what Maine and Nebraska is doing. Maybe it's because Americans are gamblers.  When I go to the race track, I always bet the horse to Win so I can maximize the payoff if I win, not Place or SHow were I can get only a little winnings.  So if you have a process of winner take all electoral votes in your state, whichever candidate gets the most popular votes in your state gets ALL of your state's electors.  Your state votes as a whole.  This goes back to the Constitution which gave each states' legislature the right to select the electors, not the people by popular vote.  So a legislature would vote all the electors to one person.  (The Vice President use to be separate and not paired with the President.  But that changed by constitutional amendment.  A constitutional amendment also made Senators elected by popular vote rather than each state's legislature as original written.) 

Of course legislatures could change the rules as some have recently.  Some Democrat favoring states, about a dozen or so, have decided to assign their state's electors to whoever gets the majority of popular in the whole country.  So even if their state's popular vote goes Republican let's say, their electors would be assigned to the Democrat if the Democrat won the popular vote nationally as occured in 2016.  The legality of this novel approach to changing the Electoral system has not been tested in Federal and Supreme Courts.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 29, 2019, 11:17:11 am
Just a point about a state voting all of it's electors rather than splitting them.  Remember, the USA is a Federal system.  Each of the States are sovereign.  Like a country.  When Italy votes in the UN on an issue, it doesn't say, well our people's popular vote on this issue was 60% for and 40% against, and then split their vote.  No..  That's not what happens.  Italy vote 100% For or 100% against the particular issue as a country.  So a state similarly votes 100% for a Democrat or 100% for a Republican even though their state's popular is divided like Italy's.  OF course, each state electoral values is different.  That's based on the number of people in their state offset by two for the two senators.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 29, 2019, 11:19:07 am
interesting. So, what's stopping the other states from adopting a similar system?

Cheers,
Bart
IIRC, this has been analyzed in the past couple of elections and even if all 50 states adopted it the results would be pretty much the same.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 29, 2019, 11:27:09 am
So your argument is that the Electoral College allowed a campaign to win an election by concentrating on three states? And you think this is good? Or am I misunderstanding you?

If you take three swing states that might be concentrated on, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan, their total electoral votes are 42 out of a total of 538 for the entire country, or about 8% of the total.  Most national popular vote differences between the candidates are less than that.  3%-4%.  So there actually is more weight assigned to electoral votes if you consider it that way.  Just another way of thinking about it.  Also, 90% of the popular vite is usually fixed.  People vote the same party regardless of the candidate.  So even with the popular vote, only a very small percentage of them are "swing" votes.  So candidates would just concentrate on the issues in a way that the swing votes would be interested in.  That would "distort" the process as well.

Look how all the Democrat candidates are moving left from many of their original beliefs so they can win the Democratic nomination.  Then they will swing back to the middle in the general election to appeal to the general public.  It's all distorted.  Pick your own desert.  They're all be influenced one way or the other and distorted by whatever process you select. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 29, 2019, 11:31:18 am
Because it is just kicking the can down the road. Instead of, e.g., Ohio, saying “I want this guy for my president,” it would be like “Oh, I don’t know... let’s send both (or three, or four) guys and see what happens.” That ultimately leads to a popular vote and defies the purpose of the electoral vote, giving three or four most populous states all the power.

Yeah, well it’s politics Slobodan. You know, like Mitch and the less populous states controlling the federal judiciary.

This government defines the federal courts as:

The U.S. Courts were created under Article III of the Constitution to administer justice fairly and impartially, within the jurisdiction established by the Constitution and Congress.

I can imagine how amused Mitch is by the naïveté of those who believe that.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 29, 2019, 11:44:16 am
Yeah, well it’s politics Slobodan. You know, like Mitch and the less populous states controlling the federal judiciary.

This government defines the federal courts as:

The U.S. Courts were created under Article III of the Constitution to administer justice fairly and impartially, within the jurisdiction established by the Constitution and Congress.

I can imagine how amused Mitch is by the naïveté of those who believe that.



The Constitution is the legal law of the land.  Since it defines the process, it's perfectly legal and fair.  All 13 original states of the union agreed to the process when they signed on and created the United States 200 years ago.  In fact, they never would have signed on and created America if the process wasn't set up to provide a weighted-balance between smaller and larger states.  Since then, another 47 States (smaller and larger) have signed on to become part of the USA.  They agreed with the process as defined in the Constitution.  They accepted the way it was to be done.  You can;t argue now that you don;t like it.  Well, you could argue.  But you have to change the process by Constitutional amendment. Until then it's legal and fair and playing by the rules.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 29, 2019, 11:54:58 am

The Constitution is the legal law of the land.  Since it defines the process, it's perfectly legal and fair.  All 13 original states of the union agreed to the process when they signed on and created the United States 200 years ago.  In fact, they never would have signed on and created America if the process wasn't set up to provide a weighted-balance between smaller and larger states.  Since then, another 47 States (smaller and larger) have signed on to become part of the USA.  They agreed with the process as defined in the Constitution.  They accepted the way it was to be done.  You can;t argue now that you don;t like it.  Well, you could argue.  But you have to change the process by Constitutional amendment. Until then it's legal and fair and playing by the rules.

Mitch is happy with you, Alan.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 29, 2019, 12:22:08 pm
... The U.S. Courts were created under Article III of the Constitution to administer justice fairly and impartially, within the jurisdiction established by the Constitution and Congress.

I can imagine how amused Mitch is by the naïveté of those who believe that.

Whatever Mitch did, and will do it again (adding more SCOTUS judges during Trump's lame duck year) is legal, based on the procedure established by the Constitution and Congress. You may not like it, you might think it is outright devious, but it is legal. Each party will use any procedural technique or loophole in order to achieve what they want. Filibuster is but one example. Ridiculous, but legal.

Remember, politics is not some lofty activity of "caring for the common good," whatever that might be, as the really naive would like to believe, but politics is a brutal contact sport of promoting interests of your constituents.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 29, 2019, 12:43:49 pm
IIRC, this has been analyzed in the past couple of elections and even if all 50 states adopted it the results would be pretty much the same.

Would be interesting to see such an analysis. But then the gerrymandering may have something to do with it ...

One could still decide to give less populous states a relatively larger number of total votes, but at least within the state they would be closer to the population's preferences of the day. And as it goes with adding averages of subpopulations, they approach the total population average pretty well.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 29, 2019, 12:59:09 pm
Would be interesting to see such an analysis. But then the gerrymandering may have something to do with it ...

One could still decide to give less populous states a relatively larger number of total votes, but at least within the state they would be closer to the population's preferences of the day. And as it goes with adding averages of subpopulations, they approach the total population average pretty well.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart - you have entirely missed the point, which is not to create a fair or representative system of voting, but to manipulate in whatever way is permitted by the courts to obtain a party advantage. You are existing in an old-fashioned world where the truth matters. It doesn't.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 29, 2019, 01:34:06 pm
Whatever Mitch did, and will do it again (adding more SCOTUS judges during Trump's lame duck year) is legal, based on the procedure established by the Constitution and Congress. You may not like it, you might think it is outright devious, but it is legal. Each party will use any procedural technique or loophole in order to achieve what they want. Filibuster is but one example. Ridiculous, but legal.

Remember, politics is not some lofty activity of "caring for the common good," whatever that might be, as the really naive would like to believe, but politics is a brutal contact sport of promoting interests of your constituents.

Yes, Slobodan, just as a change to popular voting would be legal. You wouldn’t like but...

Actually, the ability of the majority leader to hold a nomination is not written into the Constitution, as near as I can tell. It’s part of a Senate precedent established over time that gives him/her certain “rights” that are observed. Nevertheless, it is legal, or maybe has never been contested.
 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 29, 2019, 01:35:19 pm
Like  "terrorist", the word "rant" serves mainly to define the prejudices of the speaker.

Since use of the word "terrorist" tells one precisely nothing about the prejudices of the user, I agree with you.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 29, 2019, 01:38:06 pm
Since use of the word "terrorist" tells one precisely nothing about the prejudices of the user, I agree with you.

Jeremy

Maybe read my post again. There is no rational way to parse it as you have done.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: D Fuller on June 29, 2019, 01:38:26 pm
The US is a federation of states, not regions. If you want a popular vote, you’d first have to get rid of the federal structure, get rid of the states and the Senate.

I was called away while writing my previous response. I apologize for being so brusque. But...

There is absolutely nothing requiring that requires that “you’d first have to get rid of the federal structure, get rid of the states and the Senate” in order to reform the Electoral College. So, with that explanation, I stand by my assertion that the highlighted statement is nonsense. The Electoral College doesn’t even have to be eliminated to change its effect, as my own state of Maine has shown (a decision made under a Republican administration, BTW).

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on June 29, 2019, 01:42:07 pm
Maybe read my post again. There is no rational way to parse it as you have done.

I've re-read it. On the assumption that you mean "interpret", rather than "parse", kindly enlighten me as to the meaning you intended.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 29, 2019, 01:44:38 pm
I've re-read it. On the assumption that you mean "interpret", rather than "parse", kindly enlighten me as to the meaning you intended.

Jeremy

I intended precisely what I wrote. Simple enough.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 29, 2019, 01:45:24 pm
Yes, Slobodan, just as a change to popular voting would be legal. You wouldn’t like but...

By all means, Omer, change it to popular voting by legal means. I might not like it, but I will respect it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 29, 2019, 01:48:40 pm
I intended precisely what I wrote. Simple enough.

So, in your world and in your interpretation, terrorists do not exist, they are just a figment of my imagination or prejudice?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 29, 2019, 01:52:23 pm

The Constitution is the legal law of the land.  Since it defines the process, it's perfectly legal and fair.  All 13 original states of the union agreed to the process when they signed on and created the United States 200 years ago.  In fact, they never would have signed on and created America if the process wasn't set up to provide a weighted-balance between smaller and larger states.  Since then, another 47 States (smaller and larger) have signed on to become part of the USA.  They agreed with the process as defined in the Constitution.  They accepted the way it was to be done.  You can;t argue now that you don;t like it.  Well, you could argue.  But you have to change the process by Constitutional amendment. Until then it's legal and fair and playing by the rules.

You've been channeling Mr. Obama again ;)

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/57-states/



Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 29, 2019, 01:52:36 pm
By all means, Omer, change it to popular voting by legal means. I might not like it, but I will respect it.

And why wouldn't you like it?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 29, 2019, 02:00:58 pm
... There is absolutely nothing requiring that requires that “you’d first have to get rid of the federal structure, get rid of the states and the Senate” in order to reform the Electoral College...

You are correct.

I was making a shortcut in the chain of possible events. Electoral college exists for a reason, and that reason is not just to prevent populist sentiments, but also to balance state rights. If you start dismantling state rights in one case (presidential elections), that is a slippery slope that might ultimately lead to reducing them to a symbolic level. As for getting rid of the Senate, one of our members, a fine gentleman, already posted a sentiment that:

Quote
... I think by 2050 (vaguely remembering this date), 70% of the Senators will represent 30% of the American populace.  This sounds more like a recipe for minority rule than majority....

So, it is not so inconceivable that once you start dismantling the federal structure for presidential elections, you might end up getting rid of the Senate in the end.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 29, 2019, 02:06:25 pm
So, it is not so inconceivable that once you start dismantling the federal structure for presidential elections, you might end up getting rid of the Senate in the end.
Or you could keep it in place since it represents a different branch of the government. The is nothing inherently inconsistent about a popularly elected executive and a proportionally elected legislature. No need to engage in reductio ad absurdum.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 29, 2019, 02:07:25 pm
And why wouldn't you like it?

Because the whole US would be ruled by 3-4 most populous states, like CA and NY.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: D Fuller on June 29, 2019, 02:23:16 pm
Just a point about a state voting all of it's electors rather than splitting them.  Remember, the USA is a Federal system.  Each of the States are sovereign.  Like a country.  When Italy votes in the UN on an issue, it doesn't say, well our people's popular vote on this issue was 60% for and 40% against, and then split their vote.  No..  That's not what happens.  Italy vote 100% For or 100% against the particular issue as a country.  So a state similarly votes 100% for a Democrat or 100% for a Republican even though their state's popular is divided like Italy's.  OF course, each state electoral values is different.  That's based on the number of people in their state offset by two for the two senators.

Sovereign, yes, but not like a country.

Let’s remember how the US Constitution begins:
Quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It does not begin with “We the several states, in order to form a federation.”  Yes states have sovereignty, but the Constitution never puts state sovereignty above the sovereignty of the nation as a whole; it is written to the benefit of the people of the Union as a whole. We fought a civil war over that.




Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 29, 2019, 02:27:20 pm
Because the whole US would be ruled by 3-4 most populous states, like CA and NY.

Why? One can still use the same number of members of the electoral college per state. But within each state one can adopt a system more like a popular vote, like in Nebraska and Maine.

And BTW, the current weighting by state means that "the whole US is ruled" by the 48 least populous states. That may have been necessary to get them get on board and join a federation, but haven't the numbers of people changed in those states? Why should it be fixed in stone, and impossible to devise a slightly more representative representation ...?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 29, 2019, 02:34:47 pm
Would be interesting to see such an analysis. But then the gerrymandering may have something to do with it ...

One could still decide to give less populous states a relatively larger number of total votes, but at least within the state they would be closer to the population's preferences of the day. And as it goes with adding averages of subpopulations, they approach the total population average pretty well.

Cheers,
Bart

Gerrymandering has no effect on Presidential and Senatorial elections because these are decided by the total popular vote within each state.  Election districts created by state legislatures, so-called Gerrymandering,  have no effect.  These districts only effect elections of Congressmen and state legislators representing state government.  So when a person votes, he will only see and can only select Congressmen and state legislators representing his election district.  President and senators would be on everyone's ballot.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 29, 2019, 02:50:08 pm
You've been channeling Mr. Obama again ;)

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/57-states/





Yes, I had a brain fart too like Obama.     I noticed it right after I posted it.  I should have said there were 37 states that signed on after the initial 13, not 47.  Of course, we can't allow Mr. Trump any brain farts, although I believe he suffers from from some kind of language disorder.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 29, 2019, 03:10:20 pm
Sovereign, yes, but not like a country.

Let’s remember how the US Constitution begins:
It does not begin with “We the several states, in order to form a federation.”  Yes states have sovereignty, but the Constitution never puts state sovereignty above the sovereignty of the nation as a whole; it is written to the benefit of the people of the Union as a whole. We fought a civil war over that.






State sovereignty is separate from federal sovereignty. The constitution was written giving only certain enumerated powers to the national government.  Things such as making war, issuing money, regulating interstate commerce, making treaties with foreign nations.  In all other matters, the power was granted to the sovereign states.  For example, building construction codes, state and local police, criminal and civil law, zoning, speed limits, actually most of the rules and regulations we live by daily come from state and local jurisdiction.

State rights vs. federal authority have always been points of disagreement.  States sue the feds and vice versa.  The Supreme Court has often been called on to referee whether states have jurisdiction over an issue, or the national (federal) government does..  Probably the most visible of these today is legalizing marijuana.  There are federal laws against this.  Yet, a few states, claiming state rights, have made it legal in their states.  For now, the Feds are looking the other way and ignoring most enforcement.  But if a president decides to enforce the federal law  and stop states from selling pot, it will surely go to the Supreme Court.  They will have to decide which sovereign (the feds or the states) have authority over the issue. 

Here's a good article explaining states rights.

"In American political discourse, states' rights are political powers held for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution include exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the states, and all of those powers are contrasted with the reserved powers—also called states' rights—that only the states possess.[1][2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on June 29, 2019, 03:23:00 pm

It does not begin with “We the several states, in order to form a federation.”  Yes states have sovereignty, but the Constitution never puts state sovereignty above the sovereignty of the nation as a whole; it is written to the benefit of the people of the Union as a whole. We fought a civil war over that.

We also tried it the other way once already. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation)  It didn't work.  Curiously, we see the same nonsense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion) today with people like Ammon Bundy and his ilk.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 29, 2019, 03:47:54 pm
We also tried it the other way once already. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation)  It didn't work.  Curiously, we see the same nonsense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion) today with people like Ammon Bundy and his ilk.

The article you linked to said differently.  Apparently the rebellion had a lot of impact on the founders, the constitution, and our federation.  Regarding Bundy, he didn't run a rebellion and I believe he was found not guilty.  He's even broken off all relations with Trump as he disagrees with his immigration position.  America has always had "hot heads".  In fact, if it wasn't for these, we'd probably be like Canada and still part of the British Empire.  Maybe Scotland or Northern Ireland.  We'd be voting on Brexit.  :) 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 29, 2019, 04:14:38 pm
The odd thing of course is that that republican camp of yours seems to have a propensity for draft dodging candidates that slander and ignore actual god honest war heroes. . .

Hi Oscar, I was going back through the early part of this absurdity, before I dropped out, and ran across this, which I evidently missed first time around.

Obviously you must have been happy with those famous war heroes Billy ("I hate the military") Clinton and Barracks Obama.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on June 29, 2019, 04:42:12 pm
Hi Oscar, I was going back through the early part of this absurdity, before I dropped out, and ran across this, which I evidently missed first time around.

Obviously you must have been happy with those famous war heroes Billy ("I hate the military") Clinton and Barracks Obama.

Obama dodged the draft by being 12 years old. Damned cunning!!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 29, 2019, 05:06:56 pm
Obama dodged the draft by being 12 years old. Damned cunning!!

Sonofabitch! I had to spend four years in engineering just to keep my ass out of it! Fortunately, they ended the compusory 2-years-wasted nonsense and I could migrate sideways into happy snaps, four years older than I needed to be, four years wasted catching up to do!

Unless there's an existential-level war going down, then I think wars should be left to professionals who seek out the excitement - real or imagined - just like their civilian war photographer buddies!

Bu hey, it sure massaged the unemployment figures for a term!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 29, 2019, 07:46:05 pm
There was excitement, Rob. Not imagined.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 29, 2019, 10:03:39 pm
Sonofabitch! I had to spend four years in engineering just to keep my ass out of it! Fortunately, they ended the compusory 2-years-wasted nonsense and I could migrate sideways into happy snaps, four years older than I needed to be, four years wasted catching up to do!

Unless there's an existential-level war going down, then I think wars should be left to professionals who seek out the excitement - real or imagined - just like their civilian war photographer buddies!

Bu hey, it sure massaged the unemployment figures for a term!

We should have a draft again. Less wars.  Parents don't want to see their kids get killed.  They'll be more opposition. Now no one cares.  It's someone else's kid.  Plus the cost is killing all of us. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 29, 2019, 11:36:03 pm
We should have a draft again. Less wars.  Parents don't want to see their kids get killed.  They'll be more opposition. Now no one cares.  It's someone else's kid.  Plus the cost is killing all of us.
on this we're can agree.   However,  just don't let people off with bogus bone spurs.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: DP on June 30, 2019, 12:05:59 am
There was excitement, Rob. Not imagined.

one Lt Calley comes to mind...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: DP on June 30, 2019, 12:07:51 am
We should have a draft again. Less wars. 

so true ... no exceptions this time though and make it universal sex-wise.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 30, 2019, 07:33:33 am
one Lt Calley comes to mind...

Calley comes only to sick minds.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 30, 2019, 07:47:22 am
Why would you want to reintroduce the draft? Don't you understand that for many people it represents a massive break in their career development at the most productive and important time of their life?

It might be okay to enlist the guys with no hope or educational achievements, with nowhere realistic to go but the pool hall or nearest bar, but for the rest, why would you screw their lives?

I can tell you, as I have, that the bloody concept cost me four years of my young life and at a time when I should have been learning the ropes of a life in photography.

Maybe some here just couldn't avoid it, so they can't see why others should; it has got sod all to do with weeping mothers and coffins with flags: it has everything to do with totalitarian mindsets and one-size-fits-all thinking.

If you want to be a soldier, sailor, flyer or seal, good on you. Let it be your choice unless, as I said already, it's a case of existential crisis. Painting coal white with a toothbrush, and then repainting it black again is for the already insane.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 30, 2019, 08:05:52 am
Women in the forces? Not at the sharp edges, but certainly back in the hospitals and medical tents. 

There is a huge psychological difference in being treated by a male or female nurse. A female not only makes you draw on the remains of your masculinity in order to gird your spiritual loins about yourself and fight to recover, but the subliminal sex thing, always there, even with your accountant or architect, makes you a better more brave version of yourself. Which unless taken to extremes, keeps the juices active in your head, where you often most need them.

A woman fighting in the same trench? Could lead to self-sacrifice, in absurd macho endeavour, which gets two killed. You can't trust sex. It is stronger than morality, promises or reason. Were that not so, how would you explain the barrage balloons that walk the street pushing prams? You might sit at a pavement bar, Campari soda in hand, wondering how what you see ever happened, but you can't distance yourself from the fact that it did. Truth is stranger than fiction. And don't bring up engaging personality: that wasn't what dunnit. Yeah, stuff best not mentioned, but there it is, mentioned not brushed under the carpet.

Fighting women make me think of rainbow warriors and street parades.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 30, 2019, 08:22:37 am
Right on, Rob. The Israelis learned early on that when women are involved in a firefight the men tend to shield the women instead of carrying out the mission. The result can be destruction of the unit and loss of the fight.

Way back in 2003 I did some research on the subject after the obvious BS in the news media about Kara Hultgreen, the navy's first female carrier pilot who screwed up and went into the drink. Finally, some patriotic sneak put the accident report on the web.

For a rundown on the subject check http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/womeninarmedforces.html
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on June 30, 2019, 08:47:42 am
Interesting article, Russ. Thanks for posting it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 30, 2019, 09:49:33 am
Why would you want to reintroduce the draft? Don't you understand that for many people it represents a massive break in their career development at the most productive and important time of their life?

It might be okay to enlist the guys with no hope or educational achievements, with nowhere realistic to go but the pool hall or nearest bar, but for the rest, why would you screw their lives?

I can tell you, as I have, that the bloody concept cost me four years of my young life and at a time when I should have been learning the ropes of a life in photography.

Maybe some here just couldn't avoid it, so they can't see why others should; it has got sod all to do with weeping mothers and coffins with flags: it has everything to do with totalitarian mindsets and one-size-fits-all thinking.

If you want to be a soldier, sailor, flyer or seal, good on you. Let it be your choice unless, as I said already, it's a case of existential crisis. Painting coal white with a toothbrush, and then repainting it black again is for the already insane.



I volunteered for 4 years for the USAF.  ALthough I never served in combat, I did learn electronics and other things which become my career field in life.  I'm proud of the fact I served.  I think doing service in one form or another for your country instills civic responsibility, patriotism, pride and responsibility for your countrymen.  The draft in America in peacetime had been for two years, a rather short time.  There were exceptions to getting drafted so you could finish college, for example.  Most people don;t get drafted because the armed forces doesn;t need that many people.  But by having enough drafted, there would be more consideration of not going to war before we actually do that.  Politicians will be more considerate of the parents of these kids then they might be with an  all volunteer force when people can shrug and say, "...well they volunteered.  It's on them, not us, if they get killed."  That's a cop-out. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: D Fuller on June 30, 2019, 11:45:23 am
I volunteered for 4 years for the USAF.  ALthough I never served in combat, I did learn electronics and other things which become my career field in life.  I'm proud of the fact I served.  I think doing service in one form or another for your country instills civic responsibility, patriotism, pride and responsibility for your countrymen.  The draft in America in peacetime had been for two years, a rather short time.  There were exceptions to getting drafted so you could finish college, for example.  Most people don;t get drafted because the armed forces doesn;t need that many people.  But by having enough drafted, there would be more consideration of not going to war before we actually do that.  Politicians will be more considerate of the parents of these kids then they might be with an  all volunteer force when people can shrug and say, "...well they volunteered.  It's on them, not us, if they get killed."  That's a cop-out.

Alan, this is wishful thinking. Viet Nam and Korea would stand as evidence that things happen differently than you suggest.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 30, 2019, 12:08:31 pm
Alan, this is wishful thinking. Viet Nam and Korea would stand as evidence that things happen differently than you suggest.

In Vietnam, volunteers outnumbered draftees in the range of 60% to 30%, respectively.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on June 30, 2019, 01:12:15 pm
really ?
What is the source of that information, please ?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on June 30, 2019, 01:18:25 pm
really ?
What is the source of that information, please ?

Two sources, there may be others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-the-vietnam-war/2017/09/29/467ef3e0-a474-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html?utm_term=.1f258df0260c

https://www.vvof.org/factsvnv.htm
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 30, 2019, 01:25:47 pm
Alan, this is wishful thinking. Viet Nam and Korea would stand as evidence that things happen differently than you suggest.

I didn't say it would prevent war.  After 9-11, the Armed Forces turned away volunteers there were so many.  It's just that more consideration would occur before we got involved in conflict.  I think that's a positive.    Also, as I lived through VietNam, I recall the huge opposition to the war because of the draft.  There was draft dodging as people fled to Canada.  There was a sudden contagion of bone spurs even infecting our current president. :)   Never mind their parents. Kids didn't want to get drafted and die in the swamps of southeast asia.  The draft helped contribute to us losing the war. The draft will make politicians think twice before they pull the trigger. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 30, 2019, 01:32:35 pm
Two sources, there may be others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-the-vietnam-war/2017/09/29/467ef3e0-a474-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html?utm_term=.1f258df0260c

https://www.vvof.org/factsvnv.htm

Fascinating statistics, the 2nd link.  Many surprises.  Thanks for posting it. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 30, 2019, 01:46:50 pm
I didn't say it would prevent war.  After 9-11, the Armed Forces turned away volunteers there were so many.  It's just that more consideration would occur before we got involved in conflict.  I think that's a positive.    Also, as I lived through VietNam, I recall the huge opposition to the war because of the draft.  There was draft dodging as people fled to Canada.  There was a sudden contagion of bone spurs even infecting our current president. :)   Never mind their parents. Kids didn't want to get drafted and die in the swamps of southeast asia.  The draft helped contribute to us losing the war. The draft will make politicians think twice before they pull the trigger.

Alan, you have a belief system so certain of itself that you can extrapolate and cross-link pretty much anything to make a point that, in the end, falls.

Have you realised how close all of that takes one to religious fundamentalism - and it really makes no difference which religion. Reality, experience, logic play tiny rôles in such circuits.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on June 30, 2019, 02:36:44 pm
Fascinating statistics, the 2nd link.  Many surprises.  Thanks for posting it.
Pretty selective which articles you are willing to read and which articles you aren't. An example of confirmation bias at work.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 30, 2019, 02:54:30 pm
Alan, you have a belief system so certain of itself that you can extrapolate and cross-link pretty much anything to make a point that, in the end, falls.

Have you realised how close all of that takes one to religious fundamentalism - and it really makes no difference which religion. Reality, experience, logic play tiny rôles in such circuits.

Rob

I experienced the riots on American streets during the 1960's by those opposed to the draft during the VietNam War.  Politicians reversed their support of the war because of it.  I've based my belief and point on that experience.  What experience do you have that draws another conclusion?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 30, 2019, 02:56:33 pm
Pretty selective which articles you are willing to read and which articles you aren't. An example of confirmation bias at work.
What confirmation bias?  I didn't say anything about it one way or the other besides it was interesting.  Also, Omer told us what was in the article to make his point.  IF you had done the same about yours, I may have read it.  I'm always willing to learn something new.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on June 30, 2019, 04:21:14 pm
I experienced the riots on American streets during the 1960's by those opposed to the draft during the VietNam War.  Politicians reversed their support of the war because of it.  I've based my belief and point on that experience.  What experience do you have that draws another conclusion?

We had Northern Ireland with its crazies on both sides; we had the Mau Mau in Kenya, we had Eoka in Cyprus; we had Suez. We have had problems in Malaysia. None of those was existential and all of them offered death for no good reason at all.

Those sorts of "wars" are one thing, and to be avoided at all costs. WW1 and WW2 were a different kettle of stinking fish: they could have signalled the end of Britain and folks below the minimum age were smuggling themselves in to protect the homeland from direct threat, which in WW2 was devastating.

I lived part of those years close to London itself; from the toilet window we could see the flashes and fires of London in the night sky. I could see the gliders overhead leaving on their one-way trip to possible death before hitting land. We used to take the train into town and I'd gaze at the ruins all along the sides of the railway. Have you heard a doodlebug fly overhead, and hope it doesn't go silent? Been rushed to the Anderson shelter in your pyjamas or siren suit of a night? It didn't help that RAF Northolt was rather close.

None of the above led to the abandonment of so-called National Service. It ended because it was pretty useless and professional soldiers don't want conscripts beside them if they have a choice. Learning a trade? Yeah, Bailey and Donovan both did photography in their time of "service", which Bailey tried to avoid by pretending to be gay. Didn't work. But you could pick up an apprenticeship almost anywhere during those years before the thing was dropped.

As for your own country: trying to relate one event with another and cite a direct case of cause and effect is optimism writ large. Perhaps the best one can do is link dying students on campus with trigger-happy National Guardsmen:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

As for mothers of dead conscripts having different emotions to mothers of dead professional troops as the coffins unload, that's a male fantasy, macho military rationalisation gone berserk. Either mother would tear your President's heart out, whoever he/she might be. A folded flag is little comfort, regardless of how pretty the design and colours...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 30, 2019, 05:25:07 pm
... None of those was existential and all of them offered death for no good reason at all.

Those sorts of "wars" are one thing, and to be avoided at all costs. WW1 and WW2 were a different...

Had you have the wisdom and courage to fight those "non-existential wars" in due time, you perhaps wouldn't have to fight the WWII. As the recent history proves, fighting those non-existential wars all over the world served the humanity quite well so far in avoiding the next existential one. Putting a small fire out is much easier than fighting an inferno later.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on June 30, 2019, 05:45:29 pm
We had Northern Ireland with its crazies on both sides; we had the Mau Mau in Kenya, we had Eoka in Cyprus; we had Suez. We have had problems in Malaysia. None of those was existential and all of them offered death for no good reason at all.

Those sorts of "wars" are one thing, and to be avoided at all costs. WW1 and WW2 were a different kettle of stinking fish: they could have signalled the end of Britain and folks below the minimum age were smuggling themselves in to protect the homeland from direct threat, which in WW2 was devastating.

I lived part of those years close to London itself; from the toilet window we could see the flashes and fires of London in the night sky. I could see the gliders overhead leaving on their one-way trip to possible death before hitting land. We used to take the train into town and I'd gaze at the ruins all along the sides of the railway. Have you heard a doodlebug fly overhead, and hope it doesn't go silent? Been rushed to the Anderson shelter in your pyjamas or siren suit of a night? It didn't help that RAF Northolt was rather close.

None of the above led to the abandonment of so-called National Service. It ended because it was pretty useless and professional soldiers don't want conscripts beside them if they have a choice. Learning a trade? Yeah, Bailey and Donovan both did photography in their time of "service", which Bailey tried to avoid by pretending to be gay. Didn't work. But you could pick up an apprenticeship almost anywhere during those years before the thing was dropped.

As for your own country: trying to relate one event with another and cite a direct case of cause and effect is optimism writ large. Perhaps the best one can do is link dying students on campus with trigger-happy National Guardsmen:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings)

As for mothers of dead conscripts having different emotions to mothers of dead professional troops as the coffins unload, that's a male fantasy, macho military rationalisation gone berserk. Either mother would tear your President's heart out, whoever he/she might be. A folded flag is little comfort, regardless of how pretty the design and colours...



It's the millions of mothers who might have their sons drafted to die that would create the political problem. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 30, 2019, 06:37:38 pm
Woman charged in Alabama with harming her own fetus after she was shot in a fight https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/30/us/alabama-woman-marshae-jones.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/30/us/alabama-woman-marshae-jones.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/30/us/alabama-woman-marshae-jones.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/30/us/alabama-woman-marshae-jones.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/30/us/alabama-woman-marshae-jones.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on June 30, 2019, 07:44:05 pm
Had you have the wisdom and courage to fight those "non-existential wars" in due time, you perhaps wouldn't have to fight the WWII. As the recent history proves, fighting those non-existential wars all over the world served the humanity quite well so far in avoiding the next existential one. Putting a small fire out is much easier than fighting an inferno later.

Exactly, Slobodan. But people often realize that only in hindsight.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 30, 2019, 08:38:08 pm
We had a lot of unrest at UCSB in my senior year, 1970.  Spring exams were taken under martial law when we had a dusk to dawn curfew.  National Guard was mobilized to enforce it.  The is of tear gas was widespread.  It was not pleasant.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 30, 2019, 09:35:46 pm
Woman charged in Alabama with harming her own fetus after she was shot in a fight...

I assume you are posting this as something people should be outraged with?

It is a rare moment that I would actually agree with you (not that I am easily outraged, mind you, nor I am in this particular case). I think it is a case of taking maternal responsibility during pregnancy to the extreme.

For those not familiar with the case and do not want to read the linked article, it boils down to this: a pregnant mother suffers miscarriage after being shot. The shooter is another women (both black). The shooter is not charged as the grand jury accepted that she was acting in self defense. It was determined that the pregnant woman initiated the fight and escalated it to the point the other had to use lethal force in self-defense. The prosecutor's argument is that a mother has the responsibility to take care of the baby and do nothing that would endanger its life.

As I said, I think that Alabama's prosecutor stance is quite extreme. I heard of cases in countries where abortion is completely banned (certain Latin American countries), that desperate mothers would do horrible things to themselves to deliberately induce a miscarriage. But in the Alabama case, it is hard to argue that the mother initiated the fight with the specific purpose to lose the baby.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 01, 2019, 04:05:02 am
I assume you are posting this as something people should be outraged with?

It is a rare moment that I would actually agree with you (not that I am easily outraged, mind you, nor I am in this particular case). I think it is a case of taking maternal responsibility during pregnancy to the extreme.

For those not familiar with the case and do not want to read the linked article, it boils down to this: a pregnant mother suffers miscarriage after being shot. The shooter is another women (both black). The shooter is not charged as the grand jury accepted that she was acting in self defense. It was determined that the pregnant woman initiated the fight and escalated it to the point the other had to use lethal force in self-defense. The prosecutor's argument is that a mother has the responsibility to take care of the baby and do nothing that would endanger its life.

As I said, I think that Alabama's prosecutor stance is quite extreme. I heard of cases in countries where abortion is completely banned (certain Latin American countries), that desperate mothers would do horrible things to themselves to deliberately induce a miscarriage. But in the Alabama case, it is hard to argue that the mother initiated the fight with the specific purpose to lose the baby.

Up on a delightful hillside overlooking Puerto Pollensa and the sea is a house that was built by an American artist. She sold it and moved further inland (the appeal of the sea as a place too near to which to live shrinks with experience of the expensive nature of wind-driven salty air). I remarked to her son one day that the old house had had a couple of walls painted fierce red. In disgust, he remarked the new owners must be from Alabama. I'm not sure of the implications of that, not being an American, but I can sort of guess.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 01, 2019, 04:44:55 am
Had you have the wisdom and courage to fight those "non-existential wars" in due time, you perhaps wouldn't have to fight the WWII. As the recent history proves, fighting those non-existential wars all over the world served the humanity quite well so far in avoiding the next existential one. Putting a small fire out is much easier than fighting an inferno later.

Slobodan, that's not worthy of you!

You know perfectly well that hindsight can be as perfect or otherwise as desired. As we are, broadly, on the topic of 'nam, I guess that's one of the non-existentials to which you refer? So what was achieved, apart from the massive killings and arms marketing opportunities? The war was lost by the "good" guys - always a matter of definition and perspective - and in the end, the far-eastern world continued on very much as if nothing had happened, except that some still get maimed or totalled by mines nobody wants to feel responsible for or about.

As for putting small fires out, who's to determine what's a domestic fire and what's an external "police action", to use a term beloved of some states?

Looking at Muslim countries close to home, yet still safely far enough away (in a sense, but not when we invite revenge), interventions or sidings with the internal/external affairs and personalities of such have resulted in a far worse fate for the poor inhabitants than had they been left under their own system of dictatorship. Does anyone other than the inevitable opportunist that harvests the fruits of unrest in the former lands of Saddam H. and Muammar G. feel any the better off since our kind intervention? Or, indeed, is the peasant of Afghanistan any the better off? Is Europe any better off? Would it face the migrant crisis it faces today without those little fire-fighting expeditions?

And have the folks of the former USSR benefitted much from our proclaimed interest in their well-being? Or have vague dreams of joining a western prosperity made them suffer even more at the hands of the Bear? And that supposed prosperity; how much of it is myth, a life of perpetual debt to the card companies and/or the banks? Feels more like a state of ultra-high nervous tension, a constant living beyond one's means. And the crunch always comes: think 2008.

You know, all those pretty pictures you made of Chicago: not a lot of those buildings are owned by Joe Soap; most of them belong to faceless entities that are no more friendly to you or anyone else than the mugger in the street. Yet, it's visions of such richness that inspire folks outside the west to imagine that but for geography, they, too could have a piece of that. Yeah, just like I have a piece of Mayfair.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on July 01, 2019, 06:54:59 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/surreal-ivanka-trump-plays-a-prominent-role-in-her-fathers-historic-korea-trip/2019/06/30/98695704-9b58-11e9-b27f-ed2942f73d70_story.html

https://twitter.com/ParhamGhobadi/status/1145074623035449357

The USA as a constitutional monargy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 01, 2019, 08:09:34 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/surreal-ivanka-trump-plays-a-prominent-role-in-her-fathers-historic-korea-trip/2019/06/30/98695704-9b58-11e9-b27f-ed2942f73d70_story.html

https://twitter.com/ParhamGhobadi/status/1145074623035449357

The USA as a constitutional monarchy

Oligarchy is closer. Constitutional, hardly.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 01, 2019, 08:37:47 am
Rob, it is amazing to watch how having the skin in the (Brexit) game can turn a conservative into a Soviet-loving commie ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on July 01, 2019, 08:45:26 am
I remarked to her son one day that the old house had had a couple of walls painted fierce red. In disgust, he remarked the new owners must be from Alabama. I'm not sure of the implications of that, not being an American, but I can sort of guess.
The color of the University of Alabama football team is red, and their motto is Roll Crimson Tide. People from Alabama are crazy about their football team.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 01, 2019, 08:54:03 am
The very best con is when nobody knows they've been had.

Often, it's achieved by means of long documents on special papers or, if possible, parchments that promise the Earth in language so simple but as opaque as to flummox even resident lawyers. If one is able to attach several impressive stamps and red wax seals, then so much the better.

Once the spadework is done, it's time for the PR parts that, though of minor relative importance are paramount in presenting the acceptance of the fait accompli as a positive, something worth the dying for, if required. This belief is strengthened by devices known as flags, around which the faithful can rally whenever opportunity and mood indicate be a propitious moment. Oh the fun, the tragedies, the laughs that such times provoke.

And then there is the song, the popular affirmation, the anthem to the fantasy that this song of con is far, far superior to all of the other poor people's songs of con.

I'm having trouble accessing my Weebly account in order to edit the website and add some more amazing nothings to it. I have managed to cut through the rubber walls and find a link where it is possible to attach a screen grab showing the problems I face... that took attempts yesterday as well as this morning. Like I said elsewhere, nothing stays the same, especially if it was working well. There is probably an eponymous Law that celebrates that truism.

Even lunch was a cock-up today: the wi-fi was down and for the first time in zonks I had to face the hall and think polite thoughts less my true feelings show and some innocent diners believe my belligerence of expression was for them. You see how much more pleasant it is all round reading LuLa on a filling stomach than not?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 01, 2019, 08:56:51 am
The color of the University of Alabama football team is red, and their motto is Roll Crimson Tide. People from Alabama are crazy about their football team.


That makes sense, at last! Thank you for opening the door to enlightenment - taken several years to suss that one, thank you again.

:-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 01, 2019, 09:24:50 am
Got to give it to you, Rob, you succeeded in putting the con in the Constitution ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 01, 2019, 09:27:55 am
Rob, it is amazing to watch how having the skin in the (Brexit) game can turn a conservative into a Soviet-loving commie ;)

Easy, Slobodan. Rob's a good friend, even if seriously misguided.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 01, 2019, 09:30:47 am
Easy, Slobodan. Rob's a good friend, even if seriously misguided.

Serbs love nothing more than to roast their good friends :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 01, 2019, 10:38:21 am
Rob, it is amazing to watch how having the skin in the (Brexit) game can turn a conservative into a Soviet-loving commie ;)

Moi? A red? You must really, really be feeling the humidity!

In normal circumstances I am somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan, but though the continents are pretty much the same, it's a bit of a stretch to think of the philosophy of the present occupiers as similar to his or even mine...

Trouble is, there is no longer a sensible right on the domestic scene; there are but those willing to sign the Faustian deal with my blood. But hey, this is the wrong thread for that teardrop!

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on July 01, 2019, 01:58:52 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/surreal-ivanka-trump-plays-a-prominent-role-in-her-fathers-historic-korea-trip/2019/06/30/98695704-9b58-11e9-b27f-ed2942f73d70_story.html

https://twitter.com/ParhamGhobadi/status/1145074623035449357

The USA as a constitutional monargy

Posting links without some explanation of their relevance is not permitted: see here (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125586.0). Your last line is not adequate.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on July 01, 2019, 03:03:19 pm
Posting links without some explanation of their relevance is not permitted: see here (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125586.0). Your last line is not adequate.

Jeremy
Sorry for not explaining myself properly;
According to some news reports from usually trusted sources the way the government is led seems to become a family affair with key family members Trumps daughter Ivanka trump and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner.
How do the forum members here feel about that?
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-27/tillerson-says-kushner-conducted-foreign-policy-without-him
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/tillerson-kushner-conducted-diplomacy-190627185538439.html

-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/surreal-ivanka-trump-plays-a-prominent-role-in-her-fathers-historic-korea-trip/ar-AADExbw?li=BBnbcA1&srcref=rss#

a quote from this article:
..Mostly, her prominence on a major foreign trip sends a message about who other countries should listen to or court, said Christopher R. Hill, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea and other nations.

“It looks to the rest of the world like we have a kind of a constitutional monarchy,” said Hill, who oversaw nuclear talks with North Korea at the close of the George W. Bush administration.

“It’s increasingly problematic in terms of our credibility,” Hill said. “It says to our allies, to everyone we do business with, that the only people who matter are Trump and his family members.”
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 01, 2019, 03:15:39 pm
... How do the forum members here feel about that?...

With many players entering his government with the purpose of sabotaging it, leaking info, or securing book rights as a minimum, no wonder he is trusting his family. It is not without a precedent (Wikipedia; emphasis mine):

Quote
After winning the 1960 presidential election, President-elect John F. Kennedy appointed his younger brother attorney general. The choice was controversial, with publications including The New York Times and The New Republic calling him inexperienced and unqualified.. He had no experience in any state or federal court,
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 01, 2019, 03:25:35 pm
Sorry for not explaining myself properly;
According to some news reports from usually trusted sources the way the government is led seems to become a family affair with key family members Trumps daughter Ivanka trump and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner.
How do the forum members here feel about that?
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-27/tillerson-says-kushner-conducted-foreign-policy-without-him
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/tillerson-kushner-conducted-diplomacy-190627185538439.html

-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/surreal-ivanka-trump-plays-a-prominent-role-in-her-fathers-historic-korea-trip/ar-AADExbw?li=BBnbcA1&srcref=rss#

a quote from this article:
..Mostly, her prominence on a major foreign trip sends a message about who other countries should listen to or court, said Christopher R. Hill, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea and other nations.

“It looks to the rest of the world like we have a kind of a constitutional monarchy,” said Hill, who oversaw nuclear talks with North Korea at the close of the George W. Bush administration.

“It’s increasingly problematic in terms of our credibility,” Hill said. “It says to our allies, to everyone we do business with, that the only people who matter are Trump and his family members.”

Peter, (age unknown, location nowhere), have you ever heard of Eleanor Roosevelt? How about Hillary Clinton?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 01, 2019, 03:55:35 pm
 
Sorry for not explaining myself properly;
According to some news reports from usually trusted sources the way the government is led seems to become a family affair with key family members Trumps daughter Ivanka trump and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner.
How do the forum members here feel about that?
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-27/tillerson-says-kushner-conducted-foreign-policy-without-him
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/tillerson-kushner-conducted-diplomacy-190627185538439.html

-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/surreal-ivanka-trump-plays-a-prominent-role-in-her-fathers-historic-korea-trip/ar-AADExbw?li=BBnbcA1&srcref=rss#

a quote from this article:
..Mostly, her prominence on a major foreign trip sends a message about who other countries should listen to or court, said Christopher R. Hill, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea and other nations.

“It looks to the rest of the world like we have a kind of a constitutional monarchy,” said Hill, who oversaw nuclear talks with North Korea at the close of the George W. Bush administration.

“It’s increasingly problematic in terms of our credibility,” Hill said. “It says to our allies, to everyone we do business with, that the only people who matter are Trump and his family members.”


If you were a foreign leader and wanted to negotiate or needed something from the American President, would you rather discuss it with the American ambassador to your country or with the President's son-in-law or daughter who represents him as one of his personal advisors?  Frankly, the articles are just more "hit" pieces on Trump.  They never end. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on July 01, 2019, 04:05:11 pm
If you were a foreign leader and wanted to negotiate or needed something from the American President, would you rather discuss it with the American ambassador to your country or with the President's son-in-law or daughter who represents him as one of his personal advisors?  Frankly, the articles are just more "hit" pieces on Trump.  They never end.
If I wanted something from a president, I'd want to talk to the president, not to his daughter or son-in-law. If you wanted something in business, would you want to talk to the principal, or his daughter or son in law?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 01, 2019, 04:11:29 pm
If I wanted something from a president, I'd want to talk to the president, not to his daughter or son-in-law.

You do not always have a direct line to heads of state. You more often than not have to go through intermediaries. Chief of Staff, ambassador, national security advisor, etc. His daughter and son-in-law aren't just family, but have official capacities in the White House. Rest assured that his daughter will have a quicker access to her dad than some ambassador. So, yes, you would want to talk to her.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on July 01, 2019, 04:15:26 pm
Peter, (age unknown, location nowhere), have you ever heard of Eleanor Roosevelt? How about Hillary Clinton?

Hillary Clinton is a lawyer and was a Secretary of State. And while Eleanor Roosevelt was highly intelligent and a superb activist, she never conducted foreign state diplomacy.

Is Ivanka anything more than an adornment that Donald likes to show off?

Well, with Daddy’s help Ivanka and Jared have reaped the benefits of doing business while being government employees.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jared-kushner-ivanka-trump-2017-financial-disclosure_n_5b1f4061e4b09d7a3d762f8f
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 01, 2019, 04:17:38 pm
If I wanted something from a president, I'd want to talk to the president, not to his daughter or son-in-law.

The president doesn't talk to everyone directly all the time.  That's the purpose of ambassadors and presidential advisors.  If I was a foreign leader, and had a choice between the American ambassador to my country or the president's personal advisor, whether a family member or not, I would choose the advisor.  Advisor's have the personal ear of the president.  Actually, the fact the advisor is a family member would make the selection choice even easier.  I would tell Ivanka how talented she is and how great I think her dad is.  Then ask her to ask her dad to send those missiles we need to shoot down the bad guys.  Why would you want to negotiate these things with an ambassador, another bureaucrat  hoping he's still going to have his job when a new president takes over? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 01, 2019, 04:24:55 pm
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer and was a Secretary of State...

She wasn't the Secretary of State when she was pushing the first health care attempt, with lousy results, in the capacity of the First Lady only.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on July 01, 2019, 04:43:19 pm
She wasn't the Secretary of State when she was pushing the first health care attempt, with lousy results, in the capacity of the First Lady only.

A First Lady with a law degree from Yale University, and with an extensive law practice resume before going to Washington.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 01, 2019, 04:52:06 pm
A First Lady with a law degree from Yale University, and with an extensive law practice resume before going to Washington.
The president himself had no previous ambassadorial or for that matter any government or military experience. But that's who we elected, not a former Secretary of State and lawyer who lied about her emails and made secret deals with foreign leaders to enrich her and her husband through their personal foundation.   We wanted a tough guy who did things as a CEO, as an executive.  That's why we elected him.  Ivanka has similar experience as well as an executive, and no previous government experience.  Great.  Fresh ideas and capabilities. Meanwhile, Trump's done a great job overseas.  For America.  The government guys who were there for 40 years have screwed things up in North Korea, Iran, China  and elsewhere.  We sent Trump to Washington to change things and get results.  It's working. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 01, 2019, 05:06:22 pm
The president himself had no previous ambassadorial or for that matter any government or military experience. But that's who we elected, not a former Secretary of State and lawyer who lied about her emails and made secret deals with foreign leaders to enrich her and her husband through their personal foundation.   We wanted a tough guy who did things as a CEO, as an executive.  That's why we elected him.  Ivanka has similar experience as well as an executive, and no previous government experience.  Great.  Fresh ideas and capabilities. Meanwhile, Trump's done a great job overseas.  For America.  The government guys who were there for 40 years have screwed things up in North Korea, Iran, China  and elsewhere.  We sent Trump to Washington to change things and get results.  It's working.
this may win the award for oxymoron of the month.  I'm hard pressed to point to any fresh ideas from the President and I'm really unsure that he is capable.  His job over seas is not done and only hanging from a thread.  Farmers are still up the creek and manufacturing in this country continues it's inexorable downward trend.  Other than a tax cut that favored the rich (not a new idea in any way) what has happened that is a "game changer?"  Has the swamp been drained?  Has the former Secretary of State been 'locked up?'  Have we disentangled our military from the middle east?  As Clara Peller so famously said, "where's the beef?"
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 01, 2019, 05:06:58 pm
A First Lady with a law degree from Yale University, and with an extensive law practice resume before going to Washington.

You are changing the issue. What her degrees have to do with what we are discussing? Ivanka has degrees too. We are discussing family members performing duties beyond protocolar for their position.

Again, there were precedents:
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on July 01, 2019, 05:25:25 pm
You are changing the issue. What her degrees have to do with what we are discussing? Ivanka has degrees too. We are discussing family members performing duties beyond protocolar for their position.

Again, there were precedents:

Yes Slobodan, but qualifications and experience matter. But in this administration it seems personal favors are the currency of national “diplomacy.”
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 01, 2019, 05:28:53 pm
Yes Slobodan, but qualifications and experience matter. But in this administration it seems personal favors are the currency of national “diplomacy.”

Is that why Obama got elected? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 01, 2019, 05:30:00 pm
One only need to look at Jared Kushner's recent proposal for 'solving' the problem in the Middle East to understand the level of his diplomatic capabilities. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 01, 2019, 05:31:57 pm
One only need to look at Jared Kushner's recent proposal for 'solving' the problem in the Middle East to understand the level of his diplomatic capabilities.

I keep on reading this over and over again since when Trump became president, all the while constantly reminding myself of the fact that the so called experts gave it 70+ years and they could not solve it either. 

Personally I'd withdraw all troops and let that whole kit and kaboodal go to hell in a handbasket, then make new alliances after the fires burned themselves out.  But I have a feeling the liberal press would not like that either. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 01, 2019, 05:33:23 pm
One only need to look at Jared Kushner's recent proposal for 'solving' the problem in the Middle East to understand the level of his diplomatic capabilities. 

No professional diplomat, expert, genius, not even Einstein, managed to propose, let alone solve the Middle East problem in the last 70+ years.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 01, 2019, 05:34:05 pm
I keep on reading this over and over again since when Trump became president, all the while constantly reminding myself of the fact that the so called experts gave it 40+ years and they could not solve it either.
Until the Israelis and Palestinians demonstrate a commitment to sit down and try to solve the nation state problem nothing will happen for the next 40 years. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 01, 2019, 05:35:51 pm
this may win the award for oxymoron of the month.  I'm hard pressed to point to any fresh ideas from the President and I'm really unsure that he is capable.  His job over seas is not done and only hanging from a thread.  Farmers are still up the creek and manufacturing in this country continues it's inexorable downward trend.  Other than a tax cut that favored the rich (not a new idea in any way) what has happened that is a "game changer?"  Has the swamp been drained?  Has the former Secretary of State been 'locked up?'  Have we disentangled our military from the middle east?  As Clara Peller so famously said, "where's the beef?"

-Reduced government control by doing away with a lot of wasteful regulations
-open the pipeline
-allow oil exploration in additional areas
-started effective negotiations with NK
-Imposed sanctions on Iran and stopped the stupid nuclear agreement
- New tax legislation that was a boon to the economy
- Started aggressive military actions in the Pacific to check CHinese expansion
- Started aggressive economic actions against China to check illegal and unfair economic actions on their part.
- Challenged NATO nations to get them to increase their defense spending.
- Destroyed ISIS's territorial ownership. 
- Moved American embassy to Jerusalem recognizing it as Israel's capital.

You may not agree with some of these actions.  But they were fresh and different then previous administrations and getting things done as hoped for by the people who voted for him.  Those who didn't vote for him like yourself, will never give him any credit.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 01, 2019, 05:37:10 pm
Until the Israelis and Palestinians demonstrate a commitment to sit down and try to solve the nation state problem nothing will happen for the next 40 years.

Yes, very true, but who is responsible for coming to the table first? 

Although I don't like the new developments constantly being built by the Israelis in the West Bank, the Palestinians keep on support Hamas.  Kind of hard to negotiate with a people who keep on firing rockets at you.  Equally, it is kind of hard to trust a ruler who destroys new schools/structures built with foreign aid. 

Kind of a Quagmire, which is why I vote to just wash our hands of it and let the whole region burn itself down. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 01, 2019, 05:53:24 pm
-Reduced government control by doing away with a lot of wasteful regulations
most of the regulatory problems are at the state and local levels; the federal attempts are mostly bluster, e.g. bring back beautiful coal
Quote
-open the pipeline
-allow oil exploration in additional areas
the pipeline will be meaningless when they build a pipeline from Edmonton to Vancouver as that's the key market for Canadian oil.  US doesn't need any oil from Canada
Quote
-started effective negotiations with NK
Yes there has been at least one interesting photo shoot
Quote
-Imposed sanctions on Iran and stopped the stupid nuclear agreement
not clear that this has worked
Quote
- New tax legislation that was a boon to the economy
not a new Trump idea at all but just a continuation of the Republican desire to cut taxes for the rich; the economic boom is questionable as I noted a lot of stock prices are a result of buy backs with repatriated money; CEOs love this as it raises stock price which is key to their compensation even though the fundamental earnings are not robust at all
Quote
- Started aggressive military actions in the Pacific to check CHinese expansion
yup, we got out of the TPP giving China the impetus to economically dominate the region
Quote
- Challenged NATO nations to get them to increase their defense spending.
has this happened?
Quote
- Destroyed ISIS's territorial ownership. 
and let's not forget that ISIS was the direct result of the warmongering Dick Cheney who got us into the Iraq war with no game plan at all
Quote
- Moved American embassy to Jerusalem recognizing it as Israel's capital.
and this does what?  My sister who has lived in Israel since 1973 and has family who severed in the army just laughs when we talk about the geopolitical meaning of this major foreign policy coup

Quote
You may not agree with some of these actions.  But they were fresh and different then previous administrations and getting things done as hoped for by the people who voted for him.  Those who didn't vote for him like yourself, will never give him any credit.
Are the people in Eastern Kentucky who voted for him in large numbers better off?  What about West Virginia and a number of the southern states which don't seem to be doing any better than they were back in 2014-16.  Much of the economic growth continues to take place in the larger tech areas a number of which voted Democrat with a few that voted Republican.  Look at the health care in the states who have not taken the Medicaid money; there was a story in the paper the other day about the pop up clinics that dedicated nurses, doctors and dentists are setting up on weekends in Tennessee, and some of the other states to try to bring a modicum of health care to these people who don't have it.  These are American citizens so you can't invoke the providing healthcare to illegal immigrants. 

As noted above, I don't think President Trump has come up with any 'ground breaking' proposals that will move the needle.  what we are seeing is a continuation of the economic growth that began a couple of years after Obama's first term started in 2010.  You can go to the FRED data base and try to parse things out in whatever way you want but you cannot show any definitive impact on the economy from what it has been doing.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 01, 2019, 06:00:32 pm
Yes, very true, but who is responsible for coming to the table first? 

Although I don't like the new developments constantly being built by the Israelis in the West Bank, the Palestinians keep on support Hamas.  Kind of hard to negotiate with a people who keep on firing rockets at you.  Equally, it is kind of hard to trust a ruler who destroys new schools/structures built with foreign aid. 

Kind of a Quagmire, which is why I vote to just wash our hands of it and let the whole region burn itself down.
It's probably 70% the Palestinian's fault for the whole mess.  I remember when Israel left the Gaza strip some years ago leaving a significant number of greenhouses standing where they grew tomatoes and peppers for export to Europe.  It was a good business and the first thing Hamas did was destroy them rather then asking for assistance in keeping this business going.  the Palestinians on the West Bank are playing things all wrong.  they should be taking the Ghandi/MLK non-violent approach and demand full annexation into Israel with voting rights.  that's the one sure way to get world opinion on their side and forced the hand of the settler movement.  It's so obvious that it will remain a path not to be followed.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 01, 2019, 06:13:37 pm
most of the regulatory problems are at the state and local levels; the federal attempts are mostly bluster, e.g. bring back beautiful coalthe pipeline will be meaningless when they build a pipeline from Edmonton to Vancouver as that's the key market for Canadian oil.  US doesn't need any oil from Canada Yes there has been at least one interesting photo shoot not clear that this has worked not a new Trump idea at all but just a continuation of the Republican desire to cut taxes for the rich; the economic boom is questionable as I noted a lot of stock prices are a result of buy backs with repatriated money; CEOs love this as it raises stock price which is key to their compensation even though the fundamental earnings are not robust at all yup, we got out of the TPP giving China the impetus to economically dominate the region has this happened? and let's not forget that ISIS was the direct result of the warmongering Dick Cheney who got us into the Iraq war with no game plan at all and this does what?  My sister who has lived in Israel since 1973 and has family who severed in the army just laughs when we talk about the geopolitical meaning of this major foreign policy coup
Are the people in Eastern Kentucky who voted for him in large numbers better off?  What about West Virginia and a number of the southern states which don't seem to be doing any better than they were back in 2014-16.  Much of the economic growth continues to take place in the larger tech areas a number of which voted Democrat with a few that voted Republican.  Look at the health care in the states who have not taken the Medicaid money; there was a story in the paper the other day about the pop up clinics that dedicated nurses, doctors and dentists are setting up on weekends in Tennessee, and some of the other states to try to bring a modicum of health care to these people who don't have it.  These are American citizens so you can't invoke the providing healthcare to illegal immigrants. 

As noted above, I don't think President Trump has come up with any 'ground breaking' proposals that will move the needle. what we are seeing is a continuation of the economic growth that began a couple of years after Obama's first term started in 2010.  You can go to the FRED data base and try to parse things out in whatever way you want but you cannot show any definitive impact on the economy from what it has been doing.

You weren't able to find one positive thing proving my point about your bias.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 01, 2019, 06:13:55 pm
... demand full annexation into Israel with voting rights...

With natality like rabbits, Jews would be a minority in their own state in no time at all.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 01, 2019, 06:15:00 pm
You weren't able to find one positive thing proving my point about your bias.
Here is one, he didn't attack Iran. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 01, 2019, 07:58:41 pm
A First Lady with a law degree from Yale University, and with an extensive law practice resume before going to Washington.

Omer, did you ever read or read about the book, "Hell to Pay?"
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: OmerV on July 01, 2019, 09:14:19 pm
Omer, did you ever read or read about the book, "Hell to Pay?"

No, but if you’re referring to the Clintons’ private life, well they are consenting adults. Yes, the Monica Lewinsky affair was sordid and is on Bill.

We all know there will be like books on Donald exposing his sordid behavior.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on July 01, 2019, 09:32:53 pm
No, but if you’re referring to the Clintons’ private life, well they are consenting adults. Yes, the Monica Lewinsky affair was sordid and is on Bill.

We all know there will be like books on Donald exposing his sordid behavior.

Monica Lewinsky affair was quite harmless. Actually, in Europe it would be rather harmless, in USA it caused a lot of unnecessary upheaval and disruption.
On the other hand, the Benghazi attack and how it was handled by Hillary Clinton caused considerable damage and loss of lives.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 01, 2019, 09:55:47 pm
Here is one, he didn't attack Iran. 
He didn't attack NK either.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 01, 2019, 10:01:24 pm
No, but if you’re referring to the Clintons’ private life, well they are consenting adults. Yes, the Monica Lewinsky affair was sordid and is on Bill.

We all know there will be like books on Donald exposing his sordid behavior.
Yes Monica is on Bill.  But Hillary tried to bury her and all the women Bill had affairs with.  She stayed and protected him because of her own political ambitions.  Many women condemned her for that and voted for Trump because of it.  My wife is one.

Regarding Trump, we new about his sordid behavior before he was elected.  Nothing new there. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on July 02, 2019, 01:32:43 am
Yes Monica is on Bill.  But Hillary tried to bury her and all the women Bill had affairs with.  She stayed and protected him because of her own political ambitions.  Many women condemned her for that and voted for Trump because of it.  My wife is one.


Hang on - your wife voted for The Pussy Grabber because of her concern for HC's standing by her husband after his infidelity?  Sometimes I really do think this "democracy" thing is over-rated :-(
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 02, 2019, 04:21:05 am
Those friggin' straws folks grab in this thread have turned into matchsticks.

The US can't abandon Isreal: much of the USA is Jewish, especially where it matters. It's got nothing to do with anything as foreign as "policy": it's to do with family, blood, religion and clan.

The only case I can think of right now (it's already hot and humid at 10.15a.m.) where those four pillars were betrayed by Britain - and to what a disaster of a result - was in Rhodesia.

At a weak moment of kindness I'd say the son-in-law has got that one. Apart fom the daughter, of course. Which is as ambiguous as a good street snap!

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 02, 2019, 07:30:16 am
No, but if you’re referring to the Clintons’ private life, well they are consenting adults. Yes, the Monica Lewinsky affair was sordid and is on Bill.

“Hell to Pay” was a book written by Barbara Olson, wife of Ted Olson who was U.S. Solicitor General for several years beginning in 2001. The book deals with Hillary’s interference in the government and in international relations during part of the Clinton administration. Unfortunately, Barbara was a passenger on one of the 9/11 aircraft that hit the World Trade Center. She called Ted on her cell phone to say goodbye before the aircraft hit.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 02, 2019, 07:49:47 am
“Hell to Pay” was a book written by Barbara Olson, wife of Ted Olson who was U.S. Solicitor General for several years beginning in 2001. The book deals with Hillary’s interference in the government and in international relations during part of the Clinton administration. Unfortunately, Barbara was a passenger on one of the 9/11 aircraft that hit the World Trade Center. She called Ted on her cell phone to say goodbye before the aircraft hit.
My niece Lisa Raines was on that plane.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 02, 2019, 07:52:06 am
My niece Lisa Raines was on that plane.
The plane was crashed into the Pentagon, not the World Trade Center. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 02, 2019, 08:11:37 am
Sorry to hear it, Alan.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 02, 2019, 08:38:24 am
Sorry to hear it, Alan.
Thanks.   She was a beautiful, kind, and loving person who helped do a lot of good for medical care in the USA when she worked with Congress.   It really hit her mom, my sister Marilyn pretty hard.  And her brother my nephew Doug.

There's a lot of fighting going on about giving help to first-responders who got cancer when they helped clean up the wreckage at the WTC.  Congress should just get on with it and continue helping these people.  Vets too.   After it's all over, we so often forget about those who helped us. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on July 02, 2019, 11:06:03 am

There's a lot of fighting going on about giving help to first-responders who got cancer when they helped clean up the wreckage at the WTC.  Congress should just get on with it and continue helping these people.  Vets too.   After it's all over, we so often forget about those who helped us.

Agreed 100%.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 02, 2019, 01:44:02 pm
Paul Krugman has an interesting column (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/2020-democrats-taxes.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage) in today's NY Times.  He notes that the state of Kentucky received $40 billion in transfer payments from the US government over what their citizens paid in taxes.  He notes that if Kentucky were a foreign country this would be looked at as foreign aid on a colossal scale (it represents 1/5 of the state's GDP).  He writes, "This aid, in turn, supports a lot of jobs. It’s fair to say that far more Kentuckians work in hospitals kept afloat by Medicare and Medicaid, in retail establishments kept going by Social Security and food stamps, than in all traditional occupations like mining and even agriculture combined."

I remember back when Hurricane Katrina destroyed the flood control system in New Orleans, the US committed over $12 billion to fix everything and the state of Louisiana virtually nothing.  It's often overlooked that the 'left wing' states in the US (barring perhaps Texas and maybe Florida) subsidize many of the states that voted for President Trump.  I find this all very curious.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 02, 2019, 02:26:00 pm
Paul Krugman has an interesting column (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/2020-democrats-taxes.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage) in today's NY Times.  He notes that the state of Kentucky received $40 billion in transfer payments from the US government over what their citizens paid in taxes.  He notes that if Kentucky were a foreign country this would be looked at as foreign aid on a colossal scale (it represents 1/5 of the state's GDP).  He writes, "This aid, in turn, supports a lot of jobs. It’s fair to say that far more Kentuckians work in hospitals kept afloat by Medicare and Medicaid, in retail establishments kept going by Social Security and food stamps, than in all traditional occupations like mining and even agriculture combined."

I remember back when Hurricane Katrina destroyed the flood control system in New Orleans, the US committed over $12 billion to fix everything and the state of Louisiana virtually nothing.  It's often overlooked that the 'left wing' states in the US (barring perhaps Texas and maybe Florida) subsidize many of the states that voted for President Trump.  I find this all very curious.
It helps when the majority leader for the Senate is the senator from Kentucky.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 06, 2019, 06:10:49 am
The First of the First World:

http://dunas.com/america-color/

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 06, 2019, 08:01:53 am
It helps when the majority leader for the Senate is the senator from Kentucky.

And this is good, how?

Doesn't the Constitution and the laws based on it apply equally to all, or is clientelism built into it?

Doesn't this fall under the Hatch Act of 1939?
The 1939 Act forbids the intimidation or bribery of voters and restricts political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibits using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes.

Who is going to fix this buying of votes?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 06, 2019, 08:35:32 am
And this is good, how?

Doesn't the Constitution and the laws based on it apply equally to all, or is clientelism built into it?

Doesn't this fall under the Hatch Act of 1939?
The 1939 Act forbids the intimidation or bribery of voters and restricts political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibits using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes.

Who is going to fix this buying of votes?

Cheers,
Bart
Congress has the right to appropriate money in what ever way they so decide.  The Hatch Act applies to those in the Executive Branch such as permanent Federal employees who work for various agencies and those appointed by the President.  The President's advisor, Kellyanne Conway was recently upbraided by the special counsel for ethics (a different position from the one Mueller held) for making campaign statements against a number of Democrats and urged that she be sanctioned.  This is being ignored by the President and his staff.

In the past membership on Congressional appropriations committees was highly desired as those committees made the final decision about how funds were to be spent.  It was quite common to 'earmark' money for projects in a member's home district and there was a lot of trading of favors between Congressmen of both parties to get these projects through and approved.  The Congressional budget process is complicated in that the committee that has jurisdiction over a particular aspect of the budget has to authorize an amount to be spent and this request is then forwarded to the respective appropriations subcommittee (off the top of my head and not consulting Wikipedia, I think there are 8 or 10 such subcommittees).  The complexity of this coupled with the budget committees (which really have no power at all but recommend multiyear budget targets) has led to gridlock in Congress and it is extremely rare that the a fiscal year budget ever gets approved.

As a rough outline, the President proposes a budget in late January and forwards it to Congress where it is pretty much ignored regardless of which party is in power.  The authorizing and appropriations committees are supposed to do their work and a budget is 'supposed' to be approved prior to the start of the next fiscal year that begins on October 1.  The failure usually results in a continuing resolution that funds government activities.  The process is further complicated as the US operates under a debt ceiling that cannot be exceeded (this is set in statute and has to be changed in order for the government to spend money in excess of the current ceiling).  I think the present ceiling will be reached in several months and there will be a big political battle as usual with a possible government shutdown.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 06, 2019, 09:05:02 am
Congress has the right to appropriate money in what ever way they so decide.  The Hatch Act applies to those in the Executive Branch such as permanent Federal employees who work for various agencies and those appointed by the President.  The President's advisor, Kellyanne Conway was recently upbraided by the special counsel for ethics (a different position from the one Mueller held) for making campaign statements against a number of Democrats and urged that she be sanctioned.  This is being ignored by the President and his staff.

In the past membership on Congressional appropriations committees was highly desired as those committees made the final decision about how funds were to be spent.  It was quite common to 'earmark' money for projects in a member's home district and there was a lot of trading of favors between Congressmen of both parties to get these projects through and approved.  The Congressional budget process is complicated in that the committee that has jurisdiction over a particular aspect of the budget has to authorize an amount to be spent and this request is then forwarded to the respective appropriations subcommittee (off the top of my head and not consulting Wikipedia, I think there are 8 or 10 such subcommittees).  The complexity of this coupled with the budget committees (which really have no power at all but recommend multiyear budget targets) has led to gridlock in Congress and it is extremely rare that the a fiscal year budget ever gets approved.

As a rough outline, the President proposes a budget in late January and forwards it to Congress where it is pretty much ignored regardless of which party is in power.  The authorizing and appropriations committees are supposed to do their work and a budget is 'supposed' to be approved prior to the start of the next fiscal year that begins on October 1.  The failure usually results in a continuing resolution that funds government activities.  The process is further complicated as the US operates under a debt ceiling that cannot be exceeded (this is set in statute and has to be changed in order for the government to spend money in excess of the current ceiling).  I think the present ceiling will be reached in several months and there will be a big political battle as usual with a possible government shutdown.

Thanks, Alan, for the concise summary of the situation. It's how I also roughly understand it to be.

But it also looks like a very inefficient process, and what's worse, it's riddled with perverse incentives (and especially vulnerable in what's basically a two party system). Even worse, it apparently doesn't really work, given the clientelism and frequent Government shutdowns that result from it.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 06, 2019, 09:50:15 am
Thanks, Alan, for the concise summary of the situation. It's how I also roughly understand it to be.

But it also looks like a very inefficient process, and what's worse, it's riddled with perverse incentives (and especially vulnerable in what's basically a two party system). Even worse, it apparently doesn't really work, given the clientelism and frequent Government shutdowns that result from it.

Cheers,
Bart

It's a terrible system that has caused America to go into debt of over $20 trillion dollars.  We're going broke.  But Europe seems to be on the same path even with their parliamentary systems.  It's what happens when you have greedy voters who want the government to provide them with everything run by government bureaucrats willing to buy their votes.

The Netherlands isn't as bad as some others.  But I'm not sure you want to brag about your debt either.  Of course, you could argue that your debt is spent more wisely.  But is it?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269684/national-debt-in-eu-countries-in-relation-to-gross-domestic-product-gdp/
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 06, 2019, 09:54:33 am
But it also looks like a very inefficient process. . .

It certainly has its shortcomings. But if you want to understand how a really efficient process works, check the Third Reich. The last thing you want in a political process is "efficiency."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on July 06, 2019, 10:01:54 am
It certainly has its shortcomings.
One of the primary reasons Kentucky gets more in federal funds than it pays in federal taxes is that it is among the poorest states in the country. Lower incomes means less federal taxes, and more federal welfare benefits. So its not like it is a badge of honor.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 06, 2019, 10:12:41 am
One of the primary reasons Kentucky gets more in federal funds than it pays in federal taxes is that it is among the poorest states in the country. Lower incomes means less federal taxes, and more federal welfare benefits. So its not like it is a badge of honor.
Kentucky also accepted the Medicaid funding from Obamacare which most other southern states did not. It's one of the reasons why the poor in Appalanchia get decent medical service whereas those in Tennessee do not.

This is also a difficult statistic to parse since it includes not only transfer payments such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid but also the salaries of Federal employees (including military) who live in that state.  Virginia ranks high on the list of states getting Federal funds because of the large military and government work force.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 06, 2019, 10:24:02 am
One of the primary reasons Kentucky gets more in federal funds than it pays in federal taxes is that it is among the poorest states in the country. Lower incomes means less federal taxes, and more federal welfare benefits. So its not like it is a badge of honor.
Liberals seem to always want to have people reach into their pockets to help those in need.  So I would think that these same people would be in favor of fellow Americans in richer states helping out other Americans in poorer states.  Or do we only want to give our money to illegal immigrants who sneak into our country?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on July 06, 2019, 11:10:25 am
Liberals seem to always want to have people reach into their pockets to help those in need.  So I would think that these same people would be in favor of fellow Americans in richer states helping out other Americans in poorer states.  Or do we only want to give our money to illegal immigrants who sneak into our country?

What would your god want you to do?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 06, 2019, 11:21:06 am
What would your god want you to do?


That's easy: build another wall.

:-)

Having said which, he may well be right, but not in his technique. All of Europe is effectively building a wall too, but in better ways. As the moles in the Middle East have shown, over and over again, physical walls can always be tunnelled. For as far as it takes. Better than nothing, but expensively limited in efficiency, walls.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 06, 2019, 12:03:31 pm
... It's often overlooked that the 'left wing' states in the US (barring perhaps Texas and maybe Florida) subsidize many of the states that voted for President Trump.  I find this all very curious.

What I find curios is that you, and Krugman et al, find it all of a sudden curious that taxing the rich is used to help the poor. Isn't that the whole mantra of the left? As faberryman rightly noted: "Lower incomes means less federal taxes, and more federal welfare benefits." So, it is not that the federal government is subsidizing Kentucky or other poorer states, it sends benefits to individual citizens that happen to live in a particular state at the moment. My social security benefit (pension) is not sent to Florida state first, so that FL can pay me. It is sent to my bank account, and I just happen to live in FL at the moment.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 06, 2019, 12:08:52 pm
Liberals seem to always want to have people reach into their pockets to help those in need.  So I would think that these same people would be in favor of fellow Americans in richer states helping out other Americans in poorer states.  Or do we only want to give our money to illegal immigrants who sneak into our country?
We don't get a choice.  It is the states that got to decide if they wanted to do Medicaid expansion.  With the exception of Kentucky, I think most of the southern states elected not to do so and that's why there are large numbers of uninsured in those states these days.  Why didn't Louisiana contribute any money to fixing the New Orleans flood control system after Katrina instead of relying on the Federal government for over $12B.  States are all for their own way of doing something until something bad happens and then they come to the US government for help.  I guess that's why they are able to keep state taxes so low.

BTW, most of the illegal immigrants are those who overstayed legitimate visas, not those who sneak into the country.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 06, 2019, 12:09:50 pm
It's often overlooked that the 'left wing' states in the US (barring perhaps Texas and maybe Florida) subsidize many of the states that voted for President Trump.  I find this all very curious.

Stramge, Alan, that those "left wing" states Texas and Florida voted for Trump in the last election. You're right. That's curious. ROTFL.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 06, 2019, 12:15:03 pm
What I find curios is that you, and Krugman et al, find it all of a sudden curious that taxing the rich is used to help the poor. Isn't that the whole mantra of the left? As faberryman rightly noted: "Lower incomes means less federal taxes, and more federal welfare benefits." So, it is not that the federal government is subsidizing Kentucky or other poorer states, it sends benefits to individual citizens that happen to live in a particular state at the moment. My social security benefit (pension) is not sent to Florida state first, so that FL can pay me. It is sent to my bank account, and I just happen to live in FL at the moment.
Good point.  Tax dollars don't help poor states.  They help poor people.  Of course, I have to admit that living in New Jersey, a very high property tax state, is costing me more money since the tax laws were changed by Trump and the Republicans.  So the poorer states and poorer people get more of my money.  Also, 66% of my local property taxes go for education of children here in my town.  I don't have any kids here as a senior.  However, I still have to pay school taxes.  In some states, there are reductions for school taxes if you're a senior.  Not here where I live.  A lot of seniors and others move out of New Jersey because of it to states that have lower taxes like Florida and Texas.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 06, 2019, 12:23:13 pm
We don't get a choice.  It is the states that got to decide if they wanted to do Medicaid expansion.  With the exception of Kentucky, I think most of the southern states elected not to do so and that's why there are large numbers of uninsured in those states these days.  Why didn't Louisiana contribute any money to fixing the New Orleans flood control system after Katrina instead of relying on the Federal government for over $12B.  States are all for their own way of doing something until something bad happens and then they come to the US government for help.  I guess that's why they are able to keep state taxes so low.

BTW, most of the illegal immigrants are those who overstayed legitimate visas, not those who sneak into the country.
NYC, the richest city in America, in NYS among the richest states in the country, will be getting another $7 billion from the Federal government to help first defenders who got cancer from breathing in cancerous materials  helping out at the World Trade Center after the attack.  Help is not a one-way street. 

Regarding illegals, whether the overstayed their visa or sneaked in, they're getting a lot of free services paid by our taxes.  It's not fair when people call us uncharitable. But there is a limit.  And they should be acting in a legal way.  When you're a guest, you should follow the rules of the household and not take advantage of the homeowner.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on July 06, 2019, 12:24:05 pm
I don't have any kids here as a senior.  However, I still have to pay school taxes. 

Stop whining. I'm as old as you, I have NO kids and I've paid school taxes my entire life.  I don't begrudge a penny of them.

They're for the common good. Everyone benefits from an educated populace.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 06, 2019, 12:29:30 pm
Stop whining. I'm as old as you, I have NO kids and I've paid school taxes my entire life.  I don't begrudge a penny of them.

They're for the common good. Everyone benefits from an educated populace.
I don't want to begrudge kids.  But it is very expensive.  $6500 per year for us.  That's a lot of money.  Also, our community is not getting "its fair share" from the state.  And our representatives are morons who don't know how to get that changed.  Also, many seniors can't keep up with inflation with static social security and income.  So they're forced to sell their home and move to another state with less taxes.  That's not right either. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 06, 2019, 12:30:05 pm
Stop whining. I'm as old as you, I have NO kids and I've paid school taxes my entire life.  I don't begrudge a penny of them.

They're for the common good. Everyone benefits from an educated populace.

Yes, but truly educated, not the product of the loonie left's re-education camps, a.k.a. American schools.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 06, 2019, 01:02:33 pm
Yes, but truly educated, not the product of the loonie left's re-education camps, a.k.a. American schools.

You prefer Czech schools?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 06, 2019, 01:05:24 pm
Yes, but truly educated, not the product of the loonie left's re-education camps, a.k.a. American schools.


Schools are a tricky subject.

Schools that you get for free, which like the UK health system are free at point of use (must I state again that of course they are paid for during working life via taxation and national insurance contributions?) do not always have pupils with an education-centric background. That's a huge disadvantage that the schools cannot balance: those kids go home. If parents don't insist the kids do homework etc. what, realistically, can the teachers do? They can only mark the kids accordingly and face irate parents when their little angels fail exams. You know as wel as I do that everybody has super clever brats and that if the teachers did their job properly all kids would top the class.

So, you get folks spending huge sums of money in sending their darlings tp private schools where the ethos is different, and where the parents are generally keen to be involved and do their bit in encouraging the kids to study, if only not to waste the parents' substantial expenditure. Education is an inclusive process that requires kids get home support as well as a classroom experience conducive to learning, not playing with their cellphones instead.

If reality approaches The Blackboard Jungle example, heaven help us all. It's bad enough with religious interference ever more present and matters such as sex education, best left as an eternal parental duty to impart, being increasingly shoved onto the third-party shoulders of teachers!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 06, 2019, 01:11:01 pm
Schools in Maryland are funded at the county level.  Our daughters both went to local public schools and received excellent educations.  Here is a worthwhile article by a venture capitalist who was quite active in the charter school movement.  He's now changed his mind and believes the big impediment to getting a good education is income inequality:  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/education-isnt-enough/590611/  It would be useful for folks to read it before commenting otherwise they show their ignorance of the topic.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on July 06, 2019, 01:22:43 pm
You prefer Czech schools?

Cheers,
Bart

Actually, Czech schools are pretty good. No money and money wasted on school buses and security guards with guns, more discipline, more physical ed, more history, more traditional teaching.

https://dspace5.zcu.cz/bitstream/11025/19218/1/Bakalarska%20prace%20-%20Petra%20Silpochova.pdf
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 06, 2019, 01:23:12 pm
Schools in Maryland are funded at the county level.  Our daughters both went to local public schools and received excellent educations.  Here is a worthwhile article by a venture capitalist who was quite active in the charter school movement.  He's now changed his mind and believes the big impediment to getting a good education is income inequality:  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/education-isnt-enough/590611/  It would be useful for folks to read it before commenting otherwise they show their ignorance of the topic.


My daughter went to a state school and then on to university and after some time doing other things, to teaching. The kids are as good as the schools, and the schools as good as the kids and the families allow them to be and to function. I hardly expect any teacher takes the job intending to ruin kids' lives.

My granddaughters, on the other hand, both went to expensive private schools because the parents, both teachers, understood only too well the ethos of the state classroom. The two girls didn't waste the sacrifice the parents made: one is a doctor and the other a lawyer. Reality is one tough mother.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 06, 2019, 01:36:27 pm
You prefer Czech schools?

Why Czech?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 06, 2019, 02:20:25 pm

My daughter went to a state school and then on to university and after some time doing other things, to teaching. The kids are as good as the schools, and the schools as good as the kids and the families allow them to be and to function. I hardly expect any teacher takes the job intending to ruin kids' lives.

My granddaughters, on the other hand, both went to expensive private schools because the parents, both teachers, understood only too well the ethos of the state classroom. The two girls didn't waste the sacrifice the parents made: one is a doctor and the other a lawyer. Reality is one tough mother.
Interesting how things turn out.  Both of our daughters work with at risk children.  One teaches special education and the other is a music therapist at a major research children's hospital that treats the worst medical conditions imaginable. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 06, 2019, 02:23:54 pm
... when their little angels fail exams...

That doesn't happen in American schools, Rob. Kids get extra points for bad parents, bad neighborhood, and being gang members.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 06, 2019, 06:43:59 pm
Schools in Maryland are funded at the county level.  Our daughters both went to local public schools and received excellent educations.  Here is a worthwhile article by a venture capitalist who was quite active in the charter school movement.  He's now changed his mind and believes the big impediment to getting a good education is income inequality:  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/education-isnt-enough/590611/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/education-isnt-enough/590611/)  It would be useful for folks to read it before commenting otherwise they show their ignorance of the topic.

I disagree with his point that income inequality prevents a good education.  It's family disintegration that does.  Children need parents who take an interest in their kids education.  When the family disintegrates because of divorce or you have children born out of wedlock, the child does not get the attention they need at home to produce good educational results.  (coincidentally there is poverty often in these families.  Single mothers taking care of children where the father doesn't contribute to the family makes them very poor.) His argument that education started to go downhill inn the 1970's coincides very nicely with out-of-wedlock births. https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fthesocietypages.org%2Fgraphicsociology%2Ffiles%2F2010%2F10%2Fmaritaldecline.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fthesocietypages.org%2Fgraphicsociology%2F2010%2F10%2F18%2Fout-of-wedlock-childbirth%2F&docid=lYUfQ3IRiFdxgM&tbnid=Uo5WYK-Mht0svM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjwrKuNrqHjAhUohOAKHaJ7CakQMwhLKAEwAQ..i&w=575&h=449&bih=961&biw=1745&q=out%20of%20wedlock%20children%20rates&ved=0ahUKEwjwrKuNrqHjAhUohOAKHaJ7CakQMwhLKAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8 (https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fthesocietypages.org%2Fgraphicsociology%2Ffiles%2F2010%2F10%2Fmaritaldecline.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fthesocietypages.org%2Fgraphicsociology%2F2010%2F10%2F18%2Fout-of-wedlock-childbirth%2F&docid=lYUfQ3IRiFdxgM&tbnid=Uo5WYK-Mht0svM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjwrKuNrqHjAhUohOAKHaJ7CakQMwhLKAEwAQ..i&w=575&h=449&bih=961&biw=1745&q=out%20of%20wedlock%20children%20rates&ved=0ahUKEwjwrKuNrqHjAhUohOAKHaJ7CakQMwhLKAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8)

There's plenty of poor people around the world. But if the family is intact, the children are educated and more healthy to boot.  This whole argument about income inequality is another justification for the redistribution of wealth. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 06, 2019, 07:53:53 pm
... There's plenty of poor people around the world...

I grew up in a relatively poor country, in a working class family. My schools did not have computers, tv, cell phones, Google, Wikipedia, etc. Nada. Just a textbook, professor, and a public library. It was a desire to learn that got me educated. And my parents, although divorced, that put education first. I grew up in my grandmother's home, a woman with only elementary school, who never stopped reading and never ceased encouraging me to read too. While my friends were playing soccer outside, I was reading.

It is what you put into your education, not how rich or poor your school is.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 06, 2019, 08:09:30 pm
Schools in Maryland are funded at the county level.  Our daughters both went to local public schools and received excellent educations.  Here is a worthwhile article by a venture capitalist who was quite active in the charter school movement.  He's now changed his mind and believes the big impediment to getting a good education is income inequality:  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/education-isnt-enough/590611/  It would be useful for folks to read it before commenting otherwise they show their ignorance of the topic.

As a former teacher, I can tell you the number one reason, far above all others, to getting a good education is having parents that are involved.  No amount of money will change that.  Without addressing this, everything else is just window dressing, even more school funding. 

So many parents expect that the school should be able to handle everything and that they need not take any responsibility.  I can remember on parent teacher nights, every student who was doing bad, no parents showed.  Every student that was doing well, all their parents showed. 

All this talk about better funding misses the most important issue and muddys the water. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 06, 2019, 08:18:02 pm
I grew up in a relatively poor country, in a working class family. My schools did not have computers, tv, cell phones, Google, Wikipedia, etc. Nada. Just a textbook, professor, and a public library. It was a desire to learn that got me educated. And my parents, although divorced, that put education first. I grew up in my grandmother's home, a woman with only elementary school, who never stopped reading and never ceased encouraging me to read too. While my friends were playing soccer outside, I was reading.

It is what you put into your education, not how rich or poor your school is.
I didn;t mean to say that divorce in itself hurts education.  It's only when the parents have lost interest in the child's education.  My own daughter is a product of divorced parents.  But she did well in school getting her masters.  As Joe said, having parents involved is the key.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 07, 2019, 05:38:05 am
As a former teacher, I can tell you the number one reason, far above all others, to getting a good education is having parents that are involved.  No amount of money will change that.  Without addressing this, everything else is just window dressing, even more school funding. 

So many parents expect that the school should be able to handle everything and that they need not take any responsibility.  I can remember on parent teacher nights, every student who was doing bad, no parents showed.  Every student that was doing well, all their parents showed. 

All this talk about better funding misses the most important issue and muddys the water.


As father of a teacher, I can confirm her recounted experiences are very close to yours, with the difference that on Parents/Teachers nights, many parents of bad pupils do show up and pretty much threaten teachers over their kids. Yes, there are bad/indifferent/lousy parents as good, but don't forget that not all kids who do badly have anyone but themselves to blame: they are, basically, little shits with but a single ambition, which is to destroy the class atmosphere. Parents, too, can be forced to give up in the face of such children. All of which ignores the important fact that not all children are equally capable, despite what some of the political theorists claim
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on July 07, 2019, 05:50:29 am
not all children are equally capable, despite what some of the political theorists claim

Can you provide us with an example of such a claim ?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on July 07, 2019, 06:57:12 am
Shirley McLane, Wolfgang A.Mozart, John von Newman
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 07, 2019, 07:05:07 am
Can you provide us with an example of such a claim ?


Come on; you think I give them enough credence as to keep notes?

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 07, 2019, 07:38:52 am

As father of a teacher, I can confirm her recounted experiences are very close to yours, with the difference that on Parents/Teachers nights, many parents of bad pupils do show up and pretty much threaten teachers over their kids. Yes, there are bad/indifferent/lousy parents as good, but don't forget that not all kids who do badly have anyone but themselves to blame: they are, basically, little shits with but a single ambition, which is to destroy the class atmosphere. Parents, too, can be forced to give up in the face of such children. All of which ignores the important fact that not all children are equally capable, despite what some of the political theorists claim

Although I have certainly been threatened by a couple of parents for their child's inability to pass my class for not doing any homework or studying, I find it hard to believe that threats are more likely then not.  Most of the time, the parents of my worse performing students were no where to found and never returned any of my calls or emails, well not until two weeks prior to the end of the year. 

Unfortunately, political correctness has infected the schools so much so we were told to never tell a student or parent that they could not pass.  So at two or three weeks left in the year, I was telling parents that, "yes, your child could possibly pass even though his/her average is 20 right now."  I pretty much knew it was impossible by that point even if they suddenly turned around, but I would have been reprimanded if I told the truth.   

Insofar as calling them little shits, I also have to protest against this, for most of them.  In my years as a teacher, I only came across 2 or 3 truly horrible kids who I knew would grow up to be horrible adults.  Most of the problems were just kids being kids, caused by a variety of issues those type of kids develop with parents who really don't pay attention to them.  So many of these problems could be mitigated, but are due to distant parents. 

So whenever I hear a politician, or anyone else, talking about how giving more money to a school and this will fix the problems while not even talking about parental involvement, I know don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to education.  Fact, money is insignificant without parental involvement.  Withy very few exceptions, it does not matter how much you spend, if the parents dont care then the child wont care either. 

Now, insofar as someone denying we all have varying innate abilities due to our born biological traits (on an individual level I mean; I am not referencing the gender discussion), they are just being a jack ass.  Most of the students that did bad of mine had absent parents, however a couple had very involved parents and the student still did bad.  They just could not grasp the subject material no matter how hard they tried.  Although it did upset me for them to fail my class, since math builds upon itself, I could not just pass them over sympathy. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on July 07, 2019, 07:48:48 am
Now, insofar as someone denying we all have varying innate abilities due to our born biological traits (on an individual level I mean; I am not referencing the gender discussion), they are just being a jack ass. 

Has anyone actually done that?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 07, 2019, 07:57:37 am
Joe, if you reread my post, the little shits to whom I refer are not all the poor performers, but that group which you have also accepted exists, the hard-core irredeemables.

On the matter of equality: with my very own pair, one was very academic from the start, reading everything she could find, and the other one simply turned the metaphorical deaf ear to everything. This was not helped, at one early stage, by a primary teacher comparing him with his sister. Not ideal, confidence-building actions, but apart from that, we could see the totally different attitude at home. It didn't seem to do him much harm as an adult, though.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 07, 2019, 08:55:14 am
Has anyone actually done that?

Some do and think that anyone can be trained to be as good as another.  I never said you, and glad to hear you dont! 

My apologies if you got offended by that. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 07, 2019, 08:58:58 am
Joe, if you reread my post, the little shits to whom I refer are not all the poor performers, but that group which you have also accepted exists, the hard-core irredeemables.

On the matter of equality: with my very own pair, one was very academic from the start, reading everything she could find, and the other one simply turned the metaphorical deaf ear to everything. This was not helped, at one early stage, by a primary teacher comparing him with his sister. Not ideal, confidence-building actions, but apart from that, we could see the totally different attitude at home. It didn't seem to do him much harm as an adult, though.

Ahhh, yes, those ones.  The parents of the kid getting a 98 and wanting to know why it is not a 100, or they ask what can my child do to improve their grade? 

How about you let him/her go outside every now and then, get a tan and some vitamin D.  As great as it is to teach the smart ones, those parents can be really annoying and over do it.  Not to mention, the lower end students often are more socially knowledgable and would understand my sarcasm.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on July 07, 2019, 09:30:32 am
Some do and think that anyone can be trained to be as good as another.  I never said you, and glad to hear you dont! 

My apologies if you got offended by that.

No offence taken at all - my question was just that - I haven't heard it claimed that people are born with equal abilities.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 07, 2019, 11:42:39 am
... while not even talking about parental involvement..

Father's Day: the most confusing day in the 'hood  ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 07, 2019, 12:13:37 pm
Ahhh, yes, those ones.  The parents of the kid getting a 98 and wanting to know why it is not a 100, or they ask what can my child do to improve their grade? 

How about you let him/her go outside every now and then, get a tan and some vitamin D.  As great as it is to teach the smart ones, those parents can be really annoying and over do it.  Not to mention, the lower end students often are more socially knowledgable and would understand my sarcasm.   

Another situation that affects quality education is politics.  When I was a kid going to school in NYC, classes were separated by ability.  So for example, let's say there were 6 classes for first graders.  The smartest kids would be assigned to Class 101, the next smartest to 102 all the way down to 106 where the slowest would be placed.  I guess the point was that with kids being equal within each class, the teacher could apply the teaching to the class's level of learning.  Politics in the community put an end to that.  So now, slow kids are mixed with smart kids in the same class. The teacher has to spend extra time with the slower kids while the smart kids are sitting around being bored and not covering more learning skills as they ought too.  The teacher cannot challenge the class with more difficult stuff and lose the slower kids. 

Another thing they did away with were trade type learning.  Typing, shop, etc.  Loads of kids are more action oriented, don;t want or need college, and will make more money learning a trade.  I did some construction a few years ago in Aviation High School in Long Island CIty NY where Amazon was going to set up a headquarters.  The school's shop is a hanger where jets and reciprocating engine planes were located.  The kids and teachers, dressed in sparkling, white uniforms, were working on the mechanics of airplane repair.  As an ex-air force vet, it was particularly satisfying to see.  I spoke with the teachers, also air force veterans, who showed pride in their work.  As you walked through the school, everyone seemed busy and involved.  The whole school had pride in what they were learning and doing.  We need more of these kind of schools. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 07, 2019, 12:27:51 pm
Another issue is discipline.  When I was young, I would be afraid to open my mouth to the teacher.  Because I knew when I got home, my parents would have heard about it and handed me my head.  Today, teachers are afraid to tell the students anything.  Many parent don't respect teachers or just take their kid's side regardless. 

I will have to admit though that much comes from the top, the principal.  I did work in over 250 NYC schools.  There are about 1200.  As I walked around in them, you could see which schools were quiet and disciplined and which ones the kids showed no respect, very undisciplined.   I was in one high school where some kids were ripping the security cameras we were installing off the walls before we could connect them.  We knew who the kids were.  I had a meeting with the custodian and principals and security staff.  All 4 principals (there were 4 in one building) said they couldn't do anything.  So I told them they'd have to live with the problem and walked out of the meeting. They were afraid of the kids.  In other schools, I saw principals in the hallway between classes pull kids out of the hallway and berate them if they were just talking.  That school was operating properly.  All the kids were in the classrooms when they should have been.  No one was stealing things off the walls.  You know that principal supported his teachers.   It comes from the top.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on July 07, 2019, 01:06:13 pm
Father's Day: the most confusing day in the 'hood  ;)

What's that supposed to be, "loonie left" bait?

Oh wait, let me guess, are you exercising "free speech"? ;)



Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 07, 2019, 01:11:03 pm
What's that supposed to be, "loonie left" bait?

Oh wait, let me guess, are you exercising "free speech"? ;)

Nah, it's discrimination (of fathers).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on July 07, 2019, 01:25:41 pm
What's that supposed to be, "loonie left" bait?

Oh wait, let me guess, are you exercising "free speech"? ;)

Just another unpleasant racist jibe at a guess.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 07, 2019, 01:45:57 pm
Just another unpleasant...

... truth

“Obama Sharply Assails Absent Black Fathers”

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/us/politics/15cnd-obama.html

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on July 07, 2019, 02:03:12 pm
... truth

“Obama Sharply Assails Absent Black Fathers”

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/us/politics/15cnd-obama.html

And that adds what to a discussion on the American constitution? Seriously Slobodan that’s just blatant trolling. I expected more than that from you. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on July 07, 2019, 02:04:45 pm
Seriously Slobodan that’s just blatant trolling.  I expected more than that from you.
Really? It seems about par for the course.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on July 07, 2019, 02:31:52 pm
And that adds what to a discussion on the American constitution? Seriously Slobodan that’s just blatant trolling. I expected more than that from you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 07, 2019, 02:56:06 pm
And that adds what to a discussion on the American constitution? Seriously Slobodan that’s just blatant trolling. I expected more than that from you. 

You are kidding, right?

As if on these 57 pages of the thread we are only discussing American constitution!? From building construction, kitchen renovation, to Middle East, to education and parental involvement in the said, these 57 pages were meandering, as forum threads often do.

None of us are constitutional experts (except, of course, Alan Golddigger) so the debate touches upon many aspects of the American life.

The constant whining about income inequality as the source of all evil, and in particular case, low education level, and even more specifically, among the young blacks, is a typical left misdiagnosis, and consequently, source of wrong solutions.

If the black American president (and my racist comrade) can point out the real problem, so can i. He did it professorially, I did it humorously. Both approaches deliver the same message. If you are uncomfortable with hearing the inconvenient truth, feel free to look for the nearest safe space.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 07, 2019, 03:01:08 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy

Let me add more "dead cats":

Quote
Poverty rate among blacks: 21%
Poverty rate among whites: 11%

Poverty rate among MARRIED blacks: 7%
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 07, 2019, 03:17:38 pm
Another situation that affects quality education is politics.  When I was a kid going to school in NYC, classes were separated by ability.  So for example, let's say there were 6 classes for first graders.  The smartest kids would be assigned to Class 101, the next smartest to 102 all the way down to 106 where the slowest would be placed.  I guess the point was that with kids being equal within each class, the teacher could apply the teaching to the class's level of learning.  Politics in the community put an end to that.  So now, slow kids are mixed with smart kids in the same class. The teacher has to spend extra time with the slower kids while the smart kids are sitting around being bored and not covering more learning skills as they ought too.  The teacher cannot challenge the class with more difficult stuff and lose the slower kids. 

Another thing they did away with were trade type learning.  Typing, shop, etc.  Loads of kids are more action oriented, don;t want or need college, and will make more money learning a trade.  I did some construction a few years ago in Aviation High School in Long Island CIty NY where Amazon was going to set up a headquarters.  The school's shop is a hanger where jets and reciprocating engine planes were located.  The kids and teachers, dressed in sparkling, white uniforms, were working on the mechanics of airplane repair.  As an ex-air force vet, it was particularly satisfying to see.  I spoke with the teachers, also air force veterans, who showed pride in their work.  As you walked through the school, everyone seemed busy and involved.  The whole school had pride in what they were learning and doing.  We need more of these kind of schools.

Another issue is discipline.  When I was young, I would be afraid to open my mouth to the teacher.  Because I knew when I got home, my parents would have heard about it and handed me my head.  Today, teachers are afraid to tell the students anything.  Many parent don't respect teachers or just take their kid's side regardless. 

I will have to admit though that much comes from the top, the principal.  I did work in over 250 NYC schools.  There are about 1200.  As I walked around in them, you could see which schools were quiet and disciplined and which ones the kids showed no respect, very undisciplined.   I was in one high school where some kids were ripping the security cameras we were installing off the walls before we could connect them.  We knew who the kids were.  I had a meeting with the custodian and principals and security staff.  All 4 principals (there were 4 in one building) said they couldn't do anything.  So I told them they'd have to live with the problem and walked out of the meeting. They were afraid of the kids.  In other schools, I saw principals in the hallway between classes pull kids out of the hallway and berate them if they were just talking.  That school was operating properly.  All the kids were in the classrooms when they should have been.  No one was stealing things off the walls.  You know that principal supported his teachers.   It comes from the top.

Alan, there are so many things wrong with the education system right now; some are by default and others have to do with politics. 

Although I can see your critique with lack of tracking, tracking is still used today.  It is not necessarily called tracking, just advance, honors, regular, and whatever new politically correct word is used for the lower level kids.  The issue though is that is not nearly as nuanced as it should be for the best performance.  It has been shown that the best environment for a person to learn is one that is 18% to 22% hard then what they can do at a leisure.  Less hard and the person gets bored; more hard and the person gives up.  The problem though is that this would create a dozen different tracks and the funding is just not there.  So I cant really complain about this one since it just would never happen due to the expense. 

Trade courses are still being taught as well, but are not very well advertised.  The type of students who typically go into these classes are those that are bad students since it is assumed that they will not be able to handle the college bound classes, that all other students go into.  The issue though is that some of the "normal" students may be interested in these fields but are discouraged on taking them since they are obviously college bound right ???.  Those normal kids are often never given the opportunity to take these courses. 

Then, even with truly college bound kids, we overload the courses with knowledge that most just do not need (unless they plan on studying that specific field) at the expense of "common" knowledge you actually need to live. 

Russ always gets on the lack of knowledge with civics today, which is a direct result of students being treated like everyone will be a historian.  When you think like this, the question of why bother teaching civics certainly comes up.  In Math we never taught things like balancing a check book or how compound interested works in relation to investments or credit card balances.  What a mortgage is and how it works. 

All these things are cut at the expense of trying to make every student a scholar in every subject, which is just unpractical.  We are training kids to be highly knowledgable but with little ability to function in society. 

As far as my experience went, discipline is only an issue in inner city schools.  I hate to be stereotypical  ;), but inner city schools are run by more liberals, and liberals tend to want to be more nurturing and caring instead of punitive.  The problem though is that you need to be punitive with those 5% of kids who do nothing but goof off, otherwise they will do nothing but distract from the learning experience for everyone else.  Suburban and rural principals tends to be much more punitive.  The principal at my first school I taught at was about 120 lb.  Every student was deathly afraid of him, even the biggest guy. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on July 07, 2019, 03:17:44 pm


The constant whining about income inequality as the source of all evil, and in particular case, low education level, and even more specifically, among the young blacks, is a typical left misdiagnosis, and consequently, source of wrong solutions.


It's not a misdiagnosis - it's that people don't run the equation out far enough.  Ironically, you and the others are right when it comes to parental (or other supervisory) attention, but what you're missing is how income inequality plays into that.  With the caveat that my wife is the expert here, not me, and I'm going on memory of what she has studied, the core of the problem is that many factors - income inequality and declining family structure being large factors - contribute to an inability or unwillingness to interact with their children, and even when kids are *preverbal* this can have long lasting and relatively permanent effects on their later-life success.

This is why, for example, many of us "on the left" are infuriated when religious conservatives would rather have orphaned kids "in the system" rather than with caring sets of same-sex parents. It's not a matter of being "PC" - it's the simple fact that just having a situation where you can interact with your kids (https://hechingerreport.org/why-talking-and-listening-to-your-child-could-be-key-to-brain-development/) can have lifelong impact.  Same goes for regular access to quality food.

It's why when we liberals talk about equality of opportunity (which conservatives disingenuously twist to mean equality of outcome), we look for ways to compensate for or mitigate societal issues *as an investment* in the future of our society.  It's not that "being poor" causes a student to be bad, it's that a student form a poor background often doesn't have access to the early childhood things that define success later on, so the cycle continues...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 07, 2019, 03:30:58 pm
It's not a misdiagnosis - it's that people don't run the equation out far enough.  Ironically, you and the others are right when it comes to parental (or other supervisory) attention, but what you're missing is how income inequality plays into that.  With the caveat that my wife is the expert here, not me, and I'm going on memory of what she has studied, the core of the problem is that many factors - income inequality and declining family structure being large factors - contribute to an inability or unwillingness to interact with their children, and even when kids are *preverbal* this can have long lasting and relatively permanent effects on their later-life success.

This is why, for example, many of us "on the left" are infuriated when religious conservatives would rather have orphaned kids "in the system" rather than with caring sets of same-sex parents. It's not a matter of being "PC" - it's the simple fact that just having a situation where you can interact with your kids (https://hechingerreport.org/why-talking-and-listening-to-your-child-could-be-key-to-brain-development/) can have lifelong impact.  Same goes for regular access to quality food.

It's why when we liberals talk about equality of opportunity (which conservatives disingenuously twist to mean equality of outcome), we look for ways to compensate for or mitigate societal issues *as an investment* in the future of our society.  It's not that "being poor" causes a student to be bad, it's that a student form a poor background often doesn't have access to the early childhood things that define success later on, so the cycle continues...

Two things, many bad family environments often result in single parent households, which also means a lower income for that family.  So the two are connected in some cases.  Just thought I point this out.

Second, insofar as trying to mitigate for societal issues, much of what is proposed is destine for failure.  I can give you a pretty good example I know a fair amount about if you want with plenty of research to back up my side, especially from the public CA University School system in comparing pre 2000 classes to post 2000 classes, but it will be very divisive.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 07, 2019, 03:34:35 pm
... we look for ways to compensate for or mitigate societal issues...

James, I understand that there must be at least some good intentions behind social engineering. However, it seems to me that you are more likely to treat symptoms, rather than causes, that way. In the case we are discussing, how pouring more money into schools is going to resolve the underlying issue of single-parenthood? There was the time when treating family as sacred was a matter of culture, regardless whether rich or poor. Even more among the poor, as the family cohesion was often a matter of sheer survival. In other words, it is not being poor that makes you more likely to end up in single parenthood. It is subculture.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 07, 2019, 03:45:52 pm
It's not a misdiagnosis - it's that people don't run the equation out far enough.  Ironically, you and the others are right when it comes to parental (or other supervisory) attention, but what you're missing is how income inequality plays into that.  With the caveat that my wife is the expert here, not me, and I'm going on memory of what she has studied, the core of the problem is that many factors - income inequality and declining family structure being large factors - contribute to an inability or unwillingness to interact with their children, and even when kids are *preverbal* this can have long lasting and relatively permanent effects on their later-life success.

This is why, for example, many of us "on the left" are infuriated when religious conservatives would rather have orphaned kids "in the system" rather than with caring sets of same-sex parents. It's not a matter of being "PC" - it's the simple fact that just having a situation where you can interact with your kids (https://hechingerreport.org/why-talking-and-listening-to-your-child-could-be-key-to-brain-development/) can have lifelong impact.  Same goes for regular access to quality food.

It's why when we liberals talk about equality of opportunity (which conservatives disingenuously twist to mean equality of outcome), we look for ways to compensate for or mitigate societal issues *as an investment* in the future of our society.  It's not that "being poor" causes a student to be bad, it's that a student form a poor background often doesn't have access to the early childhood things that define success later on, so the cycle continues...

"just having a situation where you can interact with your kids can have lifelong impact" is exactly the reason why same-gender parenting is a bum idea: you set an example of normality that is anything but. Can anyone not expect that to impact the kids along with all the other stuff that goes down in life?

If consenting adults is considered okay, so be it. But don't let society put innocent young minds into those same situations. It's a madness; kids experiment too much as it is; keeping yourself safe in a single-gender boarding school - of either gender; they both bring problems - is something real, as pretty anyone that I know who has been to one of these quasi semi-open prisons will attest. Prisons of the real variety are known for rape and all the rest of it. Nobody needs to have that stuff in their face as babes in arms and growing up.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on July 07, 2019, 03:54:56 pm
James, I understand that there must be at least some good intentions behind social engineering. However, it seems to me that you are more likely to treat symptoms, rather than causes, that way. In the case we are discussing, how pouring more money into schools is going to resolve the underlying issue of single-parenthood? There was the time when treating family as sacred was a matter of culture, regardless whether rich or poor. Even more among the poor, as the family cohesion was often a matter of sheer survival. In other words, it is not being poor that makes you more likely to end up in single parenthood. It is subculture.

You lost me. You use the loaded term "social engineering" to cast doubt. But then you claim that the root cause is single parenthood. Do you plan to deal with via social engineering of your own?  Or what are you saying?

Schools have to deal with the situation as it exists. Cutting their funding will not help.

There is plenty of evidence that wide disparities in income and well-being in a society is a bad thing for everyone in that society. Data seem to show that mobility is the USA is far worse than it used to be. Which means that if one unlucky and born poor, one have less chance to move up than one used to have. I'm pretty sure that the reasons for this are numerous and vary from place to place. Dealing with it by saying "this one thing is the problem" or "that thing is the problem" is a waste of time.

I'm just hearing the same old.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 07, 2019, 03:57:44 pm
"just having a situation where you can interact with your kids can have lifelong impact" is exactly the reason why same-gender parenting is a bum idea: you set an example of normality that is anything but. Can anyone not expect that to impact the kids along with all the other stuff that goes down in life?


Well aside form the fact that this came out of left field, Rob, I think much of the psychological literature on this shows that same gender parents can raise a child just as effectively as a normal set of parents can.  Also, just because you are raised in a household where both parents are the same gender does not mean you will end up gay or lesbian. 

The real issue at play here is making sure the child gets the appropriate amount of male parent and female parent guidance, but neither of these needs necessarily come from a male or female, respectively.  Although to some it may be a surprise, men and women typically raise children differently.  Men tend to be more playful and rougher whereas women tend to be more caring and loving, along with other things.  Both are needed for a child, of either sex, to develop normally, and it could be the case that a woman develops a "male" style of parenting and vis versa.  So, a same sex family can provide both sets of parenting.  Of course with the normal family make up, having both types of guidance comes natural. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 07, 2019, 04:00:53 pm
... Do you plan to deal with via social engineering of your own?  Or what are you saying?...

Yes, my social engineering would involve police patrols arresting escaped fathers and taking them to Vegas for a quick wedding with single moms. Or, if already married, sentenced to house arrest. Problem solved.

Next inane question?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 07, 2019, 04:41:02 pm
James, I understand that there must be at least some good intentions behind social engineering. However, it seems to me that you are more likely to treat symptoms, rather than causes, that way. In the case we are discussing, how pouring more money into schools is going to resolve the underlying issue of single-parenthood? There was the time when treating family as sacred was a matter of culture, regardless whether rich or poor. Even more among the poor, as the family cohesion was often a matter of sheer survival. In other words, it is not being poor that makes you more likely to end up in single parenthood. It is subculture.


You paint a realistic picture.

Money for schools is part of a wider problem and, on its own, will not resolve the failures.

Someone else touched upon discipline, and that is basic. Where there is none there can be no progress. Teachers have a tough job as it is; if much of their time is spent simply trying to keep control of a class then you can imagine not a lot of minutes are left to learning or even, who would have guessed? teaching.

That is pretty much a problem that I think comes from the babying attitude of those who campaigned for abolishing the cane. It worked. I felt one across my ass several times, only once was it deserved. Kids know when they have crossed the line, and at such times, accept it as punishment for their stupidity. You don't go out of your way to get hurt again unless you already have issues. Likewise, those who administer it must be pretty sure why they use it. I never stopped hating the guy who gave me my first, undeserved dose, nor the visiting missionary who reported me. I probably owe much of my dislike for preachers to those two people.

Family is pretty vital for every reason you can imagine. I am fairly sure that wife abuse stems from seeing it at home. Unless you have a strange sexual fantasy, I can think of few reasons for making the person you married suffer. As true, keeping a rotten relationship together "for the children's sake" is just as bad an idea. I've seen what that did to close friends' kids: damaged their ability to form adult relationships with the opposite sex.

In the end, it seems that the more we look at it, the more unlikely it appears that the world will continue to have standard family structures for very much longer. Along with our environment, which is given no choice - we are also mutating into a solitary species that will end up producing to quota, finding sex in the local supermarket emporium, alongside the hairdresser shops. Or do I mean toiletries?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on July 07, 2019, 04:54:32 pm
Yes, my social engineering would involve police patrols arresting escaped fathers and taking them to Vegas for a quick wedding with single moms. Or, if already married, sentenced to house arrest. Problem solved.

Next inane question?

Yeah, that ought to work.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 07, 2019, 04:55:29 pm
... The real issue at play here is making sure the child gets the appropriate amount of male parent and female parent guidance...

As a single father, I am painfully aware of that, and often had to play both roles simultaneously. Last year, I even got flowers for the Mother's Day from my daughter :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 07, 2019, 05:02:37 pm
As a single father, I am painfully aware of that, and often had to play both roles simultaneously. Last year, I even got flowers for the Mother's Day from my daughter :)


You can not accuse her of having no sense of humour!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on July 07, 2019, 06:14:30 pm
Yes, my social engineering would involve police patrols arresting escaped fathers and taking them to Vegas for a quick wedding with single moms. Or, if already married, sentenced to house arrest. Problem solved.

Next inane question?

The main point I wanted to make wrt "social engineering" but completely forgot, was as follows. This goes to a point I've made a few times during policy discussions when costs come up that someone has a problem with, in that unless you take into account what it costs not to do something, you haven't finished your analysis.

It's largely arbitrary what you call social policies, isn't it? Whatever it was that James was talking about that you called "social engineering" was just a public policy. The connotation in using the term "social engineering" is that the government is making some intervention into private life that is doomed to failure, a position with which I happen to have a lot of sympathy. (They don't often do it right and they don't insist on metrics to figure out if what they wanted to do actually worked.) However, by talking this way we miss something. Take for example, universal medical coverage. By not having it, some problems will arise for those who are unemployed or those who are employed by companies with little or benefits. In such a circumstance, if the primary breadwinner falls ill, it can wreak havoc on the family that could span more than a generation depending on the illness severity. That's how the cookie crumbles, of course. But that public policy, to NOT provide universal health care, is in fact "social engineering", we just choose not to call it that. In fact we don't call it anything because it doesn't exist. But not implementing was not an accident of the universe, someone decided to not implement it. It was not implemented as a deliberate policy to screw over poor people's lives, I'm not saying that, but it's a public policy decision that can more or less accomplish the same thing.

Potentially you may end up with a family condemned to poverty for a long time because of a social policy decision to not do something. Condemning a later policy corrective to this, for example, as "social engineering" is an incomplete analysis, imo.

That's all I was getting at. It's easy to dismiss a government intervention to correct some social ill as a misdirected waste of money, but you should also try to figure out if some previous government intervention/omission/policy decision helped create the social ill in the first place.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 07, 2019, 06:34:42 pm
Robert, well put and I see your point.

I am not a scholar of the history of medical coverage in the U.S. or any other country. It just appears to me, without that knowledge, that it is highly unlikely that "someone decided to not implement it."  The original state was no medical coverage at all, for anybody, and then it grew out of the idea of insurance for those who could afford premiums. Given the historic ethos of individualism in this country, I find it hard to believe the idea of the coverage for all even occur to anyone in the beginning, let alone "someone decided to not implement it."

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 07, 2019, 07:07:21 pm
Health insurance in the US was extremely limited until WWII.  During the war years there were price controls of all kinds.  Companies could only provide benefits in lieu of salary increases.  They offered health insurance to employees and that was pretty much how the US ended up down the road of employer provided health insurance.  Seniors usually had no coverage at all until Medicare was enacted in the mid 1960s
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on July 07, 2019, 08:50:30 pm
Robert, well put and I see your point.

I am not a scholar of the history of medical coverage in the U.S. or any other country. It just appears to me, without that knowledge, that it is highly unlikely that "someone decided to not implement it."  The original state was no medical coverage at all, for anybody, and then it grew out of the idea of insurance for those who could afford premiums. Given the historic ethos of individualism in this country, I find it hard to believe the idea of the coverage for all even occur to anyone in the beginning, let alone "someone decided to not implement it."

Yes, I appreciate that. I only used health policy as one example because I couldn't think of another.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 07, 2019, 09:33:10 pm
The main point I wanted to make wrt "social engineering" but completely forgot, was as follows. This goes to a point I've made a few times during policy discussions when costs come up that someone has a problem with, in that unless you take into account what it costs not to do something, you haven't finished your analysis.

It's largely arbitrary what you call social policies, isn't it? Whatever it was that James was talking about that you called "social engineering" was just a public policy. The connotation in using the term "social engineering" is that the government is making some intervention into private life that is doomed to failure, a position with which I happen to have a lot of sympathy. (They don't often do it right and they don't insist on metrics to figure out if what they wanted to do actually worked.) However, by talking this way we miss something. Take for example, universal medical coverage. By not having it, some problems will arise for those who are unemployed or those who are employed by companies with little or benefits. In such a circumstance, if the primary breadwinner falls ill, it can wreak havoc on the family that could span more than a generation depending on the illness severity. That's how the cookie crumbles, of course. But that public policy, to NOT provide universal health care, is in fact "social engineering", we just choose not to call it that. In fact we don't call it anything because it doesn't exist. But not implementing was not an accident of the universe, someone decided to not implement it. It was not implemented as a deliberate policy to screw over poor people's lives, I'm not saying that, but it's a public policy decision that can more or less accomplish the same thing.

Potentially you may end up with a family condemned to poverty for a long time because of a social policy decision to not do something. Condemning a later policy corrective to this, for example, as "social engineering" is an incomplete analysis, imo.

That's all I was getting at. It's easy to dismiss a government intervention to correct some social ill as a misdirected waste of money, but you should also try to figure out if some previous government intervention/omission/policy decision helped create the social ill in the first place.


Americans have always been very generous in their help of the poor and sick.  Last year we spent $1 trillion dollars on it, about 5% of our total GDP.
"In FY 2018 total US government spending on welfare — federal, state, and local — was “guesstimated” to be $1,047 billion, including $604 billion for Medicaid, and $443 billion in other welfare."

Here's a complete historical chart showing welfare, rental housing subsidies, unemployment benefits, and healthcare.  There's also food subsidies and other government payments.  None of this included charity which is separate but quite substantial.  It's unfortunate there are poor.  But I don't think any measures we do will completely eradicate it.  Many programs like welfare was proven to actually encourage poverty. Recipients opted to stay-at-home for the welfare check rather than work for marginally higher earnings.  Welfare payments for children of single-parent families encouraged fathers to stay away so the mother's could continue to get the welfare checks.  So government winds up causing family disintegration and poverty due to their programs.  Government always has a knack for making things worse even though their heart might be in the right place.  Unfortunately, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending (https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on July 08, 2019, 01:15:33 am
"just having a situation where you can interact with your kids can have lifelong impact" is exactly the reason why same-gender parenting is a bum idea: you set an example of normality that is anything but. Can anyone not expect that to impact the kids along with all the other stuff that goes down in life?

If consenting adults is considered okay, so be it. But don't let society put innocent young minds into those same situations. It's a madness; kids experiment too much as it is; keeping yourself safe in a single-gender boarding school - of either gender; they both bring problems - is something real, as pretty anyone that I know who has been to one of these quasi semi-open prisons will attest. Prisons of the real variety are known for rape and all the rest of it. Nobody needs to have that stuff in their face as babes in arms and growing up.

Aah Rob - same old homophobic bullshit. Luckily, unlike the other Jeremy, I'm not obliged to read your crap.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 08, 2019, 04:44:13 am
Aah Rob - same old homophobic bullshit. Luckily, unlike the other Jeremy, I'm not obliged to read your crap.

But you just did!

Not liking the message is not the same as disproving the validity. Have you spent time in a boarding schol? I spent too many years in one. I know women who had the same delightful joy. Fortunately, the prison bit I have not experienced.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 08, 2019, 11:15:20 am
"just having a situation where you can interact with your kids can have lifelong impact" is exactly the reason why same-gender parenting is a bum idea: you set an example of normality that is anything but...

You are so wrong, Rob!

Here is The Father Of The Year 2019 nominee:
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 08, 2019, 12:39:55 pm
Quote
Electoral map bias may worsen as U.S. gerrymandering battle shifts to states

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that federal judges have no power to police partisan gerrymandering - the practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries for political gain - likely will embolden politicians to pursue more extreme efforts free from the fear of judicial interference, experts said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gerrymandering/electoral-map-bias-may-worsen-as-u-s-gerrymandering-battle-shifts-to-states-idUSKCN1TU0G0

And indeed:

Quote
Department of Justice shakes up team handling 2020 census-related cases

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new team of Civil Division lawyers at the Department of Justice will take over handling 2020 census-related cases, a spokeswoman for the agency said on Sunday, a shake-up that came as President Donald Trump pushes to include a contentious citizenship question in the decennial population survey.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-census/department-of-justice-shakes-up-team-handling-2020-census-related-cases-idUSKCN1U301D

One wonders, why do Americans even allow this kind of rigging of the political process? I can't believe they are so indifferent about what will have serious consequences in allotting budgets for things like schooling and other matters that shape the fabric of their own society.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on July 08, 2019, 12:46:35 pm
One wonders, why do Americans even allow this kind of rigging of the political process? I can't believe they are so indifferent about what will have serious consequences in allotting budgets for things like schooling and other matters that shape the fabric of their own society.
Americian's are not indifferent to it. Hence the lawsuits.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on July 08, 2019, 12:52:16 pm
The conventional responses to issues like that are : "Hey!  It's a free country!  and "Nothing we did was illegal".
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 08, 2019, 12:52:52 pm
Americian's are not indifferent to it. Hence the lawsuits.

I don't think that average Americans are the ones engaging in Lawsuits.
Why no protests or demonstrations? Or are there, just not receiving coverage by the media?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 08, 2019, 12:55:30 pm
... Why no protests or demonstrations? Or are there, just not receiving coverage by the media?

 ;D ;D ;D

Oh, my, Bart! You exceeded my expectations.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 08, 2019, 01:04:51 pm
The conventional responses to issues like that are : "Hey!  It's a free country!  and "Nothing we did was illegal".

Lots of things that are legal are unwanted.

Quote
US supreme court blocks 2020 census citizenship question – for now

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/27/census-citizenship-ruling-supreme-court-trump-question-verdict-2020

In a 5-4 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said that it would not be unconstitutional for the Trump administration to include a citizenship question on the census. Pro-democracy advocates have warned that doing so would suppress participation among immigrant-aligned population and disenfranchise Democratic-leaning voters.

But the high court said that in this case, the stated reason by the commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, for including the citizenship question – to obtain better data to enforce the Voting Rights Act, the civil rights-era legislation against voter discrimination – was not credible.

In fact, experts have said that it will negatively affect the quality of the census data, which is especially relevant when existing records already provide the data. So apparently the stated reasons for adding this question are not the real reasons. Who is trying to fool who? And who is falling for it?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 08, 2019, 01:05:31 pm
;D ;D ;D

Oh, my, Bart! You exceeded my expectations.

Glad to oblige.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 08, 2019, 01:17:33 pm
Yes, pretty soon we will ban the American flag and anthem for disenfranchising illegal-immigrant aligned and Democratic-leaning voters.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on July 08, 2019, 01:20:22 pm
Why no protests or demonstrations? Or are there, just not receiving coverage by the media?
Because it doesn't affect every district, it has been going on for two hundred years, and is largely self correcting.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 08, 2019, 01:22:30 pm
Yes, pretty soon we will ban the American flag and anthem for disenfranchising illegal-immigrant aligned and Democratic-leaning voters.

In that case, if I were you (shudder, the thought),  I'd vote for a different government.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 08, 2019, 02:01:08 pm
Because it doesn't affect every district, it has been going on for two hundred years, and is largely self correcting.

Amen!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 08, 2019, 02:23:33 pm
Bart, the Supreme Court decided in the first situation that the states could handle the redistricting. The states have their own Supreme Court that could decide on the legality of it.  Inhe second the Supreme Court voted against Trump about the citizenship question. So Americans are deciding in these cases what we should do. I don't see what
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 08, 2019, 02:24:51 pm
I don't see what your concern is about.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 08, 2019, 02:37:06 pm
I don't see what your concern is about.

The 10-year census has a significant impact on future budget allocations. Anything that reduces the quality of the Census will lead to under-budgeting things that affect large groups of people.

It's hard to understand that people are not concerned, unless the motives are intentionally destructive.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 08, 2019, 02:40:05 pm
... It's hard to understand that people are not concerned, unless the motives are intentionally destructive...

I am absolutely concerned! It boggles my mind that the US can not ask its citizens and legal residents whether they are citizens.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on July 08, 2019, 02:41:47 pm
It's hard to understand that people are not concerned, unless the motives are intentionally destructive.
People are concerned, but there are mechanisms in place to address the issue (the courts), and they seem to be working. No need for riots in the streets.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on July 08, 2019, 02:46:18 pm
I am absolutely concerned! It boggles my mind that the US can not ask its citizens and legal residents whether they are citizens.

That pesky 4th Amendment is truly problematic, eh? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 08, 2019, 02:50:20 pm
That pesky 4th Amendment is truly problematic, eh? 

You equal a census question (which is confidential anyway) with searches and seizures!?

In any case, the SCOTUS has already determined that asking the question is not unconstitutional. So your concern is a moot point.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 08, 2019, 02:52:59 pm
That pesky 4th Amendment is truly problematic, eh?

Which is why the response will be lower, and under-budgeting will be the result. Self-destructive, stupid.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 08, 2019, 02:57:28 pm
Which is why the response will be lower, and under-budgeting will be the result. Self-destructive, stupid.

Refusing to answer would be self-destructive and stupid, but well deserved.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 08, 2019, 03:02:22 pm
People are concerned, but there are mechanisms in place to address the issue (the courts), and they seem to be working. No need for riots in the streets.

Not so sure that the mechanisms are working:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/07/kris-kobach-white-house-oversight-committee-1358073

Explanation of some of the backgrounds of the issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgXOu59l5aA

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on July 08, 2019, 03:22:09 pm
Not so sure that the mechanisms are working:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/07/kris-kobach-white-house-oversight-committee-1358073
Committees in Congress will not determine if a citizenship question is asked in the census. The courts will.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on July 08, 2019, 03:28:25 pm
You equal a census question (which is confidential anyway) with searches and seizures!?

In any case, the SCOTUS has already determined that asking the question is not unconstitutional. So your concern is a moot point.

I find the government asking if you are doing something illegal without cause, in a way that is illegal to refuse to answer, to be problematic.  I suspect you would too if you weren't in favor of the outcome.  As for the USSC, this court has so far shown an alarming allowance for executive power, and a curious propensity to "instruct" on how to "solve" the court's concerns. I'll be curious to see if that's a political choice or a philosophical one.  Either way, it'll be clear next time there's a (D) executive.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 08, 2019, 03:31:19 pm
Committees in Congress will not determine if a citizenship question is asked in the census. The courts will.

I'm not sure that the operation will receive the funding to be executed unless there is a legal necessity to change the Census. Yet explanations for the need to add the question are lacking. Doesn't the constitution demand that everyone is counted, not just citizens? Which kinda makes sense, because everyone is going to make use of utilities, roads, etc., not just citizens.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 08, 2019, 03:42:02 pm
Refusing to answer would be self-destructive and stupid, but well deserved.
Illegals won't answer the door when the census person comes a-knocking.  The last thing they want is to talk to a government official about anything. So it really doesn;t matter if the question is on the form.  If the get a form in their mailbox, it will be thrown out in the trash.

Many legals including citizens won't answer either because they don't want to be bothered. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 08, 2019, 03:54:20 pm
I'm not sure that the operation will receive the funding to be executed unless there is a legal necessity to change the Census. Yet explanations for the need to add the question are lacking. Doesn't the constitution demand that everyone is counted, not just citizens? Which kinda makes sense, because everyone is going to make use of utilities, roads, etc., not just citizens.

Cheers,
Bart
CORRECT POST
But not everyone can vote.  Nor do illegals receive many benefits like Social Security.   It's reasonable to know how many citizens are actually in each district who will vote and could receive these benefits.  The census also finds out the ages of the people.  This is information that is important for determining government actions in many areas.  Census information is used by local government as well as business to plan development, zoning, government services, election districts, old-age homes, hospital needs, etc.  If there are people there who aren't citizens, it would be nice to know the exact quantity, not just how many people of all kinds are there.  Otherwise the result will be distorted and have substantial effect on government and private planning. 

SCOTUS ruled that the question, in itself, is not unconstitutional.  Unfortunately, the administration gave stupid reasons for including  it that smacked of bias. So SCOTUS ruled that they couldn't include it.  If Trump uses my previous paragraph and submits it to SCOTUS, it would probably be approved as a reasonable need.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 08, 2019, 03:55:30 pm
You are so wrong, Rob!

Here is The Father Of The Year 2019 nominee:

Oh! Just another normal father's convention after all; one day I shall get this right,

Sorry for being off key.

:-)

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 08, 2019, 04:20:53 pm
There are a number of states that already use independent commissions that draw both Congressional and state legislative district boundaries.  In these states there is no Gerrymandering.  The biggest of these is California which has the most districts.  States with one or two Congressional districts of which there are a number are irrelevant for this discussion.  Gerrymandering can still be challenged in state courts and the districts overturned which is what happened to the weirdly drawn Pennsylvania districts.  The Supreme Court decision has no impact at all on these types of decisions.  There will be increasing efforts at the state level to move towards independent redistricting.  For states that allow citizen initiatives on the ballot this can be accomplished by a direct vote but not every state allows this.

The most egregious example of Gerrymandering is in North Carolina where every single one of the 13 districts is poorly drawn.  Their state legislative districts are also drawn to protect the Republican party in a state that is about 50/50 in terms of registration.  North Carolina does not permit citizen initiatives.  this is one of the principal reasons why this particular case has been challenged in Federal Court as there really is not a good remedy to fix this situation.

With respect to the census question about citizenship there are a couple of points.  One is not compelled to answer the question.  The government has no ability to penalize one if I elect not to answer.  One might envision a groundswell of activism that would lead to a massive undercounting of citizens in the US.  the second an perhaps more important point is that both Blue and Red states will be impacted here.  there are likely many undocumented people in states such as Texas, Arizona, and Florida, all of which have predominantly Republican congressmen and voted for Trump in the last election.  It's entirely possible that an undercount would lead to the potential loss of a Congressional seat or two.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 08, 2019, 04:41:47 pm
I find the government asking if you are doing something illegal..

That is not what are they asking. They’re asking if you are a citizen. A “no” answer is not admitting illegality, because you would answer “no” if you are a legal resident, on a visa or green card. Responses are confidential anyway.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on July 08, 2019, 04:45:22 pm
That is not what are they asking. They’re asking if you are a citizen. A “no” answer is not admitting illegality, because you would answer “no” if you are a legal resident, on a visa or green card. Responses are confidential anyway.
And of course, we need that information for enforcing the Voting Rights Act. Nah, I just made that up. Oh... wait.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 08, 2019, 05:19:43 pm
An interesting situation is developing in NYS and with firebrand Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC).  Apparently, NYS is losing residents so they will lose one election district in the next census.  AOC isn;t particularly liked by her fellow Democrats.  So they might re-draw her district eliminating her.  So gerrymandering isn't just between parties but is also used within the same party.  Isn't politics nice? 
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/09/ocasio-cortez-district-redistricting-2020/
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on July 08, 2019, 07:44:31 pm
That is not what are they asking. They’re asking if you are a citizen. A “no” answer is not admitting illegality, because you would answer “no” if you are a legal resident, on a visa or green card. Responses are confidential anyway.

So you contend that the question is in no way politically motivated?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 08, 2019, 08:01:09 pm
So you contend that the question is in no way politically motivated?

I do not give a damn about motivation. Seems like a perfectly legitimate and useful question to ask. It used to be a part of the census in the past, and certainly for much less political reasons.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on July 08, 2019, 08:15:18 pm
I do not give a damn about motivation. Seems like a perfectly legitimate and useful question to ask. It used to be a part of the census in the past, and certainly for much less political reasons.

Maybe. Maybe not.  It would be easier enough to figure out how legitimate if, for example, other legitimate and useful questions (https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/justices-block-ross-deposition-in-census-dispute/) were allowed to be posed.  Then again, it's hard to depose a dead man. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/census-citizenship-question-hofeller.html)


Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on July 08, 2019, 09:08:08 pm
Yes, pretty soon we will ban the American flag and anthem for disenfranchising illegal-immigrant aligned and Democratic-leaning voters.

Hyperbole is for you unbecoming.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on July 08, 2019, 09:11:30 pm
Responses are confidential anyway.

HA!  And this from a guy from Eastern Europe.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 08, 2019, 09:18:54 pm
HA!  And this from a guy from Eastern Europe.

? ? ?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on July 08, 2019, 09:26:55 pm
? ? ?

I think, Peter insinuated that when a government tells you that the conversation between them and you is confidential, it may be not so.
However, he is wrong about the Eastern governments. Mentioning any confidentiality there would be a dead giveaway that more discussions are coming.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 08, 2019, 09:29:19 pm
Hyperbole is for you unbecoming.

It has already started:

https://www.aalrr.com/EdLawConnectBlog/federal-appellate-court-upholds-california-high-schools-ban-on-american-flag-shirts-on-cinco-de-mayo

https://aclu-co.org/aclu-of-colorado-statement-on-schools-banning-personal-displays-of-flags/

American flag ban on campus draws lawmakers' rebuke (https://www.latimes.com/83022037-157.html)

https://time.com/4472433/american-flag-ban-south-carolina/

etc.
etc.
etc.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 08, 2019, 10:00:09 pm
I think, Peter insinuated that when a government tells you that the conversation between them and you is confidential, it may be not so...

Quote
... the Census Bureau’s absolute commitment to confidentiality.

This commitment begins in law. The Census Law, Title 13 of the U.S. Code, is straightforward and has strong protection. Title 13 requires that responses to Census Bureau surveys and censuses be kept confidential and used for statistical purposes only. The Census Bureau publishes only aggregated statistics that do not reveal information about particular individuals, households or businesses. All staff working with confidential information at the Census Bureau take a lifetime oath to protect the privacy and confidentiality of respondent information. Unlawful disclosure is a federal crime punishable by a $250,000 fine or five years in prison, or both.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 08, 2019, 10:22:53 pm
Census information is used by government , business, and others for many reasons.  So the information is gathers is important for many reasons.  The first link shows the informations spreadsheet for a typical city - I picked Atlanta Georgia.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk (https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk)

From the first link is another link for the 2010 census. The data is pretty specific although no references to citizenship that I noticed.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF (https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF)

There are links on the first sheet to estimate for 5 year period.  Here's on for American Community Survey 5 year estimates.  It has not only ethic and race but at the bottom shows voting citizenship.  I don;t know how the data was developed.  But it seems that rather than estimating, we should actually do the count of citizenship.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF (https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 08, 2019, 10:24:14 pm
The second and third links are messed up.  Go to the first link and then find the other links on that web page.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 08, 2019, 10:34:24 pm
Below picture is the chart for PLACE OF BIRTH BY NATIVITY AND CITIZENSHIP STATUS.  Note it breaks out citizenship by citizens, naturalized, and not a citizen.  If this information was important before 5 years ago, why wouldn't it be important for 2020?  The administration should just copied this chart and give it to SCOTUS.  No wonder Trump fired the lawyers handling this.  They don't know how to present a case. 


Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 08, 2019, 10:38:46 pm
This photo chart deals with estimates.  The argument for 2020 should have been that actually counting are the best.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on July 08, 2019, 11:38:26 pm
It has already started:
https://www.aalrr.com/EdLawConnectBlog/federal-appellate-court-upholds-california-high-schools-ban-on-american-flag-shirts-on-cinco-de-mayo
https://aclu-co.org/aclu-of-colorado-statement-on-schools-banning-personal-displays-of-flags/
American flag ban on campus draws lawmakers' rebuke (https://www.latimes.com/83022037-157.html)
https://time.com/4472433/american-flag-ban-south-carolina/

etc.
etc.
etc.


I didn't read all of each of the articles, but they had me at

Quote
Though certainly controversial, the unanimous decision of the three-judge panel, which affirmed the same conclusion reached by a federal trial court, was based on a unique set of circumstances.

Referencing that report, it seems like it might have been a darn good idea, given that "unique set of circumstances"

The first item refers to a singular event nearly twenty years ago.

The ALCU statement you referenced is sensible and agreeable, save those "unique set of circumstances"


The LA times item appears to be behind a paywall.

The rest of it, I didn't bother with, especially the specious "etc. etc. etc" component.

This argument appears to be further hyperbole since I frequently see the American flag everywhere in my travels across your nation.  In fact, I frequently see it in my travels across MY nation.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 09, 2019, 12:16:31 am

I didn't read all of each of the articles, but they had me at ...

Don’t be ridiculous. Every single link points to a case where the American flag was banned. It is no coincidence that the Commie 9th Circuit Court thinks there are “special circumstances” that justify it. There should be no circumstances in which the flag should be banned. Period. Those who are “intimidated” by it came to the country the flag represents and are now “intimidated” by it!? What!? The school sends boys with the flag home, instead those “intimidated.” What the hell is wrong with a country where its own flag is banned!?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 09, 2019, 07:18:53 am
This photo chart deals with estimates.  The argument for 2020 should have been that actually counting are the best.

That's part of the rub, the argumentation/justification was flawed from the beginning.

1. Experts say that adding a Citizenship question will negatively impact the quality of the Census. The question is also unnecessary, because better citizenship data is already available from other government sources. So it would make sense to not add it.

2. Apparently it has not been a question on all Census forms for 230 years. Sometimes it has been on, or not, on some Census forms but not all. A change to add it on all forms is possible, but only after justification why the forms must be altered. It's a costly operation, so not wasting money can be a good reason to leave things as they are.

3. The administration seems to have lied to Congres, with regards to who asked for adding the question, and when. In addition, questions about it have not been fully answered while protocol requires the government to do so. There has been an overall unwillingness to justify the change. Why? Why the stonewalling? What's there to hide? Why suddenly make a rush job out of it?

4. Evidence has surfaced that the real reason is that it would positively influence the later redrawing of districts in favor of the Republican party. It would negatively affect non-white voter participation. So it is clearly a partisan tactical move to include the question.

So, it creates lower quality data (that will lead to significantly under-budgeting of utilities, infrastructure, Hospitals, Schools, etc.), and it discriminates against people of color.

It only makes sense for partisan reasons, and has a whole lot of other serious negative effects.
So, why would anyone want to do such a stupid thing?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 09, 2019, 07:36:05 am
That's part of the rub, the argumentation/justification was flawed from the beginning.

1. [...] The question is also unnecessary, because better citizenship data is already available from other government sources.

The Census Bureau itself says (https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/2020/operations/planned-questions-2020-acs.pdf):
Quote
Since 2005, in order to provide communities, businesses, and the public with the detailed long-form information more frequently, these data have been collected monthly (and released annually) through the American Community Survey (ACS).1This innovation enabled the 2010 Census to be a “short-form-only” census. Decoupling the collection of short- and long-form data allowed the U.S. Census Bureau to focus decennial census efforts on the constitutional requirements to produce a count of the resident population, while employing technology in both collections to improve efficiencies, improve accuracy, and reduce costs. The result has been the dissemination of more current and detailed information than has ever been available

So, adding the question to the census is a costly change for no technical reason (to fill in non-existing blindspots). There is already more up-to-date and more accurate data available.

Quote
The result has been the dissemination of more current and detailed information than has ever been available

And all that without adding a citizenship question.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 09, 2019, 09:47:51 am
Quote
Quote from: Bart_van_der_Wolf on Today at 07:18:53 am
That's part of the rub, the argumentation/justification was flawed from the beginning.

1. [...] The question is also unnecessary, because better citizenship data is already available from other government sources.

The Census Bureau itself says (https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/2020/operations/planned-questions-2020-acs.pdf (https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/2020/operations/planned-questions-2020-acs.pdf)):

Quote
Since 2005, in order to provide communities, businesses, and the public with the detailed long-form information more frequently, these data have been collected monthly (and released annually) through the American Community Survey (ACS).1This innovation enabled the 2010 Census to be a “short-form-only” census. Decoupling the collection of short- and long-form data allowed the U.S. Census Bureau to focus decennial census efforts on the constitutional requirements to produce a count of the resident population, while employing technology in both collections to improve efficiencies, improve accuracy, and reduce costs. The result has been the dissemination of more current and detailed information than has ever been available

So, adding the question to the census is a costly change for no technical reason (to fill in non-existing blindspots). There is already more up-to-date and more accurate data available.


Quote
The result has been the dissemination of more current and detailed information than has ever been available
And all that without adding a citizenship question.

Cheers,
Bart
[size=78%] [/size]



Your quote and my photo of the chart show that the Census bureau is collecting citizenship information during the unofficial non-census years.   So they're already asking the question. All that Trump is asking is to add it to the  census of 2020 so they can get an accurate count for the official census. It makes no sense to do estimates during the off years and then don't do an official count of citizenship for the actual 10 year census year. WHile there may be political overtones in the current administration, the census bureau felt the citizenship question was important enough to be asked long before Trump became president. 

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 09, 2019, 10:04:42 am
Don’t be ridiculous. Every single link points to a case where the American flag was banned. It is no coincidence that the Commie 9th Circuit Court thinks there are “special circumstances” that justify it. There should be no circumstances in which the flag should be banned. Period. Those who are “intimidated” by it came to the country the flag represents and are now “intimidated” by it!? What!? The school sends boys with the flag home, instead those “intimidated.” What the hell is wrong with a country where its own flag is banned!?

Yes; I'm always surprised that people fly flags at home, but if they want to, why not? It's a pity that Dixie is a graphically prettier flag than the stars and stripes: I bought a Dixie towel on a trip to Florida as a prop; they used the shot in the cal and nobody seemed upset. Brits abroad use the Union Jack for swimsuits; even ladies bags made use of it during the 60s and the Empire never rumbled back.

Rather than ban flags, we seem to be more given to banning Christian symbols which, really, are often no more than jewellery to the wearers. I don't really get the security risks behind a little crucifux on a golden chain around a lady's neck. I certainly do get the security risk behind anyone wearing head-to-toe disguise on the street, or on a boat, a 'plane or train!

I worry, too, about those who today want to destroy statues erected to the honour of our past heroes, all because of political correctness; so a rewrite of history is going to make the future a more secure and honest place? Really? As in telling today's lie in order to promote tomorrow's lack of knowledge of the truth of who we were?

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 09, 2019, 10:13:43 am
Your quote and my photo of the chart show that the Census bureau is collecting citizenship information during the unofficial non-census years.   So they're already asking the question. All that Trump is asking is to add it to the  census of 2020 so they can get an accurate count for the official census.

No, there is no need to add it to the census, because the info is already known, and is updated annually instead of once per decade. It does cost a lot of money to add it to the Census, and it's a waste of effort, and it will reduce the accuracy of the other Census data. So, there is no need to add it, in fact it's detrimental.

The Census data (not the Citizenship data) is used for redistricting, so Citizenship is also useless for that purpose. The Census counts ALL persons, regardless of their Citizenship. That's because ALL persons make use of utilities, roads, hospitals etc. etc., for which budget needs to be allocated.

Quote
WHile there may be political overtones in the current administration, the census bureau felt the citizenship question was important enough to be asked long before Trump became president.

No, it's irrelevant data (and already known for other purposes), and not required by the constitution.

Adding it will reduce the accuracy of the Census.

The only reason is a political one, Census be damned.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 09, 2019, 10:18:42 am
Yes; I'm always surprised that people fly flags at home, but if they want to, why not? It's a pity that Dixie is a graphically prettier flag than the stars and stripes: I bought a Dixie towel on a trip to Florida as a prop; they used the shot in the cal and nobody seemed upset. Brits abroad use the Union Jack for swimsuits; even ladies bags made use of it during the 60s and the Empire never rumbled back.

Rather than ban flags, we seem to be more given to banning Christian symbols which, really, are often no more than jewellery to the wearers. I don't really get the security risks behind a little crucifux on a golden chain around a lady's neck. I certainly do get the security risk behind anyone wearing head-to-toe disguise on the street, or on a boat, a 'plane or train!

I worry, too, about those who today want to destroy statues erected to the honour of our past heroes, all because of political correctness; so a rewrite of history is going to make the future a more secure and honest place? Really? As in telling today's lie in order to promote tomorrow's lack of knowledge of the truth of who we were?

Rob

Getting back to photography and art, the Confederate rebel flag has a more balanced image while the American flag is more edgy due to its imbalance.  Believe it or not, here in New Jersey,  which was a northern state during the CIvil War, there are loads of rednecks who fly the rebel flag on the back to their pickup trucks zipping around the roads and freeways here.  I don't think they really know what the War was about just rebelling for the sake of it. 

Soon, we'll be ripping down statues of General and first President George Washington who was a slave owner.  I visited his home now a museum in Mount Vernon Virginia.  They still have the slave quarters standing.  Well, we'll have to burn down Mt. Vernon too.  I don't know if there any statues of King George III anywheres in America.  But since he's not an American, his statues will remain safe.  In any case, half of Americans are in love with the British royalty.  Maybe that's the plan.  Get rid of our heroes and bring back your royals.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 09, 2019, 10:19:05 am
...1. Experts say that adding a Citizenship question will negatively impact the quality of the Census...

Haha ... you mean “experts” = Democrats?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 09, 2019, 10:23:05 am
Yes; I'm always surprised that people fly flags at home, but if they want to, why not? It's a pity that Dixie is a graphically prettier flag than the stars and stripes: I bought a Dixie towel on a trip to Florida as a prop; they used the shot in the cal and nobody seemed upset. Brits abroad use the Union Jack for swimsuits; even ladies bags made use of it during the 60s and the Empire never rumbled back.

Rather than ban flags, we seem to be more given to banning Christian symbols which, really, are often no more than jewellery to the wearers. I don't really get the security risks behind a little crucifux on a golden chain around a lady's neck. I certainly do get the security risk behind anyone wearing head-to-toe disguise on the street, or on a boat, a 'plane or train!

I worry, too, about those who today want to destroy statues erected to the honour of our past heroes, all because of political correctness; so a rewrite of history is going to make the future a more secure and honest place? Really? As in telling today's lie in order to promote tomorrow's lack of knowledge of the truth of who we were?

Rob

Well said, Rob. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/historical-literacy-lacking-america-ignorance-political-polarization/
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 09, 2019, 10:24:19 am
Haha ... you mean “experts” = Democrats?

You mean there are no Republican Statisticians in the Census Bureau? I find that hard to believe.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 09, 2019, 10:26:01 am
You mean there are no Republican Statisticians? I find that hard to believe.

Cheers,
Bart

There are Republican statisticians, Bart, but they work with real results rather than making stuff up.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 09, 2019, 10:35:19 am
No, there is no need to add it to the census, because the info is already known, and is updated annually instead of once per decade. It does cost a lot of money to add it to the Census, and it's a waste of effort, and it will reduce the accuracy of the other Census data. So, there is no need to add it, in fact it's detrimental.

The Census data (not the Citizenship data) is used for redistricting, so Citizenship is also useless for that purpose. The Census counts ALL persons, regardless of their Citizenship. That's because ALL persons make use of utilities, roads, hospitals etc. etc., for which budget needs to be allocated.

No, it's irrelevant data (and already known for other purposes), and not required by the constitution.

Adding it will reduce the accuracy of the Census.

The only reason is a political one, Census be damned.

Cheers,
Bart

If it's important to ask in all the unofficial off years, than it should be asked in the official on year.  Additionally, in the 2020 census, they will ask questions about what your race is, whether the couple living together is same sex, and other things that also have no bearing on the count for Constitutional reasons and election districts.  It seems a citizenship question has more bearing than these other questions which frankly seem a lot more intrusive.     Actually I'm surprised the gay community isn't objecting to the same sex question.  That seems political too.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 09, 2019, 10:42:57 am
No, there is no need to add it to the census, because the info is already known, and is updated annually instead of once per decade. It does cost a lot of money to add it to the Census, and it's a waste of effort, and it will reduce the accuracy of the other Census data. So, there is no need to add it, in fact it's detrimental.

The Census data (not the Citizenship data) is used for redistricting, so Citizenship is also useless for that purpose. The Census counts ALL persons, regardless of their Citizenship. That's because ALL persons make use of utilities, roads, hospitals etc. etc., for which budget needs to be allocated.

No, it's irrelevant data (and already known for other purposes), and not required by the constitution.

Adding it will reduce the accuracy of the Census.

The only reason is a political one, Census be damned.

Cheers,
Bart

PS, The Census bureau acknowledges in their off-year counts were never official tested.  They're estimates. They can only "prove" their estimates with an official count which would have to be done in the ten-year census count of 2020. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 09, 2019, 10:46:06 am
Rep. AOC Questions Secretary Wilbur Ross: 'Why Are We Violating The Law?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clHfmYTrOVY

The stonewalling is amazing. WTF, "she's out of time". 

The above clip is only a part of the full 6.5 hours hearing of Secretary Wilbur Ross by the House Oversight Committee.
For those with a strong stomach, here is a longer version:
https://youtu.be/0EncbVI7srU?t=1461
It starts by wasting time that could have been used for questions, so one might as well start some an hour and 28 minutes into the hearing:
https://youtu.be/0EncbVI7srU?t=5311

Cheers,
Bart

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on July 09, 2019, 10:53:22 am
Rep. AOC Questions Secretary Wilbur Ross: 'Why Are We Violating The Law?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clHfmYTrOVY


She (AOC) wears a heavy makeup for a young woman.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on July 09, 2019, 11:04:12 am
This photo chart deals with estimates.  The argument for 2020 should have been that actually counting are the best.
Except that the census isn't actual counting either. The census asks some people questions and extrapolates. If the question is so important and there are good reasons for asking it, why did they lie about why they wanted to include it, and lie about the timetable for printing the forms?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 09, 2019, 11:33:05 am
Except that the census isn't actual counting either. The census asks some people questions and extrapolates. If the question is so important and there are good reasons for asking it, why did they lie about why they wanted to include it, and lie about the timetable for printing the forms?
Because the lawyers are a bunch of morons.  That's why Trump fired them.  I've had bad lawyers that I had to fire too.  They should have presented the rationale to take an actual count to prove the estimates they get in off years.  They also should have added that the information is important enough otherwise the questions wouldn't have been included in previous years long before Trump became president. After all, SCOTUS admitted the question was constitutional.  It was just that their rationale was bogus because they tried to tie it to the Voting Rights Act and other BS and were caught with their pants down.  Dummies! 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on July 09, 2019, 11:51:28 am
Because the lawyers are a bunch of morons.  That's why Trump fired them.  I've had bad lawyers that I had to fire too.  They should have presented the rationale to take an actual count to prove the estimates they get in off years.  They also should have added that the information is important enough otherwise the questions wouldn't have been included in previous years long before Trump became president. After all, SCOTUS admitted the question was constitutional.  It was just that their rationale was bogus because they tried to tie it to the Voting Rights Act and other BS and were caught with their pants down.  Dummies!

Alan, the attorneys in question were "fired" because they don't want to/have refused to go in front of a federal judge of the USSC and spin obvious lies that are contradicted by their previous DIFFERENT lies and fairly clear evidence that the whole process if founded on the goal of assisting Republican representation, whatever other rational there might be.  (See Ban, Muslim)  That's generally considered bad for a government attorney's career, y'know?

How many times have we seen people in Trump's orbit say one thing, only to be directly contradicted by Trump hours or days later?  What do you suppose happens when the statement that is later contradicted is given by an attorney as a factual representation in front of a federal judge?  You think the judge is just like, "hey, ok - so that testimony was totally made up?  Cool.  Let's proceed."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 09, 2019, 11:58:47 am
There's is nothing in my rationale that would have been lies.  They were dummies for not using it in the first place.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on July 09, 2019, 12:02:06 pm
There's is nothing in my rationale that would have been lies.  They were dummies for not using it in the first place.

Sure, but that would have been the normal way to do it.  Come up with a political goal, create a rationale, and stick by it to the bitter end, even though it *just happens* to benefit Republicans in terms of representation.  After all, that's just a happy circumstance, right?  (Dems do this too, obviously.)

But these guys, nah, they can't manage that because the CinC can't keep his Twitter-hole shut, and no one want to give sworn testimony in front of a judge that their boss is going to blow out of the water the next day.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 09, 2019, 12:13:58 pm
Rep. AOC Questions Secretary Wilbur Ross: 'Why Are We Violating The Law?'

Just goes to prove her stupidity*. It is a loaded question, i.e., one with the presumption of guilt.

* or 'hood street smarts, at the level of Yo Momma jokes
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 09, 2019, 12:24:37 pm
Just goes to prove her stupidity*. It is a loaded question, i.e., one with the presumption of guilt.

The judges have already determined that Secr. Ross has lied to Congress. That's passed the point of presumption, it is guilt.
So it's more a statement of fact than a presumption.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 09, 2019, 12:36:59 pm
There's is nothing in my rationale that would have been lies.  They were dummies for not using it in the first place.
You are confusing the lawyers for the Dept of Justice who refused to lie about what they were doing with those from the Department of Commerce who came up with the original proposal.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 09, 2019, 12:53:59 pm
The judges have already determined that Secr. Ross has lied to Congress. That's passed the point of presumption, it is guilt.
So it's more a statement of fact than a presumption.

Again, it is a sheer stupidity. If he violated the law, the law would have dealt with him. It is utterly irrelevant to ask "why did you do it," except for melodramatic purposes, which she is good at, and pandering to her idiotic base.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on July 09, 2019, 12:57:48 pm
Again, it is a sheer stupidity. If he violated the law, the law would have dealt with him.
It is unlikely that Trump's DOJ is going to indict Trump's Secretary of Commerce for lying to Congress about the census question. They are in on it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 09, 2019, 01:01:09 pm
Sure, but that would have been the normal way to do it.  Come up with a political goal, create a rationale, and stick by it to the bitter end, even though it *just happens* to benefit Republicans in terms of representation.  After all, that's just a happy circumstance, right?  (Dems do this too, obviously.)

But these guys, nah, they can't manage that because the CinC can't keep his Twitter-hole shut, and no one want to give sworn testimony in front of a judge that their boss is going to blow out of the water the next day.
I'm glad we agree it's just politics. You think the dummies would have learned from the Muslim ban.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 09, 2019, 01:03:33 pm
It is unlikely Trump's DOJ is going to indict Trumps Secretary of Commerce for lying about the census question.

Right. That is why we have no gazillion court cases against Trump at the moment.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 09, 2019, 02:59:07 pm
Just goes to prove her stupidity*. It is a loaded question, i.e., one with the presumption of guilt.

* or 'hood street smarts, at the level of Yo Momma jokes
When did you stop beating your wife?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 09, 2019, 03:01:43 pm
I'm shocked, simply shocked , that politicians would do things for political reasons.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on July 09, 2019, 03:13:00 pm
I've been following the argument here over the Supreme Court's decision regarding the inclusion of citizenship question, but I've been reluctant to weigh in because, frankly, the confusion is so great I didn't know where to start.

First of all, what happened in the case that reached the Supreme Court is that a number of individual states. counties, and cities brought a lawsuit in a federal district court in New York (i.e., a federal trial court), asserting that their populations would be undercounted if a citizenship question was included in the census because that would deter certain respondents from completing the census questionnaires.  They claimed the Commerce Department had violated a statute, the Administrative Procedure Act, which sets forth rules for how federal agencies are to apply the discretion granted to them by Congress pursuant to other, substantive (i.e., as opposed to procedural) statutes.

A "bench" trial was held (i.e., at the request of all parties, the judge rather than a jury acted as the fact-finder), after which the judge determined that the rationale offered by the Commerce Department was inadequate to meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.  The trial judge ordered the Commerce Department to provide whatever additional evidence was available in the Department's administrative record to demonstrate that it had in fact met the statutory requirements leading to the decision to include the citizenship question.

In addition, the judge approved a request by the plaintiffs for additional fact-finding beyond the Department's administrative record because the plaintiffs had demonstrated that they might be able to produce credible evidence that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross had acted in bad faith when he instructed his subordinates in the Commerce Department to add the citizenship question.  The judge authorized the plaintiffs to acquire additional information from the government and to have certain Department of Commerce and Department of Justice officials provide depositions.

At the conclusion of this additional fact-finding, the district judge ruled that the government's decision to include the citizenship question was based on a rationale that was "arbitrary and capricious" (namely, a now-apparently-abandoned claim that Secretary of Commerce Ross decided to add the question in response to a Justice Department request for information needed to enforce a civil rights law).

The federal government appealed the district judge's decision.  Normally such an appeal would be heard by the circuit court of appeals with jurisdiction over the trial court, but the government made an extraordinary request that the circuit court appeal be skipped and that the Supreme Court review the judge's decision directly because it was essential that the litigation be definitively concluded before July 1 in order for the paper census forms to be printed.

The Supreme Court agreed that the request to bypass the circuit court of appeals was justified in view of the imminent deadline for printing the forms.  The Court concluded that the evidence produced at trial did indeed demonstrate that the justification offered for the citizenship question was a pretext, and therefore that the rationale did not meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.  The Supreme Court decision of June 27 does not end the litigation.  It remanded the case to the district court for additional fact-gathering and conclusions of law consistent with the Supreme Court opinion; these in turn may be appealed depending on how the trial judge rules.

The lawyers for the Justice Department who argued the case before the Supreme Court—or the trial court, for that matter—were not responsible for developing the rationale offered by the Commerce Department for including the question.  They simply presented the evidence provided by the Department from its administrative record and, during the Supreme Court appeal, argued that the evidence was legally sufficient to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Any additional evidence that the Department of Commerce produces will be part of the extended fact-finding by the district judge.  He will also be able to consider evidence beyond the administrative record because the plaintiffs have made a strong showing that Commerce Secretary Ross acted in bad faith.  It appears that Secretary Ross himself may now be required to provide a deposition in the case.

The Trump Administration reportedly may now offer a different rationale for the citizenship question.  Note that if it does, the new rationale must be based on evidence collected from the existing administrative record of the Department of Commerce.  It's not simply a matter of coming up with a new explanation: there needs to be a factual showing from the record that the new explanation was indeed the real reason for including the question.

The reason the lawyers who conducted the original litigation asked to be excused from further participation in the case is to avoid an ethical conflict of implicitly contradicting the evidence previously provided by the Department of Commerce which they presented to the trial judge.

Another approach President Trump and Attorney General Barr appear to be considering would be to abandon the New York litigation and use an executive order or some other as-yet-unspecified technique to require the citizenship to be inserted in the census.  They might be able to end the current litigation in New York by doing that, but probably not another case that is awaiting trial in a federal court in Maryland.

And, of course, any executive order is likely to be challenged in new litigation as exceeding the president's authority—Congress by statute explicitly delegated the authority to determine the content of the census to the Secretary of Commerce—or as inconsistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

However, unless Congress changes the law, the Secretary of Commerce is still authorized to determine the content of the census.  There is nothing to prevent the Commerce Department from starting a new process to comply with the rules specified in the Administrative Procedure Act, conclude that there is a valid reason to ask respondents whether they are U.S. citizens, and arrange to insert that question in the decennial census.  Not next year's census, perhaps, but there is plenty of time to build a record that will stand up in court for the census that will be conducted in 2030.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on July 09, 2019, 03:20:35 pm
I've been following the argument here over the Supreme Court's decision regarding the inclusion of citizenship question, but I've been reluctant to weigh in because, frankly, the confusion is so great I didn't know where to start.
Thank you for taking the time to set forth the facts of the case. Hopefully, your effort will not be in vain. Note that hope and optimism are not the same thing.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 09, 2019, 03:50:51 pm
Just goes to prove her stupidity*. It is a loaded question, i.e., one with the presumption of guilt.

* or 'hood street smarts, at the level of Yo Momma jokes

Or to put it a different way, it's a classic example of begging the question.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 09, 2019, 04:01:12 pm
Chris: Thanks for the informative executive summary.  Do you know what was argument Commerce made to satisfy the Administrative Act and why did the courts say it was not enough?

Could the argument that putting the question in the census to corroborate estimates made in off years of quantity of citizen, non-citizens, etc would satisfy the Administrative Act?  Could those arguments be made satisfying the evidence already produced by the Commerce Dept or would the courts reject them as new evidence?  Tks. Alan.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on July 09, 2019, 05:13:57 pm
Do you know what was argument Commerce made to satisfy the Administrative Act and why did the courts say it was not enough?

I don't have access to the trial court record, but the Supreme Court opinion indicates that the evidence produced by Commerce at trial was grounded in the claim by Wilbur Ross, now reportedly abandoned by the government, that he was responding to a request from the Department of Justice that it needed the question about citizenship to be included in order to enforce the Voting Rights Act.  The trial court described this as "pretextual" (i.e., a pretext), and instructed the Department of Commerce to provide additional evidence if it was available in the administrative record.

Quote
Could the argument that putting the question in the census to corroborate estimates made in off years of quantity of citizen, non-citizens, etc would satisfy the Administrative Act?  Could those arguments be made satisfying the evidence already produced by the Commerce Dept or would the courts reject them as new evidence?

I can't predict the course of future litigation but, again, the issue here is the evidence that's in the administrative record of the Department of Commerce.  It's not a matter of what the government argues: you don't argue evidence, you either have it and produce it or you don't.  Plus, because the plaintiffs were able to make a credible showing that Secretary Ross acted in bad faith, the district court has approved the plaintiffs' request for further discovery (documents or other information in the possession of the government requested by the plaintiffs), including depositions by key officials.  It appears these may include one by Secretary Ross, himself.  He could face a difficult decision about what to say, depending on what other evidence the plaintiffs have acquired and can produce in court, since his deposition would be under oath.

My own conclusions based on what I've read are:
I would be surprised if anyone at the Department of Justice, including Attorney General William Barr, would take issue with any of these conclusions.  But when President Trump wants something, he wants it, and he is not about to be deflected by arguments based on law or established administrative procedure.  I suspect Barr, and the other political appointees at Justice, are going along with a last-ditch attempt to salvage this policy as a matter of self-preservation, rather than a belief that it will somehow prevail.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 09, 2019, 05:22:00 pm
My own conclusions based on what I've read are:
  • The Secretary of Commerce clearly has the authority to order that a question regarding citizenship be included in the census as long as he has a rational basis for doing so and the purpose for including it is not otherwise prohibited by law.
  • It is unlikely that other appeals in this case will be handled in an expedited manner since the justification for the extraordinary hearing by the Supreme Court was that the litigation had to be definitively resolved prior to the July 1 deadline for printing the census forms.  The deadline has passed and the forms are being printed without the citizenship question, so that justification is moot.
  • It is likely that other legal challenges to the inclusion of the citizenship question will proceed, and that if the Administration tries to force the inclusion of the question by the issuance of an executive order or some other nonstandard technique, the new approach will also be challenged in court.
  • It is now all but impossible for the citizenship question to be included in the 2020 census.  Maybe 2030, but since the professionals at the Census Bureau reportedly have already determined (1) that the sample surveys provide the information the government needs regarding the distribution of citizens and noncitizens in the population to meet its statutory responsibilities and (2) that asking such a question as part of the decennial census would result in undercounting, contrary to the intent of the Constitution, I suspect even a future Republican administration would be wary about trying this again.
I would be surprised if anyone at the Department of Justice, including Attorney General William Barr, would take issue with any of these conclusions.  But when President Trump wants something, he wants it, and he is not about to be deflected by arguments based on law or established administrative procedure.  I suspect Barr, and the other political appointees at Justice, are going along with a last-ditch attempt to salvage this policy as a matter of self-preservation, rather than a belief that it will somehow prevail.
Hi Chris, thanks for bringing up the APA  when I was still working at PhRMA in regulatory affairs, we filed two APA lawsuits and won both of them.  It's really easy for government agencies to screw up compliance.  I suspect the DOJ lawyers who were civil service and not political employees told their respective bosses that this was a loser and that's why they were replaced.  Unfortunately, President Trump does not understand the nuances of the law and will try to pressure DOJ to get the remedy he wants.  As Kenny Rogers once sung, "you got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them."  It's time to fold and move on.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 09, 2019, 06:29:01 pm
LOL, the Federal judge hearing the census case refused the Adminstration's request to swap out their legal team. 

“Defendants provide no reasons, let alone ‘satisfactory reasons,’ for the substitution of counsel,” Judge Furman wrote. He also noted that a filing in the case was due from the department in just three days, and that the department had previously pushed for the matter to be moved along quickly.

“If anything, that urgency — and the need for efficient judicial proceedings — has only grown since that time,” Furman wrote.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on July 09, 2019, 06:30:57 pm
LOL, the Federal judge hearing the census case refused the Adminstration's request to swap out their legal team.

Interesting.  I hadn't seen that.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 09, 2019, 06:38:21 pm
I don't have access to the trial court record, but the Supreme Court opinion indicates that the evidence produced by Commerce at trial was grounded in the claim by Wilbur Ross, now reportedly abandoned by the government, that he was responding to a request from the Department of Justice that it needed the question about citizenship to be included in order to enforce the Voting Rights Act.  The trial court described this as "pretextual" (i.e., a pretext), and instructed the Department of Commerce to provide additional evidence if it was available in the administrative record.

I can't predict the course of future litigation but, again, the issue here is the evidence that's in the administrative record of the Department of Commerce.  It's not a matter of what the government argues: you don't argue evidence, you either have it and produce it or you don't.  Plus, because the plaintiffs were able to make a credible showing that Secretary Ross acted in bad faith, the district court has approved the plaintiffs' request for further discovery (documents or other information in the possession of the government requested by the plaintiffs), including depositions by key officials.  It appears these may include one by Secretary Ross, himself.  He could face a difficult decision about what to say, depending on what other evidence the plaintiffs have acquired and can produce in court, since his deposition would be under oath.

My own conclusions based on what I've read are:
  • The Secretary of Commerce clearly has the authority to order that a question regarding citizenship be included in the census as long as he has a rational basis for doing so and the purpose for including it is not otherwise prohibited by law.
  • It is unlikely that other appeals in this case will be handled in an expedited manner since the justification for the extraordinary hearing by the Supreme Court was that the litigation had to be definitively resolved prior to the July 1 deadline for printing the census forms.  The deadline has passed and the forms are being printed without the citizenship question, so that justification is moot.
  • It is likely that other legal challenges to the inclusion of the citizenship question will proceed, and that if the Administration tries to force the inclusion of the question by the issuance of an executive order or some other nonstandard technique, the new approach will also be challenged in court.
  • It is now all but impossible for the citizenship question to be included in the 2020 census.  Maybe 2030, but since the professionals at the Census Bureau reportedly have already determined (1) that the sample surveys provide the information the government needs regarding the distribution of citizens and noncitizens in the population to meet its statutory responsibilities and (2) that asking such a question as part of the decennial census would result in undercounting, contrary to the intent of the Constitution, I suspect even a future Republican administration would be wary about trying this again.
I would be surprised if anyone at the Department of Justice, including Attorney General William Barr, would take issue with any of these conclusions.  But when President Trump wants something, he wants it, and he is not about to be deflected by arguments based on law or established administrative procedure.  I suspect Barr, and the other political appointees at Justice, are going along with a last-ditch attempt to salvage this policy as a matter of self-preservation, rather than a belief that it will somehow prevail.
Thanks Chris.  It may be exactly what Trump wants.  By being unresolved, he can make a case about it during the election since most Americans were in favor of adding the question to the census.  Had it been added, it would become a non-issue during the upcoming campaign.  Now he can point fingers at the Democrats for not acting in the best interest of the voters.  "We need better judges up there who care about citizens. " will be his rallying cry.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on July 09, 2019, 06:43:45 pm
thanks for bringing up the APA  when I was still working at PhRMA in regulatory affairs, we filed two APA lawsuits and won both of them.  It's really easy for government agencies to screw up compliance.

Yah, the Administrative Procedure Act is the Catch-22 of the federal government.  But it serves a useful purpose.  It offers important leverage for private entities and citizens to challenge the application of often vague statutory provisions by unelected career officials (like my wife and me in our previous incarnations), as well as by uninformed and/or biased political appointees, and thus provides some assurance that federal agency policy decisions have a rational, explicable, and publicly documented basis.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 09, 2019, 09:58:32 pm
Now he can point fingers at the Democrats for not acting in the best interest of the voters.  "We need better judges up there who care about citizens. " will be his rallying cry.
No,  it is b his own inept appointees that caused the problem and he can't run away from that.   Had they handled it the right way the question would be on the census.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 10, 2019, 01:14:23 pm
...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 11, 2019, 11:50:42 am
No,  it is b his own inept appointees that caused the problem and he can't run away from that.   Had they handled it the right way the question would be on the census.
The Democrats would have made a stick about it regardless. But you're right, they should have learned from the Muslim ban situation that things can be legal but you have to present it properly.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 11, 2019, 05:31:06 pm
Well, Trump did promise winning, didn't he ;)

"Trump playing a winning hand in his fight against an accurate census"

(emphasis bellow is mine)

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/7/11/20690460/2020-census-illinois-immigration-foreigners-undercount-president-donald-trump-marlen-garcia

Quote
People will worry, either way, that completing a census form will lead to their deportation. It will be a no-brainer to ignore the form...

Even if President Donald Trump’s last-ditch attempt to get a citizenship question on the 2020 census fails, he’s still winning.

He is succeeding in scaring off immigrants from filling out the form. That’s terrible for Illinois, a state with about 1.78 million foreign-born people.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 11, 2019, 08:47:47 pm
Trump gave up on the citizenship question for the 2020 census.  He's ordered all government departments to go through their records to gather information through existing records.  Someone should tell him about the Census Division's own records.  I have yet to read any newspaper or other news outlet that even mentioned this information.  It just shows what a poor job they do reporting the news.  They're so caught up in the politics of it, they don't bother to check it out.  What are all their investigators doing?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/us/politics/census-executive-action.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/us/politics/census-executive-action.html)

The American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates already provides estimate of natural born and foreigners, not a US citizen. This links to the Census Division chart for Atlanta, GA.  Check the titles of the columns on the upper right.
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/12_5YR/S0501/1600000US1304000 (https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/12_5YR/S0501/1600000US1304000)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on July 11, 2019, 09:17:26 pm
Trump gave up on the citizenship question for the 2020 census.  He's ordered all government departments to go through their records to gather information through existing records.  Someone should tell him about the Census Division's own records.  I have yet to read any newspaper or other news outlet that even mentioned this information.  It just shows what a poor job they do reporting the news.  They're so caught up in the politics of it, they don't bother to check it out.  What are all their investigators doing?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/us/politics/census-executive-action.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/us/politics/census-executive-action.html)

The American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates already provides estimate of natural born and foreigners, not a US citizen. This links to the Census Division chart for Atlanta, GA.  Check the titles of the columns on the upper right.
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/12_5YR/S0501/1600000US1304000 (https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/12_5YR/S0501/1600000US1304000)

It’s front page on CNN, and you provided The NY Times link that explains the same. WAPO has a similar article as well.  All three talk about various ways to accumulate the data.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/11/politics/census-citizenship-question-alternatives/index.html

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 11, 2019, 09:29:30 pm
It’s front page on CNN, and you provided The NY Times link that explains the same. WAPO has a similar article as well.  All three talk about various ways to accumulate the data.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/11/politics/census-citizenship-question-alternatives/index.html


Jim, The reporter in the video never mentions the estimates I linked to above and copied below.  The article also does not specifically mention the data is already at the Census Bureau, at least for previous years 2007 thru 2017.  Here's the data for 2017.  In any case, this is a new article dated today.  Where was everyone earlier when this issue came up months ago before and during the lawsuit?   It's as if the administration, Commerce, the news media, and everyone else are out to lunch.   We spend all this money on data.  And no one even knows it exists already and is being categorized.
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/12_5YR/S0501/1600000US1304000
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 11, 2019, 09:36:21 pm
Here's the methodology the Census Bureau uses to collect this information.  DIdn't the administration, Commerce, their lawyers,  DOJ, or the news media think of asking Census what they do and how they do it?
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/design-and-methodology.html
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 11, 2019, 10:09:03 pm
They could have Googled it.  That's what I did. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 12, 2019, 04:51:01 am
[...] It's as if the administration, Commerce, the news media, and everyone else are out to lunch.   We spend all this money on data.  And no one even knows it exists already and is being categorized.

That's illustrative of the underlying issue, it's not about getting data, it's about increasing non-response with certain groups of people, thus being able to redistrict and benefit Republican gerrymandering. It will lead to serious under-budgeting, but that's considered less important collateral damage.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on July 12, 2019, 08:08:12 am
That's illustrative of the underlying issue, it's not about getting data, it's about increasing non-response with certain groups of people, thus being able to redistrict and benefit Republican gerrymandering. It will lead to serious under-budgeting, but that's considered less important collateral damage.

Cheers,
Bart

This, with a side order of creating a battle to show his base that he “fights for them,” with a dessert made of the fact that Trump just likes to fight - posturing and power games seem to be the only thing he really has in his repertoire.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 12, 2019, 08:43:34 am
Again, if someone chooses not to respond, it is their fault and the consequences are on them.

All I remember from the last census is that s guy came into my house, we had a pleasant 10-minute chat, he recorded my answers and left. Don’t remember anything controversial. You are required by law to answer. If you are a law-obiding citizen, that’s what you do (citizen in a global sense). It is called civic duty. Just do it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 12, 2019, 09:20:03 am
That's illustrative of the underlying issue, it's not about getting data, it's about increasing non-response with certain groups of people, thus being able to redistrict and benefit Republican gerrymandering. It will lead to serious under-budgeting, but that's considered less important collateral damage.

Cheers,
Bart
Of course politics is involved.   When Democrats want to legalize all the illegals,  they want to do that to increase democrat party voting rolls.  They're not doing it out of the goodness in their heart.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 12, 2019, 09:20:35 am
Again, if someone chooses not to respond, it is their fault and the consequences are on them.

All I remember from the last census is that s guy came into my house, we had a pleasant 10-minute chat, he recorded my answers and left. Don’t remember anything controversial. You are required by law to answer. If you are a law-obiding citizen, that’s what you do (citizen in a global sense). It is called civic duty. Just do it.

But others seem like they really have an issue with it right now! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1b2v_Lls3A)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 12, 2019, 09:34:06 am
But others seem like they really have an issue with it right now! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1b2v_Lls3A)

Bahahahaha! Well done, sir!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 12, 2019, 11:10:37 am
Again, if someone chooses not to respond, it is their fault and the consequences are on them.

That's the issue. The consequences are on ALL!

So why inflict (under-budgeting) damage on ALL, without any need other than party politics?
The US Constitution stipulates to count All persons (regardless of their status).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 12, 2019, 11:19:24 am
That's the issue. The consequences are on ALL!...

All!? Not at all all.  Just areas with a large illegal population. Karma.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 12, 2019, 11:30:14 am
That's the issue. The consequences are on ALL!

So why inflict (under-budgeting) damage on ALL, without any need other than party politics?
The US Constitution stipulates to count All persons (regardless of their status).

Cheers,
Bart

Not necessarily.  It stipulates that for all citizens "excluding Indians not taxed," which can be very easily inferred to mean excluding non-citizens in modern terms. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 12, 2019, 11:37:16 am
Not necessarily.  It stipulates that for all citizens "excluding Indians not taxed," which can be very easily inferred to mean excluding non-citizens in modern terms. 

Well, you can't just "infer" the Constitution.

However, nothing prevents even illegals to participate in the census, citizenship question there or not. If it were there, you simply answer "no." That doesn't mean you are admitting you are an illegal, as a large number of residents fall into the same "no" category: visa holders, green card holders, etc.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on July 12, 2019, 11:58:22 am
Well, you can't just "infer" the Constitution.

However, nothing prevents even illegals to participate in the census, citizenship question there or not. If it were there, you simply answer "no." That doesn't mean you are admitting you are an illegal, as a large number of residents fall into the same "no" category: visa holders, green card holders, etc.

Wonder what would happen if Dems wanted too add, "Are you a gun owner?" to the census.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 12, 2019, 12:03:50 pm
Wonder what would happen if Dems wanted too add, "Are you a gun owner?" to the census.
Illegals don't vote.

regarding your question, specifically, I suppose they could add it.  But the questions they do ask usually have some value regarding government operations and commercial application of knowing who lives where as population groups.   But you're right.  The NRA would object pretty loudly. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 12, 2019, 08:14:45 pm
Illegals don't vote.
there are lots of non-citizens who live and work here legally.  We have a number in our neighborhood are are employed at the World Bank, work in various embassies, or have work permits of another sort.  They all drive on roads, go to doctors, dentists, and hospitals, buy food at grocery stores, eat at restaurants.  Some of them even have contributed to their own schools (the French International School is a half mile away from me).  They will be counted on the census just as I am.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 12, 2019, 10:35:33 pm
there are lots of non-citizens who live and work here legally.  We have a number in our neighborhood are are employed at the World Bank, work in various embassies, or have work permits of another sort.  They all drive on roads, go to doctors, dentists, and hospitals, buy food at grocery stores, eat at restaurants.  Some of them even have contributed to their own schools (the French International School is a half mile away from me).  They will be counted on the census just as I am.

Living and working here legally is different that being here illegally. 

This response has nothing to do with Alan Klein's. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 13, 2019, 08:33:34 am
Illegals don't vote.

For obvious reasons. But they apparently also cause less trouble, because they prefer keeping a low profile for law enforcement.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 13, 2019, 08:51:17 am
For obvious reasons. But they apparently also cause less trouble, because they prefer keeping a low profile for law enforcement.

Cheers,
Bart
My point that" illegals don;t vote" was referring to the fact that politicians can ignore illegal's complaints about asking who are citizens in the census because they don't vote.  On the other hand, people who are against restricting gun use and representative by the NRA do vote.

Most illegals are not criminals and do keep a low profile.  However, there are huge numbers who  are involved with criminal activity.   In New Jersey where I live, illegals have a higher percentage of incarceration than citizens.  Our prisons through the country have an extremely high percentage of illegals.  Honest "illegals" sneak across our border for the opportunity to earn a better living.  Thieves sneak across our border because the pickings are better here.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 13, 2019, 10:10:02 am
...  they prefer keeping a low profile for law enforcement.

Indeed. You would never recognize them when you see them on the street.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 13, 2019, 10:15:03 am
Exactly, Slobodan. Bart evidently leads a sheltered 18-year-old life.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 13, 2019, 10:42:33 am
Indeed. You would never recognize them when you see them on the street.

Probably not.

I do not understand what the local guys with gang-member tattoos have to do with it?
Are you suggesting they are illegal immigrants?
Which tattoo is that?

Or are you spreading fake news again?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 13, 2019, 11:30:29 am
... I do not understand what the local guys with gang-member tattoos have to do with it?
Are you suggesting they are illegal immigrants?
Which tattoo is that?

Or are you spreading fake news again?

Bart, your posts are starting to dangerously approach AOC’s intellectual level.

Quote
92 percent of the MS-13 affiliated aliens arrested were illegal aliens. Of those, 16 percent had entered illegally at least twice.

https://cis.org/Fact-Sheet/Fact-Sheet-MS13-Arrests-ICE-20052014
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 13, 2019, 12:54:18 pm
Bart, your posts are starting to dangerously approach AOC’s intellectual level.

Coming from you, that's a compliment.

First, you post a collection of pictures of "MS-13 members" with gang tattoos.
You also suggest that this is how illegal aliens look.

That defies logic, and (I hope) you know it.

Now you post a link to an at least 5-year old study, and selectively quote (92% of ...) from that to suggest the situation is worse than it actually is.
13% of all those arrested by ICE belonged to the MS-13 gang that BTW originated in Los Angeles, yet you only showed images of examples of that 13% of the arrests.

Obviously, if you make a selection from a group of arrested gang members, the chance that they are affiliated with criminal behavior is larger than in the average population, duh.

Even if we focus on all illegal aliens, 1.3 -2.6% of persons possibly eligible for amnesty have criminal records, or 11.3% if we project it on the current 700,000 DACA beneficiaries, whereas something like 30% of all Americans* has criminal records.

* (http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/barriers-to-work-individuals-with-criminal-records.aspx)
    (https://cis.org/Immigration-Brief/How-Many-People-DACA-Have-Criminal-Records)

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 13, 2019, 01:15:46 pm
... Even if we focus on all illegal aliens, 1.3 -2.6% of persons possibly eligible for amnesty have criminal records, or 11.3% if we project it on the current 700,000 DACA beneficiaries, whereas something like 30% of all Americans* has criminal records...

100% of them have a criminal record. They are in the country illegally.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 13, 2019, 01:36:36 pm
Coming from you, that's a compliment.

First, you post a collection of pictures of "MS-13 members" with gang tattoos.
You also suggest that this is how illegal aliens look.

That defies logic, and (I hope) you know it.

Now you post a link to an at least 5-year old study, and selectively quote (92% of ...) from that to suggest the situation is worse than it actually is.
13% of all those arrested by ICE belonged to the MS-13 gang that BTW originated in Los Angeles, yet you only showed images of examples of that 13% of the arrests.

Obviously, if you make a selection from a group of arrested gang members, the chance that they are affiliated with criminal behavior is larger than in the average population, duh.

Even if we focus on all illegal aliens, 1.3 -2.6% of persons possibly eligible for amnesty have criminal records, or 11.3% if we project it on the current 700,000 DACA beneficiaries, whereas something like 30% of all Americans* has criminal records.

* (http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/barriers-to-work-individuals-with-criminal-records.aspx)
    (https://cis.org/Immigration-Brief/How-Many-People-DACA-Have-Criminal-Records)

Cheers,
Bart
There's no way that 30% of Americans have criminal records. That's a phony statistic.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 13, 2019, 01:48:11 pm
Coming from you, that's a compliment...

How about coming from... Democrats:

Quote
“She is a complete fraud”

"Her peers do not take her seriously”

“She is a nobody"

"Their ignorance is beyond belief"

"juvenile"
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 13, 2019, 02:03:46 pm
How about coming from... Democrats:

A bunch of anonymous quotes(?) doesn't say much, especially coming from you.
You have created yourself a very bad track record for balanced/unbiased comments.

So here's some more antidote against xenophobia and bigotry:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/21/ice-sets-record-arrests-undocumented-immigrants-no-criminal-record/3232476002/

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 13, 2019, 02:08:51 pm
There's no way that 30% of Americans have criminal records. That's a phony statistic.
Depends on what you define as a crime.  If you are only considering felonies, perhaps.  Traffic tickets are crimes, albeit minor ones.  Maybe you have never received one but I've had a couple and it's clear that if you pay it you are admitting to the commission of a crime.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 13, 2019, 02:33:15 pm
Depends on what you define as a crime.  If you are only considering felonies, perhaps.  Traffic tickets are crimes, albeit minor ones.  Maybe you have never received one but I've had a couple and it's clear that if you pay it you are admitting to the commission of a crime.

Shame on you, Alan. And more than once.....?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 13, 2019, 02:37:02 pm
A bunch of anonymous quotes(?) doesn't say much, especially coming from you.
You have created yourself a very bad track record for balanced/unbiased comments.

Really!? I rarely post something without providing a source. In this particular case I didn't, simply because it is all over the news, you can google it, but if you insist:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-lose-patience-with-complete-fraud-aoc-rally-to-pelosis-side

Quote
House Dem blasts 'juvenile' Ocasio-Cortez, chief of staff: 'Ignorance is beyond belief'

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/12/politics/pelosi-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-house-democrats/index.html
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 13, 2019, 03:12:33 pm
Further to the AOC - Pelosi spat:

https://babylonbee.com/news/nation-agrees-to-just-sit-back-and-watch-the-left-eat-itself-alive

Quote
"Based on our projections, the left could completely implode at any moment," said one political science analyst in Detroit. "From trans rights activists sparring with gay rights activists, to racial justice advocates attacking feminists, the whole thing is just very unstable."

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on July 13, 2019, 03:18:06 pm
100% of them have a criminal record. They are in the country illegally.

Actually, only someone who has been convicted of a crime has a criminal record.

Being in the United States illegally in most cases subjects an alien to civil rather than criminal penalties—for example, deportation or "voluntary departure"* and a restriction on future admissibility.  (The immigration statutes prescribe various ineligibility periods, depending on the nature and seriousness of the infraction.)  One of the most common violations of the immigration law occurs when an alien stays in the United States longer than permitted by the type of visa that was used for entry.

Of course, an alien who commits a crime in the United States is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment prior to whatever immigration procedures may apply (typically deportation except in cases where a lawful permanent resident commits a minor crime).

———
*A rather deceptive term, since it really means involuntary departure.  This is where an alien who violated the terms of a visa is given a modest amount of time to make travel arrangements and leave the United States; the alien is responsible for the travel expenses.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 13, 2019, 04:27:29 pm
Actually, only someone who has been convicted of a crime has a criminal record...

Of course, of course. I wasn't using the term "criminal" in its strictest, legal, and formal meaning, but in a less literal one, like "breaking the law," which everyone illegal did, whether crossing the border or overstaying the visa.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on July 13, 2019, 04:50:17 pm
Of course, of course. I wasn't using the term "criminal" in its strictest, legal, and formal meaning, but in a less literal one, like "breaking the law," which everyone illegal did, whether crossing the border or overstaying the visa.

Zero tolerance for all lawbreakers!   (The jaywalkers are the worst.) Ever toss out junk mail not meant for you?  That’s five years, buddy. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1702). 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 13, 2019, 04:52:39 pm
Of course, of course. I wasn't using the term "criminal" in its strictest, legal, and formal meaning, but in a less literal one, like "breaking the law," which everyone illegal did, whether crossing the border or overstaying the visa.

In other words, more Fake news.

At least you admitted to spreading it.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 13, 2019, 04:59:01 pm
In other words, more Fake news...

Understanding things literally, Bart, is not a sign of higher intelligence... not even of average.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 13, 2019, 05:02:58 pm
... Ever toss out junk mail not meant for you?  That’s five years, buddy. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1702). 

Thanks, buddy! I’ll be extra careful with junk mail in the future ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on July 13, 2019, 05:15:48 pm
Thanks, buddy! I’ll be extra careful with junk mail in the future ;)

Please do. I’d hate to see you deported, being a hardened criminal and all. ;)  (Maybe as a now-citizen and a white guy you’re not subject to the current, er, environment, but who knows?)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 13, 2019, 05:40:12 pm
Jim Fallows who I have known for some time has a very nice piece (https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2019/07/theres-no-understanding-donald-trump/593932/) in The Atlantic today.  He's been following President Trump beginning when he won the Republican nomination.  He received a letter from a fellow reader a couple of weeks ago who posits that the President is really no different than his days as a reality television host.  He's preoccupied with his ratings above all else and a lot of the 'interesting things he does is to simply boost the ratings.  There is a considerable amount of truth to that.  Do read the piece, it's relatively short and to the point.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 13, 2019, 05:45:47 pm
No comment.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 13, 2019, 10:02:57 pm
Depends on what you define as a crime.  If you are only considering felonies, perhaps.  Traffic tickets are crimes, albeit minor ones.  Maybe you have never received one but I've had a couple and it's clear that if you pay it you are admitting to the commission of a crime.
Lumping Americans who get traffic tickets in with illegals who rob, rape and murder as all being criminals is just nuts.  You;re just repeating the nonsense Bart claimed with his 30% figure of Americans who are criminals.  All you;re doing is causing people to realize you're both not serious about the illegal immigration problem we have.  You're both just making up statistics why we should all just ignore this serious issue.  Talk about fake news from you two.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 13, 2019, 10:09:38 pm
Jim Fallows who I have known for some time has a very nice piece (https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2019/07/theres-no-understanding-donald-trump/593932/) in The Atlantic today.  He's been following President Trump beginning when he won the Republican nomination.  He received a letter from a fellow reader a couple of weeks ago who posits that the President is really no different than his days as a reality television host.  He's preoccupied with his ratings above all else and a lot of the 'interesting things he does is to simply boost the ratings.  There is a considerable amount of truth to that.  Do read the piece, it's relatively short and to the point.

There's also considerable truth when Trump says that without him, CNN and MSNBC would be off the air as their viewership would have evaporated.  Cable networks should count their lucky stars that Hillary lost.  Can you imagine having to listen to her cackle for four or more years?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4Fi-xGZdlE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4Fi-xGZdlE)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 14, 2019, 04:46:03 am
There's also considerable truth when Trump says that without him, CNN and MSNBC would be off the air as their viewership would have evaporated.  Cable networks should count their lucky stars that Hillary lost.  Can you imagine having to listen to her cackle for four or more years?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4Fi-xGZdlE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4Fi-xGZdlE)

Can you imagine having to listen to Trump murder the language for another four or whatever?

At least if he'd gone to drama college and learned something about stressing words - almost any word would do in his case - in a sentence instead of stressing the good folks of this Earth of ours... and you know what: in his case, even wearing a tie fails to be a saving grace. That's some achievement!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 14, 2019, 07:53:36 am
Lumping Americans who get traffic tickets in with illegals who rob, rape and murder as all being criminals is just nuts.  You;re just repeating the nonsense Bart claimed with his 30% figure of Americans who are criminals.  All you;re doing is causing people to realize you're both not serious about the illegal immigration problem we have.  You're both just making up statistics why we should all just ignore this serious issue.  Talk about fake news from you two.
It's not fake news but being careful with the English language.  There are a whole range of crimes from a definitional point of view and I was just pointing that out.  I don't want to be accused of not being serious about the immigration issue.  You really do not have any idea what my political views are as I do not believe that I have ever expressed them other than we need to have a better foreign aid policy towards the key countries of Central America.  If the United States was serious about the immigration issue it would look into the local and regional problems that are responsible for for this out migration of citizens.  The US has an established asylum process and my bottom line is that individuals coming into America must be treated humanely.

Do you really think these people enjoy making this 2000 mile trek to the US border?  this is far different than my ancestors who came over by boat in the late 1800s when immigration into the US was far easier.

Vice President Pence visited several detention sites the other day including one of the more notorious.  I don't know what message he might have transmitted to President Trump.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 14, 2019, 08:11:24 am
Can you imagine having to listen to Trump murder the language for another four or whatever?

Not a pleasant thought, Rob, but a lot more tolerable than listening to and watching one of his current opponents murder not only the language, but all sorts of other things as well.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 14, 2019, 10:16:31 am
... You really do not have any idea what my political views are...

 ;D ;D ;D
 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 14, 2019, 10:33:22 am
;D ;D ;D

+1  8)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 14, 2019, 11:13:48 am
Not a pleasant thought, Rob, but a lot more tolerable than listening to and watching one of his current opponents murder not only the language, but all sorts of other things as well.

His last one had the fatal character flaw of pointing at things. It was an unnecessary, self-inflicted wound: there was nothing to point out where she was pointing.

Maybe she was thinking of and seeing dark-haired internes everywhere? Which might explain why when she pointed she simultaneously opened her mouth wide.

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 14, 2019, 11:15:21 am
Vice President Pence visited several detention sites the other day including one of the more notorious.  I don't know what message he might have transmitted to President Trump.

Things going as planned ...?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 14, 2019, 11:19:19 am
Not a pleasant thought, Rob, but a lot more tolerable than listening to and watching one of his current opponents murder not only the language, but all sorts of other things as well.

Vague. Could you narrow it down by a few hundred million opponents?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 14, 2019, 01:33:23 pm
"Rapid DNA testing reveals a THIRD of migrants faked family relationship with children to claim asylum during ICE pilot of the procedure in Texas"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7045351/Rapid-DNA-testing-reveals-migrants-faked-family-relationship-kids.html

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 14, 2019, 02:26:20 pm
Vague. Could you narrow it down by a few hundred million opponents?

Cheers,
Bart

Well, the number of Democrat candidates isn't quite that high yet, Bart, but they're working on it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 14, 2019, 02:42:06 pm
Well, the number of Democrat candidates isn't quite that high yet, Bart, but they're working on it.

Ah, you meant candidates for the presidential elections.
That does narrow it down, but still ..., "murder not only the language, but all sorts of other things as well"????

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 14, 2019, 03:15:57 pm
Ah, you meant candidates for the presidential elections.
That does narrow it down, but still ..., "murder not only the language, but all sorts of other things as well"????

Cheers,
Bart

Primarily the economy, Bart, and with the economy die many other things.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 14, 2019, 03:34:13 pm
Ah, you meant candidates for the presidential elections.
That does narrow it down, but still ..., "murder not only the language, but all sorts of other things as well"????

Forget the personalities.

In 2016, both personalities sucked. In 2020, whoever is the candidate, he or she could be Mr. Universe or Ms. Universe,  Ms. Congeniality, or Mr. Whatever, it doesn't matter. Personalities do not matter. It used to be "It's the economy, stupid," and I would add "It's the policies, stupid."

There is absolutely nothing in the Democratic platform that is appealing. On the contrary, everything they propose is sickening. Open borders? Abolish ICE? Abolish the Dept. of Homeland Security? Amnesty? Weaponized brownization? Teach illegals how to game the system? Bring 800% more potential terrorists and concentrate them in the same region, so that they can form the Fifth Column in Congress?  Forced confiscation of guns? Prison for non-PC words? High taxes and total government control of what we do, how we think and what we say?

No, thanks.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on July 14, 2019, 06:23:21 pm
Forget the personalities.

In 2016, both personalities sucked. In 2020, whoever is the candidate, he or she could be Mr. Universe or Ms. Universe,  Ms. Congeniality, or Mr. Whatever, it doesn't matter. Personalities do not matter. It used to be "It's the economy, stupid," and I would add "It's the policies, stupid."

There is absolutely nothing in the Democratic platform that is appealing. On the contrary, everything they propose is sickening. Open borders? Abolish ICE? Abolish the Dept. of Homeland Security? Amnesty? Weaponized brownization? Teach illegals how to game the system? Bring 800% more potential terrorists and concentrate them in the same region, so that they can form the Fifth Column in Congress?  Forced confiscation of guns? Prison for non-PC words? High taxes and total government control of what we do, how we think and what we say?

No, thanks.

For the benefit of our European friends here, the Democratic Party platform includes absolutely zero of these things.  Carry on.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 14, 2019, 06:41:31 pm
For the benefit of our European friends here, the Democratic Party platform includes absolutely zero of these things.  Carry on.

Every single thing I mentioned is either formal or unspoken Democratic platform. Some has not been put in writing (yet!), but is nevertheless the underlying current on the left. The Squad is the de facto, if not de jure, leader of the Democratic party, and these are parts of their platforms. Along with banning cows to fart and grounding planes. The Squad is the future of Democrats. Not that the "centrist" democrats differ much, just not bold (or stupid) enough to say those things publicly. Democratic presidential candidates are crossing the border to teach illegals how to game the system. Printing pamphlets how to hide from law enforcement with court orders. Prison for non-PC words is already a reality, a law, in California, no need to put it in the platform. 800% increase in refugees is Elizabeth Warren's plan. Amnesty is the official Democratic platform (DACA). Healthcare for illegals is in every candidate's program, and already a reality in California. Abolish the Dept. of Homeland Security, not just ICE, is what AOC said.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 14, 2019, 07:34:28 pm
For the benefit of our European friends here, the Democratic Party platform includes absolutely zero of these things.  Carry on.
Of course it doesn't!!!  The person whose posts I don't read hasn't figured out that the platform only comes out when the party convention approves it.  By my calendar that won't be until the summer of 2020.  Maybe others use the Mayan or some other calendar and have things mixed up.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 14, 2019, 07:44:19 pm
... The Squad is the future of Democrats...

Guess what, literally minutes after I wrote the above, I’ve come across this:

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 14, 2019, 07:49:15 pm
... the platform only comes out when the party convention approves it.  By my calendar that won't be until the summer of 2020...

As I said:

Every single thing I mentioned is either formal or unspoken Democratic platform. Some has not been put in writing (yet!)..

Noticed the “yet” part? Plenty of time before the summer 2020. And even if it is not in writing, everybody inderstands what the final goal is.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 14, 2019, 10:29:51 pm
Primarily the economy, Bart, and with the economy die many other things.

Trump is a piker when it comes to deficit spending.  If the Democrats take over in 2020, "free" education, "free" healthcare for all, and the redistribution of wealth will finally bankrupt the nation.  Europeans now hoping that Trump loses will see American troops brought home.  NATO will disintegrate as Americans insist that Europe fend on its own - the US needs the money for itself.  EUrope defense costs will skyrocket and all the poster's children here will be drafted into their armies.  The same for the Pacific region.  China will expand outward threatening its neighbors as US military spending collapses.  The world's economies will be significantly damaged as well since America and the US dollar is it's keystone.  People should watch what they pray for.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 14, 2019, 10:59:07 pm
Democratic platform:

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on July 15, 2019, 12:07:10 am
Democratic platform:

It’s cute how you think Fox News is an accurate representation of the Dem platform, while the rest of media is somehow rife with bias and therefore untrustworthy with regards to their reporting on Trump. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 15, 2019, 12:29:21 am
James, what that picture has to do with Fox (except being published by it)? The comment about Democrat’s platform is mine, not Fox’. As for accuracy... Are you denying the attack took place? Are you denying that they took down the American flag and replaced it with a Mexican one? Are you denying that no Democrat condemned what happened? As well as no condemnation for another armed attack by an Antifa warrior on another ICE center, trying to set it on fire?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 15, 2019, 07:11:25 am
Guess what, literally minutes after I wrote the above, I’ve come across this:

Hard to say without a link to the suggested to be quoted text in the image edit. It looks like more Fake news. Not a real surprise coming from such a propaganda network.

What Bernie Sanders did say (https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-1449154):
Quote
"It goes without saying the future of our country and the future of the Democratic Party rests with young people," Sanders said. "And I'm very proud, by the way, in virtually every poll I have seen—we are winning people under 45 or 50 years of age and younger."

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 15, 2019, 07:42:58 am
It's comical, if it weren't so sad, to see the smear campaign against people like the member of Congres Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that Fox (and those who get their motivation from that agency) are trying to launch.

Boy, are they really that scared about her impact that they have to resort to such tactics? Sad, very sad.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 15, 2019, 07:58:28 am
It's comical, if it weren't so sad, to see the smear campaign against people like the member of Congres Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that Fox (and those who get their motivation from that agency) are trying to launch.

Boy, are they really that scared about her impact that they have to resort to such tactics? Sad, very sad.

Cheers,
Bart
It's more a sign of peoples insecurity in the face of a changing country.  A lot of people pine for the Norman Rockwell 1950s.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 15, 2019, 08:29:04 am
It's more a sign of peoples insecurity in the face of a changing country.  A lot of people pine for the Norman Rockwell 1950s.

Indeed, but as one of the Democratic candidates for the presidency said in an almost hour long interview:
"Democrats can no more turn the clock back to the 1990s, than Republicans can return us back to the 1950s".

The times, they are a changin' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7qQ6_RV4VQ).

Cheers,
Bart.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 15, 2019, 08:31:38 am
It's comical, if it weren't so sad, to see the smear campaign against people like the member of Congres Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that Fox (and those who get their motivation from that agency) are trying to launch.

Boy, are they really that scared about her impact that they have to resort to such tactics? Sad, very sad.

Cheers,
Bart

Are you kidding me? 

The Dems are finally turning against her as well.  Have you been actually following the news lately.  Pelosi called her out for being so far left that she has no followers in the House except for the three other crazies.  Then, after AOC's response of accusing Pelosi of being racist against the "women of color" in the house, nearly every house Dem backed up Pelosi.  Even high ranking members of the black caucus in the house talked down on AOC after this. 

I hate to break it to you Bart, but the Dems dont even like AOC.  They know she is kryptonite for all of the moderate Dems and allows the GOP to paint a picture of the Dems being out of touch with the average American.   

She, and her friends, are the equivalent of the Tea Party Republicans in 2010 for the Dems.  All she is going to do is help loose moderate districts, just like the Tea Partiers did. 

When Joe Biden talks about how the real reason the Dems took back the house was the moderates winning in GOP districts, he is absolutely right.  With AOC and her backers targeting moderate Dems in primaries with Progressives in moderate districts, the results are only going to be disastrous for the Dems. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 15, 2019, 08:53:41 am
Are you kidding me? 

Nope.

Quote
The Dems are finally turning against her as well.  Have you been actually following the news lately.  Pelosi called her out for being so far left that she has no followers in the House except for the three other crazies.  Then, after AOC's response of accusing Pelosi of being racist against the "women of color" in the house, nearly every house Dem backed up Pelosi.  Even high ranking members of the black caucus in the house talked down on AOC after this.

It's always disturbing when someone is "finally" rattling the cage that the parties are hiding in (this goes for all parties). This is a healthy but occasionally confronting thing to happen. Society has been changing much faster that the institutions that goven them. People need to snap out of their entrenched positions and start doing some good for the common well-being. Dinosaurs will go extinct. It's better to adapt and survive.

The mere evidence that a person as unqualified as Trump is propelled into office demonstrates that there is something fundamentally wrong, on both sides of the aisle.

Quote
I hate to break it to you Bart, but the Dems dont even like AOC.  They know she is kryptonite for all of the moderate Dems and allows the GOP to paint a picture of the Dems being out of touch with the average American.   

She, and her friends, are the equivalent of the Tea Party Republicans in 2010 for the Dems.  All she is going to do is help loose moderate districts to the GOP, just like the Tea Partiers did.

I don't share your analysis, but let's see how it turns out.

In my more direct experience with politics here in Western Europe, these challengers will cause the majority of the other sitting members to (slightly) shift their no longer defensible position to a more up-to-date position. The Millenials understand that in a negotiation, it's rare for one party to win all arguments at once. Progressive insight will ultimately change things (for the better). Entrenchment is a recipe for disaster. Adapt or die.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 15, 2019, 09:14:40 am
And that, my friend, is the Dutch analysis of American politics.

All I can say is:  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 15, 2019, 09:52:28 am
Nope.

It's always disturbing when someone is "finally" rattling the cage that the parties are hiding in (this goes for all parties). This is a healthy but occasionally confronting thing to happen. Society has been changing much faster that the institutions that goven them. People need to snap out of their entrenched positions and start doing some good for the common well-being. Dinosaurs will go extinct. It's better to adapt and survive.

The mere evidence that a person as unqualified as Trump is propelled into office demonstrates that there is something fundamentally wrong, on both sides of the aisle.

I don't share your analysis, but let's see how it turns out.

In my more direct experience with politics here in Western Europe, these challengers will cause the majority of the other sitting members to (slightly) shift their no longer defensible position to a more up-to-date position. The Millenials understand that in a negotiation, it's rare for one party to win all arguments at once. Progressive insight will ultimately change things (for the better). Entrenchment is a recipe for disaster. Adapt or die.

Cheers,
Bart

Tell that to the Tea Partiers, and their moderate GOP victims, who lost their races. 

The fact is, so much of what is posted in the national news comes from sources entrenched in the most populist areas, like NYC and DC.  They live in a bubble, where AOC is popular, and that is why she gets so much air time.  The vast majority of districts though are moderate and would never vote for her. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 09:59:42 am
Nope.

It's always disturbing when someone is "finally" rattling the cage that the parties are hiding in (this goes for all parties). This is a healthy but occasionally confronting thing to happen. Society has been changing much faster that the institutions that goven them. People need to snap out of their entrenched positions and start doing some good for the common well-being. Dinosaurs will go extinct. It's better to adapt and survive.

The mere evidence that a person as unqualified as Trump is propelled into office demonstrates that there is something fundamentally wrong, on both sides of the aisle.

I don't share your analysis, but let's see how it turns out.

In my more direct experience with politics here in Western Europe, these challengers will cause the majority of the other sitting members to (slightly) shift their no longer defensible position to a more up-to-date position. The Millenials understand that in a negotiation, it's rare for one party to win all arguments at once. Progressive insight will ultimately change things (for the better). Entrenchment is a recipe for disaster. Adapt or die.

Cheers,
Bart


Bart, That seems contradictory.  On the one hand, you welcome change, on the other you complain about it.  Trump represented change.  He opposes the entrenched political state.  You may not like his methods, but he is refreshing. and different  Sanders is just like Trump although with differing unconventional ideas.  So is AOC charging against the windmills.  I think her ideas will hurt us if implemented.  But like Trump, she gets people to watch cable news and read newspapers.  She's refreshing and exciting.  Just as entrenched Republicans grated against Trump, entrenched Democrats are doing the same with AOC.  Of course, she's rattling the regulars and pushing them too far left.  That's good for Republicans.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 15, 2019, 10:49:58 am

I hate to break it to you Bart, but the Dems dont even like AOC.  They know she is kryptonite for all of the moderate Dems and allows the GOP to paint a picture of the Dems being out of touch with the average American.   

She, and her friends, are the equivalent of the Tea Party Republicans in 2010 for the Dems.  All she is going to do is help loose moderate districts, just like the Tea Partiers did. 

When Joe Biden talks about how the real reason the Dems took back the house was the moderates winning in GOP districts, he is absolutely right.  With AOC and her backers targeting moderate Dems in primaries with Progressives in moderate districts, the results are only going to be disastrous for the Dems.
A lot of AOC's problems are a result of her out of control top assistant, Sakrat Charkrabarti.  The Washington Post Magazine (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/07/10/feature/how-saikat-chakrabarti-became-aocs-chief-of-change/?utm_term=.12198a891488) had an interesting story on him.  He's the "power behind the throne."  There is absolutely no equivalent to the tea party here as the number of districts that have or will elect ultra-liberal representatives is maybe only twice the number of the four Congresswomen that are being discussed.  There will be no 'wave.'  Certainly AOC is very media savvy but I don't see this as much with the other three.  In any event these four constitute only 2% of the Democratic caucus.  The 'Tea Party' had a much higher base in terms of Congressional districts.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 15, 2019, 10:55:40 am
A lot of AOC's problems are a result of her out of control top assistant, Sakrat Charkrabarti.  The Washington Post Magazine (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/07/10/feature/how-saikat-chakrabarti-became-aocs-chief-of-change/?utm_term=.12198a891488) had an interesting story on him.  He's the "power behind the throne."  There is absolutely no equivalent to the tea party here as the number of districts that have or will elect ultra-liberal representatives is maybe only twice the number of the four Congresswomen that are being discussed.  There will be no 'wave.'  Certainly AOC is very media savvy but I don't see this as much with the other three.  In any event these four constitute only 2% of the Democratic caucus.  The 'Tea Party' had a much higher base in terms of Congressional districts.

I was pointing out that just like with the Tea Party, going to far to one side will be a recipe for disaster in almost all districts.  And it is pretty obvious how far left she is pulling the Dems right now.  Just look back at her Green New Deal fiasco; a majority of the democratic candidates signed on in the beginning.  They may have changed their mind or gone mum on it, but the effect was pretty bad.

It has been in the news last week that the organization that supported her is now challenging moderate Dems with progressive candidates.  The fringe will always be more represented in primaries just due to participation bias, so getting a progressive in the ticket in these areas is possible.  However, it would be highly doubtful that progressive would win in a general. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 15, 2019, 10:59:00 am
I was pointing out that just like with the Tea Party, going to far to one side will be a recipe for disaster in almost all districts.  And it is pretty obvious how far left she is pulling the Dems right now.  Just look back at her Green New Deal fiasco; a majority of the democratic candidates signed on in the beginning.  They may have changed their mind or gone mum on it, but the effect was pretty bad.
the Green New Deal is not nearly as bad as the Republican Manta of a balanced budget which has never come to pass.  I don't think the Green New Deal will either.  there are lots of looney proposals floating around at any given time.  It's best not to pay attention to any of them until actual legislation is on the table.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 15, 2019, 01:57:01 pm

Bart, That seems contradictory.  On the one hand, you welcome change, on the other you complain about it.

Not really. I favor change, but only when it improves quality and results.
Trump is change for the sake of change, quality is lower, and results for Americans (Coalminers, Farmers, all income levels except for the top 1%, Healthcare, Budget deficit, cohesion between all citizens, international relations, moral standing, etc.) be damned.

Quote
So is AOC charging against the windmills.  I think her ideas will hurt us if implemented.  But like Trump, she gets people to watch cable news and read newspapers.  She's refreshing and exciting.  Just as entrenched Republicans grated against Trump, entrenched Democrats are doing the same with AOC.  Of course, she's rattling the regulars and pushing them too far left.  That's good for Republicans.

Proposals rarely ever pass unamended. It's a negotiation.

Republicans seem pretty worried about her (and she's not even a candidate), that's why they are trying to damage her reputation. If she were so detrimental for the Dems, then the Republicans would support her more, to sow division in the Democratic ranks.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 03:57:28 pm
Not really. I favor change, but only when it improves quality and results.
Trump is change for the sake of change, quality is lower, and results for Americans (Coalminers, Farmers, all income levels except for the top 1%, Healthcare, Budget deficit, cohesion between all citizens, international relations, moral standing, etc.) be damned.

Proposals rarely ever pass unamended. It's a negotiation.

Republicans seem pretty worried about her (and she's not even a candidate), that's why they are trying to damage her reputation. If she were so detrimental for the Dems, then the Republicans would support her more, to sow division in the Democratic ranks.

Cheers,
Bart

Republicans learned from Democrats that it pays dividends when you attack Trump for his "screwy ideas".  It encourages some people to not vote for the crazy Republicans. So now Republicans are doing the same with AOC. Don't vote for Democrats because their people are nuts and will screw up the USA.  Just look at AOC.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 15, 2019, 06:18:57 pm
Just look at AOC.

Frankly, although I do not agree with everything she says, she comes across as more patriotic than the President.
Maybe others will feel the same ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 06:45:56 pm
Frankly, although I do not agree with everything she says, she comes across as more patriotic than the President.
Maybe others will feel the same ...

Cheers,
Bart
Being a capitalist or Socialist have nothing to do with patriotism.  She's a socialist who wants to redistribute the wealth of the country.  She wants to let in illegals without consequence and provide free healthcare and other free services for them at citizens' cost.  She opposed Amazon moving a headquarters into Queens next to where her election district is located losing thousands of jobs for NYC and additional economic stimulation.   She is from The Bronx as I am which is the only borough of NYC's five boroughs that is part of the contiguous United States.  The rest including Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens and Brooklyn, are on islands.  So I suppose that makes her more patriotic than other New Yorkers. :) 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 15, 2019, 07:40:30 pm
Being a capitalist or Socialist have nothing to do with patriotism.

I'm not so sure about that. Trump is doing a lot that benefits capitalists, but hurts patriots. I'm not saying that a capitalist cannot be a patriot, but that's how it seems to work out most of the time with the self-centered things he does.

Quote
She's a socialist who wants to redistribute the wealth of the country.

Define socialist, or be proven wrong.
Define "redistribute", or be proven wrong.
Define "the wealth of the country", or be proven wrong.

Quote
She wants to let in illegals without consequence and provide free healthcare and other free services for them at citizens' cost.

Please prove your point, because your statements do not seem to be supported by evidence.

Quote
She opposed Amazon moving a headquarters into Queens next to where her election district is located losing thousands of jobs for NYC and additional economic stimulation

And she was already proven right, in that is didn't take millions/billions of taxpayers subsidy to bring Amazon jobs to the area, because companies are eager to get a presence there anyway, even without subsidies.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on July 15, 2019, 09:39:09 pm
She opposed Amazon moving a headquarters into Queens next to where her election district is located losing thousands of jobs for NYC and additional economic stimulation.   

I wish more politicians would oppose the handing over of taxpayer money to multinational corporations that don't need it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 10:01:09 pm
I wish more politicians would oppose the handing over of taxpayer money to multinational corporations that don't need it.
I agree.  However, NYC was not handing taxpayer money over to Amazon.  The deal was tax deferrals.  NYC wouldn't collect certain corporate taxes if they moved there. But there would be no outlays.  Now, without Amazin moving there, NYC loses 25000 jobs and the local NYC and NYS income taxes generated by those employees and associated jobs that are created by those 25000 positions.  A majority of New Yorkers were for them to move here, as were Democrat liberals Major De Blasio and Governor Cuomo who made the deal. 

NYC is a natural for Amazon being a hub for commerce, finance, tech, universities, pool of workers, great transportation,etc. They already have 5000 workers in Manhattan and will expand anyway.  But having a headquarters means a lot more commitment and jobs especially for low income blacks who live in the neighborhood.  AOC was playing politics and and wound up screwing people of color. Amazingly stupid.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 16, 2019, 09:13:59 am
I agree.  However, NYC was not handing taxpayer money over to Amazon.  The deal was tax deferrals.  NYC wouldn't collect certain corporate taxes if they moved there. But there would be no outlays.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-amazons-hq2-means-for-taxpayers-in-new-york-and-virginia-2018-11-14
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/community-activists-stage-cyber-monday-protests-in-fight-against-amazons-hq2-2018-11-26
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-amazon-effect-on-house-prices-may-be-muted-in-the-chosen-hq2-cities-2018-11-07

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 16, 2019, 09:31:29 am
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-amazons-hq2-means-for-taxpayers-in-new-york-and-virginia-2018-11-14
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/community-activists-stage-cyber-monday-protests-in-fight-against-amazons-hq2-2018-11-26
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-amazon-effect-on-house-prices-may-be-muted-in-the-chosen-hq2-cities-2018-11-07

Cheers,
Bart

Of the 4.3 billion dollars, only 500 million was Capital give back to Amazon.  The rest was tax deferrals meaning that since Amazon isn't moving their those taxes will never be collected to give back.  So the city and the state didn't save any money on that portion. Meanwhile New Jersey offered 7 billion dollars and other states even more. It was a foolish move on AOC's part. Her voters the poor would be the ones who getting a lot of the jobs. She was very stupid.  But as a New Yorker myself, I wonder how you know so much about New York City economics, employment,  taxes,  and politics from 3000 miles away?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 16, 2019, 09:47:47 am


And she was already proven right, in that is didn't take millions/billions of taxpayers subsidy to bring Amazon jobs to the area, because companies are eager to get a presence there anyway, even without subsidies.

Cheers,
Bart

First, as Alan has stated, Amazon was not getting any money from the city, only tax rebates.  Second, have you ever been to Long Island City, the NYC neighborhood Amazon was going to move to?  It is not an area that people are tripping over each other to develop, at least commercially; it is actually filled with blight.  Yes, there is some development on Queens Plaza and Jackson Ave, nearly all residential, but off those streets, the neighborhood looks kind of stuck.  And as you go further north to Dutch Kills, it gets worse.  So to say that businesses would be eager to develop LIC without tax rebates is kind of contrary to the reality of what is going on in that neighborhood.  Part of reason for this is a lack of an efficient route via public transportation to get to LIC.  Amazon's tax dollars would have brought in enough to pay for a new subway line, helping to further the development of LIC.  Now though, that is not happening.  Last, about 2/3 of AOC's district, which does not include LIC, were against her forcing Amazon out.  I did not see the polling of LIC's residents, but I am sure it was at least this amount as well being against her move. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on July 16, 2019, 10:18:07 am
I marvel at conservatives who are in favour of taxpayer subsidies when it benefits already successful large corporations. To massacre a phrase, ideology is bunk.

When government spends money to make people's lives better, it's an assault on freedom and/or the free market. When Amazon wants to build somewhere, AND COULD EASILY AFFORD TO DO SO, we frame it as a way to build a subway line to justify deferring their taxes. Nobody ever offered to defer my taxes. No logic is too tortuous, I guess.

Cities have to pay money to the Olympics committee to get the games, now we have to pay money to corporations to "create" jobs for us, Adam Smith is probably turning over in his grave.

As I have said before, we all behave as if our culture is a support system for commerce, when it should really be the other way round.


Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 16, 2019, 10:24:55 am
I agree.  However, NYC was not handing taxpayer money over to Amazon.  The deal was tax deferrals.  NYC wouldn't collect certain corporate taxes if they moved there. But there would be no outlays.  Now, without Amazin moving there, NYC loses 25000 jobs and the local NYC and NYS income taxes generated by those employees and associated jobs that are created by those 25000 positions.  A majority of New Yorkers were for them to move here, as were Democrat liberals Major De Blasio and Governor Cuomo who made the deal. 
There was an interesting story in the NY Times over the weekend on problems Kansas and Missouri were having because of tax abatements handed out to encourage companies to locate there.  As you know Kansas City is split between the two states and companies would play off one state against the other to get sweetheart tax deals.  Most of the corporate moves were 10 miles to one side of the river or the other.  Employees were usually not troubled but each city ended up losing revenue because of this.  they are in the process of legislatively fixing this problem.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on July 16, 2019, 10:29:47 am
Maybe they're just not going far enough. Maybe they should just sub-contract all local government to Amazon subsidiaries. What could go wrong.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 16, 2019, 10:48:04 am
I marvel at conservatives who are in favour of taxpayer subsidies when it benefits already successful large corporations. To massacre a phrase, ideology is bunk.

When government spends money to make people's lives better, it's an assault on freedom and/or the free market. When Amazon wants to build somewhere, AND COULD EASILY AFFORD TO DO SO, we frame it as a way to build a subway line to justify deferring their taxes. Nobody ever offered to defer my taxes. No logic is too tortuous, I guess.

Cities have to pay money to the Olympics committee to get the games, now we have to pay money to corporations to "create" jobs for us, Adam Smith is probably turning over in his grave.

As I have said before, we all behave as if our culture is a support system for commerce, when it should really be the other way round.

But it was not just conservatives, but Dems too who wanted this.  Mayor Bill and Governor Cuomo worked hard on this deal, and both were upset when it went south.  Both talked down on AOC for her part in ruining it. 

So, lets get our facts straight next time before we start foul mouthing conservatives, especially since NYC Dems were also for this. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 16, 2019, 11:17:17 am
AOC's role is grossly overestimated. The reason seems to be linked to a campaign to demonize her.

Did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ‘Chase’ Amazon Out of Her NYC District?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-amazon/

Quote
What's True
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez was a vocal opponent of Amazon's opening a second headquarters in Queens, New York City.

What's False
Ocasio-Cortez was not the sole force behind Amazon's withdrawing their plan to open a site in New York City, and many other public officials and residents opposed the plan as well. Long Island City, where HQ2 was slated to be located, is also not in her district.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 16, 2019, 11:22:50 am
Just to clarify a couple of points.  I worked in Long Island City (LIC) for 40 years and know it very well.  LIC is booming, even without Amazon.  Construction of office buildings and apartments continues unabated.   There are about 5-6 main subway lines plus the Long Island Railroad going through there.  I'd drive to mid-town Manhattan in 20-30 minutes.  It's two stops by subway.  Or a short bus ride.  It's nearby to LaGuardia and Kennedy Int'l Airports.
https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/7/2/19102639/amazon-hq2-long-island-city-real-estate (https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/7/2/19102639/amazon-hq2-long-island-city-real-estate)

Having said that, getting an additional 25000 jobs would have been a major plus for the community and city.   While I agree that corporations ought to not get relief, there's major competition between states to bring in businesses.  NYS has been losing companies to other states by the boatload due to high taxes and costs to do business. So, there are already NY incentives for any company to go there and much of the incentives were already baked in for Amazon without any negotiation required on their part.   A corporation may not be a person.  But there are people working for them.  And 25,000 jobs are considerable even for a big town like NYC.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 16, 2019, 11:24:13 am
There was an interesting story in the NY Times over the weekend on problems Kansas and Missouri were having because of tax abatements handed out to encourage companies to locate there.  As you know Kansas City is split between the two states and companies would play off one state against the other to get sweetheart tax deals.  Most of the corporate moves were 10 miles to one side of the river or the other.  Employees were usually not troubled but each city ended up losing revenue because of this.  they are in the process of legislatively fixing this problem.
You live in Virginia Alan don;t you?  AMazon's move to Virginia is a boon for your state.  Our loss is your gain. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 16, 2019, 11:27:05 am
AOC's role is grossly overestimated. The reason seems to be linked to a campaign to demonize her.

Did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ‘Chase’ Amazon Out of Her NYC District?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-amazon/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-amazon/)

Cheers,
Bart
So she's off the hook because other people also opposed it? 

"Officer, we were all swinging our fists.  Why are you picking on me?"
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 16, 2019, 12:57:06 pm
Just to clarify a couple of points.  I worked in Long Island City (LIC) for 40 years and know it very well.  LIC is booming, even without Amazon.  Construction of office buildings and apartments continues unabated.   There are about 5-6 main subway lines plus the Long Island Railroad going through there.  I'd drive to mid-town Manhattan in 20-30 minutes.  It's two stops by subway.  Or a short bus ride.  It's nearby to LaGuardia and Kennedy Int'l Airports.
https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/7/2/19102639/amazon-hq2-long-island-city-real-estate (https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/7/2/19102639/amazon-hq2-long-island-city-real-estate)

Having said that, getting an additional 25000 jobs would have been a major plus for the community and city.   While I agree that corporations ought to not get relief, there's major competition between states to bring in businesses.  NYS has been losing companies to other states by the boatload due to high taxes and costs to do business. So, there are already NY incentives for any company to go there and much of the incentives were already baked in for Amazon without any negotiation required on their part.   A corporation may not be a person.  But there are people working for them.  And 25,000 jobs are considerable even for a big town like NYC.

Thanks for the clarity on the subway stops. 

I still feel though that the boom is only really happening in and around Jackson and Queens Plaza, or from what I see when I go there.  (I am often traveling to NYC for work and almost always stay in LIC since it is fairly inexpensive.  Plus Bierocracy is one damn fine German beer hall!) 

The waterfront is not really that inviting and there are still a fair amount of abandoned buildings there.  Amazon was planning on building on the waterfront, which would have really brought the development a lot further. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 16, 2019, 01:01:33 pm
You live in Virginia Alan don;t you?  AMazon's move to Virginia is a boon for your state.  Our loss is your gain.
Bethesda Maryland and we had a wonderful site for the Amazon HQ-2 that made the final cut that was two miles from my house.  I would have loved to see them come here as my property value would go up 10-15% the next day!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on July 16, 2019, 01:15:53 pm
But it was not just conservatives, but Dems too who wanted this.  Mayor Bill and Governor Cuomo worked hard on this deal, and both were upset when it went south.  Both talked down on AOC for her part in ruining it. 

So, lets get our facts straight next time before we start foul mouthing conservatives, especially since NYC Dems were also for this.

Fair point, so far as it goes. I was thinking of the "conservatives" on this thread, not of the participating politicians in general. Left vs Right questions are often bogus these days anyways. I would call myself a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. That is, governments should be careful how they spend our money (especially when they give it away to corporate welfare bums and their fellow travellers who later condescendingly preach to me about "free markets") but I don't give a damn who my neighbour has sex with, so long as they're adults. 

And I resent you calling the expression of my opinions as "mouthing off".
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on July 16, 2019, 01:24:06 pm
But, speaking of "mouthing off", here's an example of denial newspeak from someone trying to re-invent the meaning of English words: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/453289-house-gop-leader-says-trumps-tweets-were-not-racist (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/453289-house-gop-leader-says-trumps-tweets-were-not-racist).

White is black.

Up is down.

Two legs good, four legs bad.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 16, 2019, 02:05:41 pm
Fair point, so far as it goes. I was thinking of the "conservatives" on this thread, not of the participating politicians in general. Left vs Right questions are often bogus these days anyways. I would call myself a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. That is, governments should be careful how they spend our money (especially when they give it away to corporate welfare bums and their fellow travellers who later condescendingly preach to me about "free markets") but I don't give a damn who my neighbour has sex with, so long as they're adults. 

And I resent you calling the expression of my opinions as "mouthing off".

Apologies for that. 

I just don't like the broad brush strokes on conservatives, and also when people make critiques against conservatives for things liberals were also for.  This Amazon debacle was only supported by the most fringe left; everyone else was for it, not just conservatives. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 16, 2019, 02:10:22 pm
But, speaking of "mouthing off", here's an example of denial newspeak from someone trying to re-invent the meaning of English words: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/453289-house-gop-leader-says-trumps-tweets-were-not-racist (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/453289-house-gop-leader-says-trumps-tweets-were-not-racist).

White is black.

Up is down.

Two legs good, four legs bad.

Well Trump certainly likes to step in it and take others down with him. 

I thought the spate between Pelosi and the four was quite comical, an unforeseen yet logical conclusion of identify politics.  If you insist on using it against the other party and teach the youths this is how it works, dont be surprised when they then use it against you as well. 

I still dont think this is going to effect anything other then a week of polling. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: amolitor on July 16, 2019, 02:15:01 pm
Amazon's choices had nothing to do with politics. They simply looked through the offers and noticed that two of them had neglected to insert exclusivity clauses, and they decided they'd like to double-dip.

Having amazon come to town is terrible. They completely trashed Seattle.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 16, 2019, 02:16:16 pm
Amazon's choices had nothing to do with politics. They simply looked through the offers and noticed that two of them had neglected to insert exclusivity clauses, and they decided they'd like to double-dip.

Having amazon come to town is terrible. They completely trashed Seattle.

How?  I seriously dont know. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: amolitor on July 16, 2019, 02:36:22 pm
Housing is a complete nightmare in Seattle. It gentrified thoroughly, so working class people have a hell of a time finding anywhere to live. It's the same problem across much of the western world, but it is amplified in places where there are a higher percentage of highly compensated workers. See, London, San Francisco, and to some extent NYC.

If you import a large whack of highly paid people fairly quickly, it throws the economy out of balance, right? Then you get politicians who listen to every grifter who comes along, and you get "solutions" that mainly profit the grifters, but rarely fix anything.

As soon as Amazon proposed HQ-2, things collapsed, and as of last fall Seattle paradoxically had a high vacancy rate, and no affordable housing (a snappy little $900K condo sitting empty does very little to help the bus driver who's looking for an apartment for his family, it turns out). I think things may be calming down now, but to be honest I have no checked back in recently.

I took a bunch of photos of FOR RENT/FOR SALE sandwich boards, and tent-encampments. There were a lot of both.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on July 16, 2019, 04:27:56 pm
Commercial monopolies were long held to be bad. Now they're good. Why doesn't everyone smell a rat?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 16, 2019, 04:35:33 pm
Thanks for the clarity on the subway stops. 

I still feel though that the boom is only really happening in and around Jackson and Queens Plaza, or from what I see when I go there.  (I am often traveling to NYC for work and almost always stay in LIC since it is fairly inexpensive.  Plus Bierocracy is one damn fine German beer hall!) 

The waterfront is not really that inviting and there are still a fair amount of abandoned buildings there.  Amazon was planning on building on the waterfront, which would have really brought the development a lot further. 
I think LIC problem is there's not much street life yet.  But otherwise it's booming, fastest growing neighborhood in the country after Brooklyn.  Here's a year old article about it.  It still is growing despite Amazon not moving there.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/09/nyc-real-estate-living-in-long-island-city.html (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/09/nyc-real-estate-living-in-long-island-city.html)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 16, 2019, 04:41:14 pm
Housing is a complete nightmare in Seattle. It gentrified thoroughly, so working class people have a hell of a time finding anywhere to live. It's the same problem across much of the western world, but it is amplified in places where there are a higher percentage of highly compensated workers. See, London, San Francisco, and to some extent NYC.

If you import a large whack of highly paid people fairly quickly, it throws the economy out of balance, right? Then you get politicians who listen to every grifter who comes along, and you get "solutions" that mainly profit the grifters, but rarely fix anything.

As soon as Amazon proposed HQ-2, things collapsed, and as of last fall Seattle paradoxically had a high vacancy rate, and no affordable housing (a snappy little $900K condo sitting empty does very little to help the bus driver who's looking for an apartment for his family, it turns out). I think things may be calming down now, but to be honest I have no checked back in recently.

I took a bunch of photos of FOR RENT/FOR SALE sandwich boards, and tent-encampments. There were a lot of both.
LIC continues to grow by leaps and bounds despite Amazon not moving in.   Had they moved into it, LIC would not be overwhelmed like Seattle as NYC is a big city that absorbs these things fairly easily.  NYC has always had expensive neighborhoods.  But it's big enough with its out boroughs where you have lower rents.  Plus NYC has good subway and bus systems that workers can get to work easily and efficiently.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on July 22, 2019, 05:39:34 am
Not only US Constitution, this time Trump is being asked to defend Hong Kong constitution.


(https://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-1451289-galleryV9-qvzw-1451289.jpg)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 22, 2019, 05:51:25 am
Very bad move on the part of those who seek to retain some freedoms.

The first time I noticed this was when they took over the government building and displayed the British colours. Really dumb: it makes China think they are into sedition and inviting foreign military intervention. If you want to make things worse, needle with a sharp stick.

Of course, there remains the distinct possibility that those people doing that are attempting the same thing as did those who took over the gilets jaunes and went very violent. If China is behind them, then they give her the perfect excuse for wading in with an iron fist: maintaining law and order.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on July 22, 2019, 06:42:09 am
Very bad move on the part of those who seek to retain some freedoms.

The first time I noticed this was when they took over the government building and displayed the British colours. Really dumb: it makes China think they are into sedition and inviting foreign military intervention. If you want to make things worse, needle with a sharp stick.

Of course, there remains the distinct possibility that those people doing that are attempting the same thing as did those who took over the gilets jaunes and went very violent. If China is behind them, then they give her the perfect excuse for wading in with an iron fist: maintaining law and order.

That will be a very probable sequel.
Similar to Prague spring in 1968 and Russian invasion to crack down on reformist movements. Although Czech demonstrations were never as violent as the ones by gilets jaunes in Paris or the latest ones in Hong Kong.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on July 22, 2019, 09:39:33 am
just look at the result of Tiananmen Square protests of 1989...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 22, 2019, 09:44:55 am
Time isn't on Hong Kong's side. Frankly it was over when the Brits left. The question is Taiwan. They're capable of fighting back although when there time is on China's side
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 22, 2019, 04:25:41 pm
Time isn't on Hong Kong's side. Frankly it was over when the Brits left. The question is Taiwan. They're capable of fighting back although when there time is on China's side

Hong Kong. You're right about that: the game was over the moment the ceremony ended.

Taiwan. Fighting back, as in a real war, is suicide. Is it the better choice? I don't think so.

If change is going to come, it has to come from deep within China. It's not impossible, but improbable for the time being.

If you look at it coldly, remove yourself from any partisan position, does the West today really offer the other societies, with alternative takes on life, any outstanding moral highground? Frankly, there appears to be so much hypocricy, corruption and crime at all levels of its society, so much misery and squalor, social division and meanness of spirit... yes, possibly a higher standard of living for some, but beneath that, what?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on July 22, 2019, 04:31:54 pm
Hong Kong. You're right about that: the game was over the moment the ceremony ended.

Taiwan. Fighting back, as in a real war, is suicide. Is it the better choice? I don't think so.

If change is going to come, it has to come from deep within China. It's not impossible, but improbable for the time being.

If you look at it coldly, remove yourself from any partisan position, does the West today really offer the other societies, with alternative takes on life, any outstanding moral highground? Frankly, there appears to be so much hypocricy, corruption and crime at all levels of its society, so much misery and squalor, social division and meanness of spirit... yes, possibly a higher standard of living for some, but beneath that, what?

An interesting TED talk from a Chinese political scientist: https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_x_li_a_tale_of_two_political_systems (https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_x_li_a_tale_of_two_political_systems). It sounds a bit too glib, glosses over a lot, but offers some thoughts that are worth examining.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 22, 2019, 06:43:00 pm
Time isn't on Hong Kong's side. Frankly it was over when the Brits left. The question is Taiwan. They're capable of fighting back although when there time is on China's side

If Hong Kong goes, so does China. 

Hong Kong is essentially what gives China its legitimacy.  It is a highly active business center of the East with banking and corporate centers China desperately needs in order to survive.

Given the current unrest, some businesses have moved their headquarters to Singapore, even though what China has done has been quite minimal by any standard.  This is pretty serious and if a mass exodus of businesses begins, it would probably cause a recession in the already weakened Chinese economy.  The current Trump tariffs and negative effects of China's building boom (which was 40% of their economy for a period of time) would certainly add to this. 

This would not be good, and I can not see China letting this happen, although many a dictators have been blinded by power.

King (excuse me President) Xi is in a very precarious situation right now. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 22, 2019, 08:57:02 pm
Quote
If you look at it coldly, remove yourself from any partisan position, does the West today really offer the other societies, with alternative takes on life, any outstanding moral highground? Frankly, there appears to be so much hypocricy, corruption and crime at all levels of its society, so much misery and squalor, social division and meanness of spirit... yes, possibly a higher standard of living for some, but beneath that, what?

To say China is equal to the rest of the world and that the rest of the world has nothing better to offer is nonsense.   Political freedom,  freedom of speech,  religion, the press,  etc. There's no comparison.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 23, 2019, 06:32:32 am
To say China is equal to the rest of the world and that the rest of the world has nothing better to offer is nonsense.   Political freedom,  freedom of speech,  religion, the press,  etc. There's no comparison.

The question was not 'to criticize China', but what do we/you have to offer them?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 23, 2019, 07:18:19 am
To say China is equal to the rest of the world and that the rest of the world has nothing better to offer is nonsense.   Political freedom,  freedom of speech,  religion, the press,  etc. There's no comparison.


Count your listed blessings and then take a closer look at them and evaluate: feel the quality, not the width.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 23, 2019, 07:35:34 am
The rioting Chinese in Hong Kong know what they're about to lose.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on July 23, 2019, 08:23:06 am
If they lose it, it'll be an economic disaster for China, not just Hong Kong. But that's something I doubt communists understand.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 23, 2019, 10:29:41 am
If they lose it, it'll be an economic disaster for China, not just Hong Kong. But that's something I doubt communists understand.

Why do you think that would happen? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on July 23, 2019, 12:43:27 pm
Why do you think that would happen?

Throw of the dice? Rumble of a tank? Chatter of a machine gun?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Osprey on July 31, 2019, 11:51:54 pm
The Rule of Law?  A system that doesn't change on a dime with whatever Big Man is in power?  Ask all the Chinese trying to salt their money away in the West.

The question was not 'to criticize China', but what do we/you have to offer them?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on July 31, 2019, 11:57:34 pm
The Rule of Law?  A system that doesn't change on a dime with whatever Big Man is in power?  Ask all the Chinese trying to salt their money away in the West.

+1  There's more to living than just having money.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 01, 2019, 02:23:28 am
Why do you think that would happen?

Just look at the history. This is what will happen:
The protesters will get bolder, the bad guys in their midst will get more violent, and the Hongkong police will have get firmer with them. However they will respond rather carefully, not brutally. That police action will infuriate the protesters who are now more confident and anxious to put more weight on the streets. They will now demand autonomy and freedom for Hongkong. Not unsurprisingly, the bad actors will get even bolder and even more violent, vandalizing the offices and stores. This will be perfect opportunity and excuse for the Chinese military to move in, jail the opposition, install a new governor and stratocracy to start a new phase in the once-free Hongkong. 

The only question is when it will happen. I would guess sooner than later.
On my street, two of the houses near me are owned by Hongkong citizens who are now renting out the houses while still making money at home. There are quite a few such homes in Toronto and Vancouver, as safe places to move in when the above events take place.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 01, 2019, 09:49:24 am
Just look at the history. This is what will happen:
The protesters will get bolder, the bad guys in their midst will get more violent, and the Hongkong police will have get firmer with them. However they will respond rather carefully, not brutally. That police action will infuriate the protesters who are now more confident and anxious to put more weight on the streets. They will now demand autonomy and freedom for Hongkong. Not unsurprisingly, the bad actors will get even bolder and even more violent, vandalizing the offices and stores. This will be perfect opportunity and excuse for the Chinese military to move in, jail the opposition, install a new governor and stratocracy to start a new phase in the once-free Hongkong. 

The only question is when it will happen. I would guess sooner than later.
On my street, two of the houses near me are owned by Hongkong citizens who are now renting out the houses while still making money at home. There are quite a few such homes in Toronto and Vancouver, as safe places to move in when the above events take place.   
I agree.  Like I said in an earlier post, once the Brits pulled out, it was only a matter of time before HK's government. industries and people fell under the rule of Peking. The Chinese are patient.   The more interesting question, when will China shed it's one-party rule, if ever?  Even if it did, would it's expansion policies be any different? 

Getting back to the US Constitution, its writers were against getting involved in foreign intrigues, especially with countries "over there". That hasn't worked out too well. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 01, 2019, 10:29:26 am
... And I resent you calling the expression of my opinions as "mouthing off".

That was wrong. You are just politely saying stupid not very intelligent things.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 01, 2019, 11:32:26 am
Getting back to the US Constitution, its writers were against getting involved in foreign intrigues, especially with countries "over there".

How so? What part of the constitution are you referring to?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 01, 2019, 12:39:09 pm
How so? What part of the constitution are you referring to?

Cheers,
Bart
The part that requires the US Senate approve all treaties. It prevents presidents from making deals on their own as if they were a king.  Obama and the Iran deal is a good example. So was the Paris Accord. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 01, 2019, 01:29:57 pm
The part that requires the US Senate approve all treaties. It prevents presidents from making deals on their own as if they were a king.  Obama and the Iran deal is a good example. So was the Paris Accord.

You could do with a king; so far you've got a court jester, but keep working on it, the signs are promising.

We've got a queen, but we might as well not: she couldn't influence Brexit one way or the other. It's a British thing: have a great gun but don't buy ammunition; not even blanks.

:-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 01, 2019, 02:03:17 pm
That was wrong. You are just politely saying stupid not very intelligent things.

That exchange was dealt with by the people involved.

Are you actually trying to bait me? You might have too much time on your hands.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 01, 2019, 03:35:50 pm
You could do with a king; so far you've got a court jester, but keep working on it, the signs are promising.

We've got a queen, but we might as well not: she couldn't influence Brexit one way or the other. It's a British thing: have a great gun but don't buy ammunition; not even blanks.

:-)
If you're going to use ad hominem attacks, you're going to be the one getting threads shut down by encouraging others to respond in kind. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 02, 2019, 09:42:11 am
The new imposed tariffs on China are causing a lot of concern there and here and elsewhere. We might see more Made in Vietnam...Taiwan...South Korea...Philippines...India....Indonesia....etc. stuff over here in America pretty soon.   China's also about to have a fit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/business/china-trump-trade-retaliation.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 02, 2019, 09:52:56 am
If you're going to use ad hominem attacks, you're going to be the one getting threads shut down by encouraging others to respond in kind.


I have not attacked a poster here. Ergo, no ad homs.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 02, 2019, 10:27:22 am

I have not attacked a poster here. Ergo, no ad homs.

Rob

You took the words right out of my mouth. Re-reading, I think he was referring to the attacks on Trump, but maybe Alan will explain what he meant because I too was puzzled.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 02, 2019, 11:07:50 am
You took the words right out of my mouth. Re-reading, I think he was referring to the attacks on Trump, but maybe Alan will explain what he meant because I too was puzzled.
Insulting people I voted for with vile and bile is demeaning to me.  Maybe I'm too sensitive.  But, if I called the people you voted for "orange headed Hitlers and tyrants, etc., you might take that personally as well.  I think sticking to issues you disagree with and why rather than ad hominem attacks is more enlightening and less personal to supporters.   It might prevent comebacks that just get threads closed.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 02, 2019, 11:25:35 am
Insulting people I voted for with vile and bile is demeaning to me.  Maybe I'm too sensitive.  But, if I called the people you voted for "orange headed Hitlers and tyrants, etc., you might take that personally as well.  I think sticking to issues you disagree with and why rather than ad hominem attacks is more enlightening and less personal to supporters.   It might prevent comebacks that just get threads closed.

My understanding is that an ad hominem attack consists of personally insulting your debate/discussion opponent instead of addressing the issues under discussion. This is not the same thing as insulting political leaders that are being discussed.

Speaking only for myself, you can insult any politician you like, including any I might support, it won't bother me. But more generally, when a public figure says derisory things, they're going to be ridiculed mercilessly , that's just the way things are. Been going on forever. Pick up an early issue of Punch for examples. If what you're really complaining about is the often uncivil comments about your current President, I guess I can understand your displeasure, I also deplore the current state of public discourse, but unfortunately that ship sailed a long time ago. And it is your President himself who is the most guilty in this regard. I think of the paper towel tossing incident, for instance, but that's just one example. The occasions are too numerous to list. On occasion, you have personally dismissed this behaviour as Trump just being Trump, i.e., outrageous. Well ok, I guess, but that kind of behaviour is going to be met in kind and no one is going to apologize, you had better get used to it. Besides, it's pretty late in the day to worry about it now.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 02, 2019, 11:48:14 am
My understanding is that an ad hominem attack consists of personally insulting your debate/discussion opponent instead of addressing the issues under discussion. This is not the same thing as insulting political leaders that are being discussed.

Speaking only for myself, you can insult any politician you like, including any I might support, it won't bother me. But more generally, when a public figure says derisory things, they're going to be ridiculed mercilessly , that's just the way things are. Been going on forever. Pick up an early issue of Punch for examples. If what you're really complaining about is the often uncivil comments about your current President, I guess I can understand your displeasure, I also deplore the current state of public discourse, but unfortunately that ship sailed a long time ago. And it is your President himself who is the most guilty in this regard. I think of the paper towel tossing incident, for instance, but that's just one example. The occasions are too numerous to list. On occasion, you have personally dismissed this behaviour as Trump just being Trump, i.e., outrageous. Well ok, I guess, but that kind of behaviour is going to be met in kind and no one is going to apologize, you had better get used to it. Besides, it's pretty late in the day to worry about it now.
So you're lowering yourself to Trump's level? OK.  Now I know where you stand.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 02, 2019, 12:17:36 pm
... I think of the paper towel tossing incident...

Incident!? Which part of it was "incident"? He walked into a room full of supplies, paper towels among them, and decided to help distribute it. There were probably gallon-sized water bottles there too, would it be better if he was tossing it instead? Hitting, say, a child in the head and killing him? Now, that would be an incident. Thank God it was paper towels.

Besides, those were, I am sure, 3-play towels, very absorbent, quite handy for flooding.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 02, 2019, 12:26:25 pm
Hand in hand.

The Democratic party's surrender to the Jihad Squad (a.k.a. "the future of the Party") is finalized:
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 02, 2019, 12:29:18 pm
Hand in hand.

The Democratic party's surrender to the Jihad Squad (a.k.a. "the future of the Party") is finalized:

Jihad Squad?  ==  Fake news!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 02, 2019, 01:25:04 pm
So you're lowering yourself to Trump's level? OK.  Now I know where you stand.

Thanks for the laugh.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 02, 2019, 01:25:36 pm
Incident!? Which part of it was "incident"? He walked into a room full of supplies, paper towels among them, and decided to help distribute it. There were probably gallon-sized water bottles there too, would it be better if he was tossing it instead? Hitting, say, a child in the head and killing him? Now, that would be an incident. Thank God it was paper towels.

Besides, those were, I am sure, 3-play towels, very absorbent, quite handy for flooding.

You're right, I got it wrong.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 02, 2019, 01:27:37 pm
So you're lowering yourself to Trump's level? OK.
Was that an ad hominen attack against Trump. I'm confused.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 02, 2019, 01:28:30 pm
Insulting people I voted for with vile and bile is demeaning to me.

Writes the man who wrote that Elizabeth Warren "walks like a duck".

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 02, 2019, 01:49:06 pm
Was that an ad hominen attack against Trump. I'm confused.

+1 ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 02, 2019, 02:09:52 pm
Writes the man who wrote that Elizabeth Warren "walks like a duck".

Jeremy
You're right of course.   
If there's anyone here who would vote for Elizabeth Warren, I apologize.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 02, 2019, 02:21:32 pm
Was that an ad hominen attack against Trump. I'm confused.
Was that an ad hominen attack against Trump. I'm confused.
Well Robert is better than Trump when it comes to that. That was my point.  Maybe it didn't come out that way.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 02, 2019, 02:29:04 pm
Well Robert is better than Trump when it comes to that. That was my point.  Maybe it didn't come out that way.
Sounded to me as if you were saying he was lowering himself to Trump's level. Not exactly an endorsement of Trump's behavior.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 02, 2019, 03:03:23 pm
Sounded to me as if you were saying he was lowering himself to Trump's level to me. Not exactly an endorsement of Trump's behavior.
Well, I get squirrely when Trump goes off on one of his insults.  I have to ignore it.  I think Robert is better than that which is a complement.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 02, 2019, 03:27:19 pm
Well, I get squirrely when Trump goes off on one of his insults.  I have to ignore it.  I think Robert is better than that which is a complement.
So when someone insults Trump, you feel personally demeaned, but when Trump insults someone, you ignore it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 02, 2019, 03:28:37 pm
More Left on Left violence:  ;D ;D ;D

This single sentence, by a loony-left actress, is attacked as "racist" by the loonier left  ;D ;D ;D

Quote
... actress responded to a tweet from Bloomberg that highlighted the “emerging trend” of Harris going directly after Joe Biden during these kinds of debates.

“Because she’s overconfident and believes he is her only competition,” Pompeo wrote.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/greys-anatomy-ellen-pompeo-racist-kamala-harris-comment

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 02, 2019, 03:52:52 pm
Well, I get squirrely when Trump goes off on one of his insults.  I have to ignore it.  I think Robert is better than that which is a complement.

Well that's not setting the bar very high, but I'll take any compliment I can get.  ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 02, 2019, 03:55:08 pm
More Left on Left violence:  ;D ;D ;D

This single sentence, by a loony-left actress, is attacked as "racist" by the loonier left  ;D ;D ;D

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/greys-anatomy-ellen-pompeo-racist-kamala-harris-comment

I take your point, but you know, if you go looking for crazy statements by crazy people, you're not going to have any time left for living. There's just no end to it. Relax, it's the weekend. And in most places in Canada, it's a long weekend to boot.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 02, 2019, 04:46:49 pm
I take your point, but you know, if you go looking for crazy statements by crazy people, you're not going to have any time left for living. There's just no end to it. Relax, it's the weekend. And in most places in Canada, it's a long weekend to boot.

What a coincidence! Here in Pollença it's the patrona's day and celebrates the Christians kicking out the Moors. Everybody gets stoned out of their senses and you avoid going to the town the next day or the pavement pizzas will get you; in nine months time the birth rate peaks again. All so predictable, which is the trouble with calendars and feast days. Must say, some of the girls looked wonderful this morning.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 02, 2019, 05:28:22 pm
So when someone insults Trump, you feel personally demeaned, but when Trump insults someone, you ignore it.
Fab, I don;t like it.  Well sometimes I do.  But I can't repeat anything he has said or Jeremy will make me sit in the corner with a dunce cap.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 02, 2019, 05:35:21 pm
What a coincidence! Here in Pollença it's the patrona's day and celebrates the Christians kicking out the Moors. Everybody gets stoned out of their senses and you avoid going to the town the next day or the pavement pizzas will get you; in nine months time the birth rate peaks again. All so predictable, which is the trouble with calendars and feast days. Must say, some of the girls looked wonderful this morning.

Rob

The first Monday of August is a stat holiday in almost all Canadian provinces. Not in Quebec though, but they make up for it by having an extra holiday in June that the rest of us don't enjoy. Monday used to be known as Civic Holiday but I think different places call it different things these days. Here in Ottawa, they've started referring to it as Colonel By day, the Colonel being a local hero. Enjoy your long weekend.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 03, 2019, 12:45:45 am
Trump announced a deal on Friday to sell more American beef to Europe. The European Commission has stressed that any beef deal will not increase overall beef imports and that all the beef coming in would be hormone-free, in line with EU food safety rules. All beef grown with hormones will be consumed by US citizens.

Quote
The US and the European Union have had a beef beef for years. But after steak-ing out their relative positions, they finally just agreed to meat in the middle.

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/2/20751769/us-eu-beef-trade-deal-trump
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 03, 2019, 12:51:25 am
Trump announced a deal on Friday to sell more American beef to Europe. The European Commission has stressed that any beef deal will not increase overall beef imports and that all the beef coming in would be hormone-free, in line with EU food safety rules. All beef grown with hormones will be consumed by US citizens.

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/2/20751769/us-eu-beef-trade-deal-trump
Sounds like a well cooked and juicy deal.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 03, 2019, 02:22:11 am
Too bad that it shortens life expectancy - both of the cows and the steak lovers.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on August 03, 2019, 07:12:18 am
On a side note: The amount of cows is a major source of producing greenhouse gasses... so we have to change our livestyle and start eating less meat.

In this article they say  a car= a cow
https://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/methane-cow.htm

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 03, 2019, 09:25:30 am
On a side note: The amount of cows is a major source of producing greenhouse gasses... so we have to change our livestyle and start eating less meat...

Good luck with that:

Quote
The world cattle inventory in 2018 is at 1.002 billion head. 

India has the largest cattle inventory in the world [30%] in 2018 followed by Brazil & China.   Roughly 63% of the world's cattle are in India, Brazil & China.  (The cattle inventory in India includes water buffalo).

More than 90% of the world's cattle are NOT in the United States.  The United States has the 4th largest cattle inventory in the world in 2018.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 03, 2019, 09:47:59 am
On a side note: The amount of cows is a major source of producing greenhouse gasses... so we have to change our livestyle and start eating less meat.

 :o :o :o

Right. And pigs don't fart, so eat pork.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 03, 2019, 10:48:14 am
The future of the Democratic party  ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 03, 2019, 10:53:21 am
At my advancing age, napping stations sound pretty good. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 03, 2019, 11:00:09 am
About them apples tariffs:

P.S. One thing never occurred to me, to see tariffs as racist. Then again, I shouldn't really be surprised; these days everything is racist to the Left.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 03, 2019, 11:53:48 am
The Russian Collusion finally proven!!!

By the heroic efforts of the leader of the free press, Washington Times, no less!

Quote
Yep, like so much about this current administration, even Trump’s beloved hamburgers have surprising ties to Russia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/even-one-of-trumps-favorite-foods-has-a-hidden-russia-connection/2019/07/29/69d594f0-a1a4-11e9-bd56-eac6bb02d01d_story.html?utm_term=.d36a18a2a3ba

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 03, 2019, 12:47:18 pm
At my advancing age, napping stations sound pretty good.

Napping is a key part of my life. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 03, 2019, 12:49:52 pm
Napping is a key part of my life. 

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 03, 2019, 03:26:26 pm
:o :o :o

Right. And pigs don't fart, so eat pork.

Greenhouse gasses aside, hog farms are a notorious source of pollution, FWIW.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 03, 2019, 04:20:32 pm
Golly, guess you'll have to eat goats, James. Surely they don't fart. How about deer and bear in the forest? They couldn't possible fart. After all, they're wild animals.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 03, 2019, 04:44:45 pm
Guess the guns have just spoken again down in Texas.

Nothing much changes; the protests will probably come up again, but so will the counter-arguments and nothing concrete will be done. What a terrible situation.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 03, 2019, 04:55:27 pm
Golly, guess you'll have to eat goats, James. Surely they don't fart. How about deer and bear in the forest? They couldn't possible fart. After all, they're wild animals.

As seen in Graduate movie:
Quote
Mr. McGuire: I want to say just one word to you. Just one word.

Benjamin: Yes, sir.

Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?

Benjamin: Yes, I am.

Mr. McGuire: PlasticsInsects.

Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean?

Mr. McGuire: There’s a great future in plasticsInsects. Think about it. Will you think about it?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 03, 2019, 07:50:24 pm
 ;D Yeah. I saw the movie too.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on August 04, 2019, 05:22:58 am
Guess the guns have just spoken again down in Texas.

Nothing much changes; the protests will probably come up again, but so will the counter-arguments and nothing concrete will be done. What a terrible situation.
Guess the guns have just spoken again down in Texas Ohio.

Nothing much changes; the protests will probably come up again, but so will the counter-arguments and nothing concrete will be done. What a terrible situation.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 04, 2019, 06:28:20 am
Guess the guns have just spoken again down in Texas Ohio.

Nothing much changes; the protests will probably come up again, but so will the counter-arguments and nothing concrete will be done. What a terrible situation.

In case you missed this https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/456070-driver-plows-through-crowd-gathered-at-anti-violence-rally-in (https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/456070-driver-plows-through-crowd-gathered-at-anti-violence-rally-in).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 04, 2019, 07:42:49 am
. . .nothing concrete will be done.

What concrete is to be done? The usual response is: "Let's ban guns." But when I was 12 and still when I was 30, just about everybody had guns, myself included. The changes have to do with people, not guns.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 04, 2019, 09:46:26 am
What concrete is to be done? The usual response is: "Let's ban guns." But when I was 12 and still when I was 30, just about everybody had guns, myself included. The changes have to do with people, not guns.


Yes, and no.

To change the people factor you would require massive re-education which is impossible because, as we both know, normal education across the world is a rarity, so the software can't be fixed. Much human software is fatally flawed from the first moments it exists, so no later fixing's going to work.

That leaves only the hardware, and the govt. could start by finding its testicles - assuming they have not atrophied beyond repair - and instantly ban the production of all small arms that a person might care to carry concealed in his waistband. It could restrict the sales of so-called sporting rifles to farmers and authorised rangers and ensure that anyone found owning a military weapon goes down for a considerable period. Sport shooting, as in the killing for "fun" of animals by a civilian with a blood lust and ineffectual penis is a horrible comment on the state of mind and being of such a person. Of such a vast group of them, in fact.

The arms business makes enough money selling to political and radical factions across the globe. Without its benign interference the weapons in those benighted territories would be no better than copies of copies of old Russian guns hand-made in Afghanistan.

Of course the criminals will ponder any gun amnesty and some will surrender and some not. If no new supply can be bought off the shelf, all the better; that illegal supplies will continue is not in question, but hey, the penalties can be made to match the crime, and buying illegally will be more difficult than doing so by mail order, in a mall or at a county fair.

Mr T wants to build walls: he can start with penitentiary ones first, helping both the building trades and the long-term employment figures in one magnificent gesture. Even the farmers would be happy with all those state-funded mouths to feed!

If you remove gun lobby money from politics, you can bet that governments of all stripes will quickly come to their senses on the matter of guns. It already gives them hassle enough every time some other moron goes nuts in the heat of either the moment or the weather. They don't need this crap, but they do grovel for the cash.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 04, 2019, 10:24:24 am
What concrete is to be done? The usual response is: "Let's ban guns." But when I was 12 and still when I was 30, just about everybody had guns, myself included. The changes have to do with people, not guns.

I should preface this by stating that responses to these mass shootings are of course emotional. These types of shootings represent a tiny fraction of American gun violence, but their random nature scares people, so the emotional response is understandable. That is, if somebody next door shoots his wife or brother-in-law in an argument, it's easy for most people to say, 'Well, he hated his brother-in-law, not me, so who cares?' This is an admittedly crude way to put it, but it's not a bad summary of what happens, imo.

You ask 'What is to be done?' Tough question, but it must be pretty obvious by now that doing nothing isn't working very well.

The aphorism "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is more a signal of tribal affiliation than explanation or analysis. But accepting it at face value as the cause of shootings, wouldn't it be in your collective best interest then to at least be more careful about which people are allowed to buy guns? There are exams to pass before you're allowed to drive. There are exams to pass before a HAM radio operator is allowed to transmit.

Why is there such a frenzied reaction by the gun fetish lobby when someone suggests something along those lines when it comes to firearms ownership? Is it REALLY a violation of your constitutional rights if you have to answer some questions and wait a week to be allowed to buy a gun to "defend your family"? Isn't that argument a little thin?

The thing is, as you and others have often pointed out, there already are a lot of guns around and it's silly to try to curb their proliferation at this point. There's a lot in that, it's difficult to argue with and I won't try. Because of that, it somehow follows that the "good guys" need guns too to defend themselves. But isn't it kind of the case that any "good guys" who were going to buy guns would have done so by now? Isn't it the case that a lot of good guys have guns now already? Wouldn't it be nice for your belief system if there were at least one or two examples of one or two of those good guys actually being present and stopping one of these mass shootings? I mean, shouldn't there have been a few cases by now if it was true that only a "good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun." 

But as Rob C stated, the status quo is stalemate and likely to remain so. This is too sad for words.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 10:39:16 am
... shouldn't there have been a few cases by now if it was true that only a "good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun." 

The trouble is, those are usually "gun-free" zones, where good guys are not allowed to bring in their guns in the first place.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 04, 2019, 10:50:22 am
The trouble is, those are usually "gun-free" zones, where good guys are not allowed to bring in their guns in the first place.

So, if one cannot bring one's gun, how are more guns going to help?
Are you pleading to getting rid of "gun-free" zones?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 10:57:59 am
... Are you pleading to getting rid of "gun-free" zones?

Yes, absolutely!

The stupidest idea of the anti-gun advocates.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 11:05:38 am

Yes, and no.

To change the people factor you would require massive re-education which is impossible because, as we both know, normal education across the world is a rarity, so the software can't be fixed. Much human software is fatally flawed from the first moments it exists, so no later fixing's going to work.

That leaves only the hardware, and the govt. could start by finding its testicles - assuming they have not atrophied beyond repair - and instantly ban the production of all small arms that a person might care to carry concealed in his waistband. It could restrict the sales of so-called sporting rifles to farmers and authorised rangers and ensure that anyone found owning a military weapon goes down for a considerable period. Sport shooting, as in the killing for "fun" of animals by a civilian with a blood lust and ineffectual penis is a horrible comment on the state of mind and being of such a person. Of such a vast group of them, in fact.

The arms business makes enough money selling to political and radical factions across the globe. Without its benign interference the weapons in those benighted territories would be no better than copies of copies of old Russian guns hand-made in Afghanistan.

Of course the criminals will ponder any gun amnesty and some will surrender and some not. If no new supply can be bought off the shelf, all the better; that illegal supplies will continue is not in question, but hey, the penalties can be made to match the crime, and buying illegally will be more difficult than doing so by mail order, in a mall or at a county fair.

Mr T wants to build walls: he can start with penitentiary ones first, helping both the building trades and the long-term employment figures in one magnificent gesture. Even the farmers would be happy with all those state-funded mouths to feed!

If you remove gun lobby money from politics, you can bet that governments of all stripes will quickly come to their senses on the matter of guns. It already gives them hassle enough every time some other moron goes nuts in the heat of either the moment or the weather. They don't need this crap, but they do grovel for the cash.
Your recommendations would require a change in the US Constitution Amendment 2 to eliminate guns as you suggest.  You'd need a change to Amendment 1 to eliminate the NRA's right of free speech and to petition government regarding laws they make like any other person or organization may do. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 11:10:55 am
Yes, absolutely!

The stupidest idea of the anti-gun advocates.
Of course, since malls are private property, the owners may imposed whatever rules they deem fit including "gun free" zones as what happened in El Paso, Texas.   

What's interesting is the Dayton Ohio situation.  I believe that happened in a public area of the street.  What were the laws in effect there at  the time?  Most cities don't allow open carry or carry at all, but there are states that do.  Would the situation have played out differently if it occured in an carry area where the public started to shot back and killed the guy before the cops even got there?  Of course, in carry locations, there's less of a possibility that someone is going to start shooting in the first place
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 11:14:49 am
... Of course, in carry locations, there's less of a possibility that someone is going to start shooting in the first place

Yes and no. Those lunatics go there do die. By cop or bystanders, it is all the same to them. But, he might end up dead sooner.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 04, 2019, 11:15:50 am
Your recommendations would require a change in the US Constitution Amendment 2 to eliminate guns as you suggest.  You'd need a change to Amendment 1 to eliminate the NRA's right of free speech and to petition government regarding laws they make like any other person or organization may do.
You can ban assault rifles. We have done it before. Machine guns have been banned for a hundred years. We ban rocket launchers after all. Maybe some background checks without loopholes.  NRA can still advocate for guns. So what. People advocate for all sorts of stuff we don't permit. We can still take reasonable steps .
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 04, 2019, 11:16:03 am
Of course, since malls are private property, the owners may imposed whatever rules they deem fit including "gun free" zones as what happened in El Paso, Texas.   

What's interesting is the Dayton Ohio situation.  I believe that happened in a public area of the street.  What were the laws in effect there at  the time?  Most cities don't allow open carry or carry at all, but there are states that do.  Would the situation have played out differently if it occured in an carry area where the public started to shot back and killed the guy before the cops even got there?  Of course, in carry locations, there's less of a possibility that someone is going to start shooting in the first place

Is there?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on August 04, 2019, 11:16:10 am
Supposedly the cops got the Ohio shooter in less than a minute.
El Paso took more than 6 minutes.

With auto or semi-auto, that is a lot of hits. Heck, even a pistol is 6+.

Too easy for those who hate or cannot control themselves.

Society tolerates the behavior. Until that changes then no change.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 04, 2019, 11:17:23 am
Yes and no. Those lunatics go there do die. By cop or bystanders, it is all the same to them. But, he might end up dead sooner.

 ... and a larger number of innocent bystanders as well.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 04, 2019, 11:20:37 am
Your recommendations would require a change in the US Constitution Amendment 2 to eliminate guns as you suggest.  You'd need a change to Amendment 1 to eliminate the NRA's right of free speech and to petition government regarding laws they make like any other person or organization may do.


Putting free speech and gun ownership in bed together is a lunacy. If your FFs really intended that, they must have been moonshine distillers on the side.

Not in any man's language can guns and speech be conflated in this manner and make sense.

Anyone pretending otherwise is making a mockery of his own country and its laws.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 11:23:27 am
... We can still take reasonable steps .

Like what?

I am not trying to be facetious. I am genuinely interested. Most of those guys would have passed, or did, background checks. They are typically described as loners, a bit withdrawn or weird, but far from certifiably mental.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 11:24:05 am
... and a larger number of innocent bystanders as well.

That would happen anyway.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 11:35:30 am
...
That leaves only the hardware, and the govt. could start by finding its testicles - assuming they have not atrophied beyond repair - and instantly ban the production of all small arms that a person might care to carry concealed in his waistband. It could restrict the sales of so-called sporting rifles to farmers and authorised rangers and ensure that anyone found owning a military weapon goes down for a considerable period. Sport shooting, as in the killing for "fun" of animals by a civilian with a blood lust and ineffectual penis is a horrible comment on the state of mind and being of such a person. Of such a vast group of them, in fact.

The arms business makes enough money selling to political and radical factions across the globe. Without its benign interference the weapons in those benighted territories would be no better than copies of copies of old Russian guns hand-made in Afghanistan.


While I don;t hunt, there are many who do.  Leaving aside the "moral" discussion, hunting is required to keep population of animals in check.  Natural predation doesn;t exist anymore for many natural prey animals like deer, elk, etc.  In my human congested state of NJ, there are dead deer all over the roads hit by vehicles.  Nationwide, hundreds of people are killed in these accidents.  You can;t imagine the devastation hitting a 100 pound deer can do to a car.   Often you lose control and wind up hitting another car or a tree.  I drive with my high beams on most of the time at night so I can see the deer's eyes as they stand right off the road.  That way I can hopefully avoid them before they enter the road.   (Yes I shut them off when oncoming traffic approaches).

Also, sport shooting is a huge hobby in  the US which is even in the Olympics and other world competitions.  Many of these people don't hunt at all.  Gun companies are required to provide guns and ammunition to these people as well.  The constitution does not allow the shutdown of gun manufacturers because of the 2nd Amendment and other constitutional freedoms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sports)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 11:37:01 am
Yes and no. Those lunatics go there do die. By cop or bystanders, it is all the same to them. But, he might end up dead sooner.
Even lunatics aren't stupid.  They would just avoid the carry locations and go to a no carry location instead.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 04, 2019, 11:38:03 am
Also, sport shooting is a huge hobby in  the US which is even in the Olympics and other world competitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sports)
Last time I checked, shooting AK47s is not an Olympic sport. Who hunts deer with an AK47? A single shot manual load rifle works fine.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 04, 2019, 11:38:39 am
Like what?

I am not trying to be facetious. I am genuinely interested. Most of those guys would have passed, or did, background checks. They are typically described as loners, a bit withdrawn or weird, but far from certifiably mental.


And you're right: such tests are minimal and possibly designed to allow the maximum number of people to continue being consumers. It's all part of the grand scheme to allow everything to get a green light, regardless of how dangerous to other people just as long as it turns a buck and can be passed off as a freedom.

I even get unsolicited - and unwelcome - e-mails from folks looking forward to laying hands on their new, deadly toy. All the fun of the forum, one might say.

As for the recent shooters: most seem to have clear, Internet footprints where they advertise their emotional state of imbalance; are the preventative algorithms beyond the owners of these platforms? I'd be really surprised if that were the case, that alarm bells cannot be made to ring where they may be acted upon in time.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 04, 2019, 11:42:42 am
That would happen anyway.

Without well-practiced people shooting at random at others who are swinging guns? Really?

Come to think of it, what if everybody shoots everybody else who is swinging a gun? There might be some merit in it ...  :-\

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 11:49:37 am
You can ban assault rifles. We have done it before. Machine guns have been banned for a hundred years. We ban rocket launchers after all. Maybe some background checks without loopholes.  NRA can still advocate for guns. So what. People advocate for all sorts of stuff we don't permit. We can still take reasonable steps .
So called "assault rifles" are not machine guns.  They're single action weapons like "regular" rifles.  You have to pull the trigger for each shot.  They do carry more rounds in the magazine.  But many states have already limited the number of rounds.  Frankly, it wouldn't make much difference if you got rid of them entirely.  Nut jobs would still use rifles and handguns to slaughter people. 

WIthout sounding political, it really is the people not the guns.  When I was a kid, there weren't these kind of shootings and there were plenty of guns then too.  The first case I remember was the University of Texas Tower shooting in 1966.  Stuff like that never really happened before and that was a seminal case. The perpetrator who was killed himself at the scene after killing about 17 people, was found to have a tumor in his brain.  He used only single shot weapons. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on August 04, 2019, 11:56:46 am
Just ban all arms. Only Police may carry arms.
Choose a less racist president- where is his reaction?
One that unites people
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 04, 2019, 11:58:14 am

WIthout sounding political, it really is the people not the guns.  When I was a kid, there weren't these kind of shootings and there were plenty of guns then too.  The first case I remember was the University of Texas Tower shooting in 1966.  Stuff like that never really happened before and that was a seminal case. The perpetrator who was killed himself at the scene after killing about 17 people, was found to have a tumor in his brain.  He used only single shot weapons. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting)

Maybe that was a time when guns were tools. Now increasingly they are a fetish.

Can you answer one thing that I'm very curious about. Why is it that when the topic of automatic fire weapons or semi-automatic ones, there is always someone who pipes with detailed descriptions of what makes one different from another, and so on. Who cares. We all know and understand these things by now, or most of us. The real question is why these weapons are seen as ok for members of the public to own and potentially use.

No one needs an AR15 to "defend their family". What are they going to do, carry one or an AK47 around 24/7 jic some nutcase decides to open fire? Where but in a Hollywood movie would this ever have a happy ending?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on August 04, 2019, 11:59:44 am
Then when you get a “strongman” or fascist government - what to do ? Wait for the army to revolt or leave ?
No thanks.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 12:01:19 pm

Putting free speech and gun ownership in bed together is a lunacy. If your FFs really intended that, they must have been moonshine distillers on the side.

Not in any man's language can guns and speech be conflated in this manner and make sense.

Anyone pretending otherwise is making a mockery of his own country and its laws.
You forget that America was birthed by free men who used their private weapons to rid themselves of your king and British control.  How much longer did it take the Indians and Arabs do to the same?  What about others in your empire? 

When American patriots wrote our Constitution, they wanted to assure that no future government would take away free men's rights to own and use private weapons against any potential future king or tyrant.   While I can understand you misunderstanding of our culture, and history, what bothers me is how many Americans today have not learned the importance of our 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms in ensuring our future freedoms.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 04, 2019, 12:01:43 pm
So called "assault rifles" are not machine guns.  They're single action weapons like "regular" rifles.  You have to pull the trigger for each shot.
Assault rifles are the weapon of choice in these mass shootings. Make them reload every time they want to kill someone, not just pull the trigger.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: elliot_n on August 04, 2019, 12:03:51 pm
These shooters are not 'crazies', 'lunatics', 'nut jobs' etc. They are highly-motivated, white supremacist terrorists. Ban guns by all means, but ultimately you need to tackle their ideology and the way it is propagated on websites such as 4chan.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 04, 2019, 12:07:29 pm
While I don;t hunt, there are many who do.  Leaving aside the "moral" discussion, hunting is required to keep population of animals in check.  Natural predation doesn;t exist anymore for many natural prey animals like deer, elk, etc.  In my human congested state of NJ, there are dead deer all over the roads hit by vehicles.  Nationwide, hundreds of people are killed in these accidents.  You can;t imagine the devastation hitting a 100 pound deer can do to a car.   Often you lose control and wind up hitting another car or a tree.  I drive with my high beams on most of the time at night so I can see the deer's eyes as they stand right off the road.  That way I can hopefully avoid them before they enter the road.   (Yes I shut them off when oncoming traffic approaches).

Also, sport shooting is a huge hobby in  the US which is even in the Olympics and other world competitions.  Many of these people don't hunt at all.  Gun companies are required to provide guns and ammunition to these people as well.  The constitution does not allow the shutdown of gun manufacturers because of the 2nd Amendment and other constitutional freedoms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sports)


There's the Achilles heel to many of your stances: as a responsible human being, you simply can't forget the moral standpoint: it's what makes us, sometimes, better than the hyena.

Wild animal numbers can be managed perfectly well, as I already indicated, by rangers who know what they do and why they have to do it. Because many people see killing as a hobby or sport, or just a naked pleasure is neither here nor there. Sod 'em. There are also plenty of people around who would love to be let loose to run through a junior school armed with a machine gun, baseball bat or a set of Japanese kitchen knives. There are thousands of little groups of guys out there who would love to kidnap your pretty, twenty-year-old daughter and gang-bang her; there are as many ugly emotions around as there are people. Why not argue that they, too, have rights to freedom to do what the hell they like under your inviolable constitution? After all, gang-banging a girl can't be as bad as shooting a couple of people dead, can it? Right? Maybe you get the point.

Because one branch of such people has already won the legal right to mayhem due to laws drawn up in a time when no such deadly modern weapons existed, does not mean that common sense should not prevail. Standing on the basis of an out-of-date law as if it was handed down by God himself instead of by a bunch of guys as humanly frail and short-sighted as the rest of us is no honour, nor sign of respect: it's just plain stupid.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 12:08:58 pm
Last time I checked, shooting AK47s is not an Olympic sport. Who hunts deer with an AK47? A single shot manual load rifle works fine.
You're conflating hunting with the right to bear arms, a favorite tactic of those opposed to that right.  Many people own arms but don't hunt. Yet, they want a weapon to protect their homes and person and for future protection of the country if need be. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 04, 2019, 12:13:51 pm
You're conflating hunting with the right to bear arms, a favorite tactic of those opposed to that right.  Many people own arms but don't hunt. Yet, they want a weapon to protect their homes and person and for future protection of the country if need be.
Your the one who brought up hunting. I just pointed out what a ridiculous rationalization it was. You don't need automatic weapons to hunt.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 12:17:35 pm
Assault rifles are the weapon of choice in these mass shootings. Make them reload every time they want to kill someone, not just pull the trigger.
That restriction would probably be unconstitutional. Otherwise you could outlaw everything except a muzzleloading musket like was used in our Revolutionary War of 1776.  In any case, 95%+ of killings are not mass killings.  They are just murders done with "ordinary" guns especially hand guns.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 12:26:53 pm

There's the Achilles heel to many of your stances: as a responsible human being, you simply can't forget the moral standpoint: it's what makes us, sometimes, better than the hyena.

Wild animal numbers can be managed perfectly well, as I already indicated, by rangers who know what they do and why they have to do it. Because many people see killing as a hobby or sport, or just a naked pleasure is neither here nor there. Sod 'em. There are also plenty of people around who would love to be let loose to run through a junior school armed with a machine gun, baseball bat or a set of Japanese kitchen knives. There are thousands of little groups of guys out there who would love to kidnap your pretty, twenty-year-old daughter and gang-bang her; there are as many ugly emotions around as there are people. Why not argue that they, too, have rights to freedom to do what the hell they like under your inviolable constitution? After all, gang-banging a girl can't be as bad as shooting a couple of people dead, can it? Right? Maybe you get the point.

Because one branch of such people has already won the legal right to mayhem due to laws drawn up in a time when no such deadly modern weapons existed, does not mean that common sense should not prevail. Standing on the basis of an out-of-date law as if it was handed down by God himself instead of by a bunch of guys as humanly frail and short-sighted as the rest of us is no honour, nor sign of respect: it's just plain stupid.
Hunting laws have nothing to do with the US Constitutional right to bear arms.  You don't have to have a right to hunt to bear arms.  Hunting rules and regulations are separately made by each of the 50 states for their state only.  There is no constitutional right to hunt. While you may see it as a moral issue, every state of the 50 states allows hunting in their state.  Even the most liberal , blue democrat state like my former state of New York.  Interestingly, the NY State  Department of Environmental Protection controls hunting and the killing of animals.

"Hunting is among the most popular forms of wildlife recreation in New York State. Nearly 700,000 New Yorkers and over 50,000 nonresidents hunt in the Empire State. New York offers many exciting opportunities to hunt a large variety of wildlife, including big game, small game, game birds and furbearers."
https://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/hunting.html (https://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/hunting.html)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 04, 2019, 12:27:55 pm
In any case, 95%+ of killings are not mass killings.
We could start by doing something about the ~5% that are mass killings. There is no reason to allow military style assault rifles.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 12:29:45 pm
Your the one who brought up hunting. I just pointed out what a ridiculous rationalization it was. You don't need automatic weapons to hunt.
I never said you do.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 12:36:16 pm
We could start by doing something about the ~5% that are mass killings. There is no reason to allow military style assault rifles.
AR15's and similar rifles are not military assault rifles.  The "style" part is that they look like a military weapon.  But they are not machine guns like their military issued ones are that are used by the army.  I fired an M16 military version in the USAF.  I also fired it's civilian equivalent the AR-15.  The civilian equivalent has no automatic setting as that would be illegal  The civilian version does have a similar 15 or 20 round standard magazine.  But many states have already reduced the legal limit to 10 rounds.  None of these things will change mass killings much.  But certainly, if the people want to change it, they can through legislation.  We are democracy, you know. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: mbaginy on August 04, 2019, 12:38:51 pm
It takes but a few seconds to kill countless people.  I hate to imagine a firefight between “good guys” and “bad guys” in a shopping mall, school or parking lot.  Police are educated in handling situations, civilians aren’t.  It isn’t easy aiming a weapon at a person and pulling the trigger, watching him die.  Should civilians be subjected to that horror?

Maybe people have been watching too many Hollywood films (by the way, a massive influencer in my view).  How are children coping with these maß murders, with these horrors?  How do they feel in school, in movies, in discos or simply shopping?  And people argue over a right to bear arms, right to free speech by spreading hatred, advertising weapons, and more.

Which civilian needs an assault rifle?  Nobody.  I can understand the allure, though I don’t condone their sales.  I picked up a weapon (an M16) when I was but a kid and laid it down four years later.  Good riddance!

The subject is extremely complex and the situation in the US not changed by one or two changes in laws or procedures.  Society needs to change, a different one to the direction which began a few years ago.  Current presidential leadership spawns hatred and division.  Maybe a revolution is needed.  If so, we seem to be on the right track.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 04, 2019, 12:51:13 pm
We are democracy, you know.

I've been told by forum members that the USA is not a Democracy.
So which is it? It either is or it isn't?

Can you guys/gals make up your mind and agree on at least one thing.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 12:51:36 pm
It takes but a few seconds to kill countless people.  I hate to imagine a firefight between “good guys” and “bad guys” in a shopping mall, school or parking lot.  Police are educated in handling situations, civilians aren’t.  It isn’t easy aiming a weapon at a person and pulling the trigger, watching him die.  Should civilians be subjected to that horror?

Maybe people have been watching too many Hollywood films (by the way, a massive influencer in my view).  How are children coping with these maß murders, with these horrors?  How do they feel in school, in movies, in discos or simply shopping?  And people argue over a right to bear arms, right to free speech by spreading hatred, advertising weapons, and more.

Which civilian needs an assault rifle?  Nobody.  I can understand the allure, though I don’t condone their sales.  I picked up a weapon (an M16) when I was but a kid and laid it down four years later.  Good riddance!

The subject is extremely complex and the situation in the US not changed by one or two changes in laws or procedures.  Society needs to change, a different one to the direction which began a few years ago.  Current presidential leadership spawns hatred and division.  Maybe a revolution is needed.  If so, we seem to be on the right track.
The Democrats are spawning hatred and division by playing the race and gender card to divide Americans into groups for political ends. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 12:53:49 pm
I've been told by forum members that the USA is not a Democracy.
So which is it? It either is or it isn't?

Can you guys/gals make up your mind and agree on at least one thing.

Cheers,
Bart
OK you want to be specific.  Ok.  The legislators who are elected by the people can change the laws.  Is that better? :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 04, 2019, 01:04:18 pm
OK you want to be specific.  Ok.  The legislators who are elected by the people can change the laws.  Is that better? :)

Not really. What are some of these legislators (e.g. Moscow Mitch) doing about it?

Quote from: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
The House passed HR8, a Bipartisan Background Checks Act, *5 months ago* and the Senate has yet to vote on it. It was one of our 1st major priorities after ending the gov shutdown. You’ve been sitting on it since February giving bogus excuses. Care to explain the people why?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 01:25:18 pm
Just ban all arms...

Yes! It worked so well with drugs.

Quote
... Only Police may carry arms...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 01:37:01 pm
Watch what happens soon in Hong Kong when the unarmed Chinese lose their freedoms.  Another Tiananmen Square.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: mbaginy on August 04, 2019, 01:55:36 pm
The Democrats are spawning hatred and division by playing the race and gender card to divide Americans into groups for political ends.
Alan, I'm amazed and saddened, how one-track and single-minded you choose your opinions to be.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 02:10:57 pm
Alan, I'm amazed and saddened, how one-track and single-minded you choose your opinions to be.

What makes it "one-track and single-minded," other than by default? In a thread that has more leftist posts, Alan is providing a counter-argument. Obviously, argument and counter-argument have to be, each, "one-track and single-minded," otherwise they wouldn't be "argument and counter-argument." Duh.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 02:14:27 pm
What's up with the loony-left obsession with dripping blood (in response to  Bart's NRA meme):
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 02:33:11 pm
These shooters are not 'crazies', 'lunatics', 'nut jobs' etc. They are highly-motivated, white supremacist terrorists....

Really? What is "white-supremacist" about Ohio shooting? Ohio is as white as it gets, and the gunmen killed his own sister there. How about the school shooting recently by a leftist, transgender boy? The outrage (if any) lasted about 2 seconds in the loony-left mainstream media, before being forgotten, as it doesn't fit the "white supremacy" narrative. Shooting in Las Vegas, at a country music festival, where attendees are usually associated with rednecks, deplorables, or Republicans? The guy was white, but where is the "supremacy" part? Shooting in Dallas, by a black BLM-sympathizer? Etc., etc.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on August 04, 2019, 03:01:23 pm
The legislators who are elected by the people can change the laws.

What are some of these legislators (e.g. Moscow Mitch) doing about it?

It is politically difficult for Republican members of the Senate (or of the House of Representatives, for that matter) to support stronger gun regulation, regardless of what they personally believe, because if they do there is a significant activist faction within their party that would sponsor intraparty primary election challenges to them that would threaten their ability to run for re-election.  I suspect there are quite a few who would prefer to do more, but most U.S. federal legislators are professional politicians, and are reluctant—to say the least—to jeopardize their chance of remaining in office.  (Some Democrats in more conservative states also tend to be cautious about supporting aggressive gun control, but the threat to them typically is in the general election—i.e., the defection of voters who oppose more regulation to a Republican opponent—rather than a primary challenge.)

Largely because of the increasing frequency of incidents like yesterday's in Texas and Ohio, a number of proposals have been introduced in the Congress to create federal regulatory regimes similar to those in Europe and elsewhere.  These include a federal gun ownership licensing requirement, more comprehensive regulation of sales as well as a requirement for registration of non-commercial sales (i.e., between individuals), and bans on the sale of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.  These might have other benefits, but with roughly 400 million (sic) privately-owned firearms in the United States, it doesn't seem likely that these would meaningfully reduce the number of mass shootings.  One congressman has proposed a law that would authorize a "buyback" of assault weapons (https://swalwell.house.gov/sites/swalwell.house.gov/files/Freedom%20from%20Assault%20Weapons%20Act.pdf) by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which might plausibly reduce the carnage when mass shootings do take place, but as far as I know it hasn't even been referred for committee evaluation yet.

A number of states have recently enacted new gun control laws, and that's where I would expect most of the legislative activity to remain unless the Democrats are able to regain control of the Senate in 2020.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 04, 2019, 03:08:20 pm
You forget that America was birthed by free men who used their private weapons to rid themselves of your king and British control.  How much longer did it take the Indians and Arabs do to the same?  What about others in your empire? 

When American patriots wrote our Constitution, they wanted to assure that no future government would take away free men's rights to own and use private weapons against any potential future king or tyrant.   While I can understand you misunderstanding of our culture, and history, what bothers me is how many Americans today have not learned the importance of our 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms in ensuring our future freedoms.


Alan, stand back and reread what you just wrote.

You sound like a broken record made before records existed. References to the British Empire are redundant, and have been for decades. Were it not for that same old creaky empire you and your beloved land of immigrants wouldn't even exist as it does today. It was our empire and those empires of other European nations that peopled your place of residence, from the north, the east, the west and the south. You are effectively arguing against your own presence and residence in the promised land. Spare me further details of the history; we all studied it in school in my time, willingly or otherwise. In Spain, some think they still have divine right to Texas and California, and as their preachers had so much to do with it, are they so mistaken?
 
Let me tell you something else: when folks start throwing around terms like patriot, you can bet your ass they know they have already lost the argument, if not the plot, the latter the more likely. Free men... you mean as distinct from slaves or freed slaves or just blacks who until a few decades ago couldn't even piss against the same stinking wall as a white idiot with straw coming out his ears? Perhaps you refer instead to the 250+ mass shootings this year already, and it's only the beginning of August; the drive-by shootings that don't even hit the tv because they happen every day in the bad parts of town; the street robberies at gun point that don't get covered either, for the same reason: not news. Are those the freedoms your guns buy you, and you cherish and hold so highly above those of other, lesser nations?

You have your armed forces, your police (a variety to every taste), your sheriffs, your National Guard and yet you want more guns around to protect you from yourselves? Man, that's the best argument to becoming an Amercan migrant you could have made!

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 03:21:47 pm
... primary election challenges... the defection of voters...

Which means it is we, the people who oppose gun regulations, not NRA.

And we oppose it simply because any tighter regulation addresses only legal owners, and they are a significant minority in crimes committed with guns. NRA members are an even smaller minority in that statistics.

The real question is how do we prevent a sale of a gun to someone who only after the fact proves to be a total lunatic, but otherwise appears normal, if a bit weird? How do we prevent that? And if we do, how do we prevent them from illegally obtain the same? In a nation of 300+ million and 400 million guns, how do you prevent a few acts of lunacy a year?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 04, 2019, 03:34:50 pm
Which means it is we, the people who oppose gun regulations, not NRA.

And we oppose it simply because any tighter regulation addresses only legal owners, and they are a significant minority in crimes committed with guns. NRA members are an even smaller minority in that statistics.

The real question is how do we prevent a sale of a gun to someone who only after the fact proves to be a total lunatic, but otherwise appears normal, if a bit weird? How do we prevent that? And if we do, how do we prevent them from illegally obtain the same? In a nation of 300+ million and 400 million guns, how do you prevent a few acts of lunacy a year?


That might be one real question, but not the fundamental one.

The bottom line is having any of the damned things at all. Bluntly, without one, sane, mad or just angry and provoked, you can't shoot what ain't in your hand. And you know that perfectly well, too.

Neither would I be inclined to term 250 mass killing this year - so far - a few acts of lunacy. It"s endemic in your system and needs rooting out. The first step to a cure is recognizing there is a problem.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 03:55:21 pm
... The bottom line is having any of the damned things at all...

That, of course, is a wishful thinking. Along the lines of wishing for world peace, cure for cancer and boldness, everlasting love, soulmate for everyone, and a free ice cream day all year long.

We tried that with alcohol, didn't work. Still trying with drugs, doesn't work. Ain't gonna work with guns either.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 03:56:43 pm

Alan, stand back and reread what you just wrote.

You sound like a broken record made before records existed. References to the British Empire are redundant, and have been for decades. Were it not for that same old creaky empire you and your beloved land of immigrants wouldn't even exist as it does today. It was our empire and those empires of other European nations that peopled your place of residence, from the north, the east, the west and the south. You are effectively arguing against your own presence and residence in the promised land. Spare me further details of the history; we all studied it in school in my time, willingly or otherwise. In Spain, some think they still have divine right to Texas and California, and as their preachers had so much to do with it, are they so mistaken?
 
Let me tell you something else: when folks start throwing around terms like patriot, you can bet your ass they know they have already lost the argument, if not the plot, the latter the more likely. Free men... you mean as distinct from slaves or freed slaves or just blacks who until a few decades ago couldn't even piss against the same stinking wall as a white idiot with straw coming out his ears? Perhaps you refer instead to the 250+ mass shootings this year already, and it's only the beginning of August; the drive-by shootings that don't even hit the tv because they happen every day in the bad parts of town; the street robberies at gun point that don't get covered either, for the same reason: not news. Are those the freedoms your guns buy you, and you cherish and hold so highly above those of other, lesser nations?

You have your armed forces, your police (a variety to every taste), your sheriffs, your National Guard and yet you want more guns around to protect you from yourselves? Man, that's the best argument to becoming an Amercan migrant you could have made!

Rob


Americans today are a free people.  With all due respect to outsiders who don;t live here, we don't need foreigners telling us how to stay free.   We'll stick with our constitution. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 04, 2019, 03:57:45 pm

Yes, and no.

To change the people factor you would require massive re-education which is impossible because, as we both know, normal education across the world is a rarity, so the software can't be fixed. Much human software is fatally flawed from the first moments it exists, so no later fixing's going to work.

That leaves only the hardware, and the govt. could start by finding its testicles - assuming they have not atrophied beyond repair - and instantly ban the production of all small arms that a person might care to carry concealed in his waistband. It could restrict the sales of so-called sporting rifles to farmers and authorised rangers and ensure that anyone found owning a military weapon goes down for a considerable period. Sport shooting, as in the killing for "fun" of animals by a civilian with a blood lust and ineffectual penis is a horrible comment on the state of mind and being of such a person. Of such a vast group of them, in fact.

The arms business makes enough money selling to political and radical factions across the globe. Without its benign interference the weapons in those benighted territories would be no better than copies of copies of old Russian guns hand-made in Afghanistan.

Of course the criminals will ponder any gun amnesty and some will surrender and some not. If no new supply can be bought off the shelf, all the better; that illegal supplies will continue is not in question, but hey, the penalties can be made to match the crime, and buying illegally will be more difficult than doing so by mail order, in a mall or at a county fair.

Mr T wants to build walls: he can start with penitentiary ones first, helping both the building trades and the long-term employment figures in one magnificent gesture. Even the farmers would be happy with all those state-funded mouths to feed!

If you remove gun lobby money from politics, you can bet that governments of all stripes will quickly come to their senses on the matter of guns. It already gives them hassle enough every time some other moron goes nuts in the heat of either the moment or the weather. They don't need this crap, but they do grovel for the cash.

I always hate the disagree with a friend, but in this case, Rob, I can’t avoid it. I’ve been out most of the day, so I’m a bit late, but. . .

First of all, I agree that what nowadays passes for education is a black pit. Of course, to say something like that you first have to specify what you mean by “education.” If a person working to become, say, an MD is being educated, the education is taking place peripherally. He, along with his engineering, banking, and business counterparts, is being “trained.” “Education” is something beyond training. There’s training and there’s brainwashing, but there’s damned little educating going on in our schools nowadays. I keep hoping education will creep back into our schools and universities, but I keep reading more and more stuff by “educated” people who don’t know the difference between the verbs “to lie” and “to lay,” and who think the expression “begs the question” means to ask a question more emphatically. I think that eventually this too shall pass away, but it ain’t gonna happen in my lifetime.

As far as the hardware is concerned, there’s that old saw: “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.” And we’ve demonstrated that point over and over and over again with “gun free zones,” say, for instance, the 2013 massacre of 32 at Virginia Tech, to name just one particularly egregious example out of dozens. Here’s a paragraph from a letter I recently had published in the local paper:

“When this subject comes up my mind always flashes on the 2013 massacre at Virginia Tech. Livlu Librescu was a holocaust survivor and engineering professor who held the door of his Virginia Tech classroom against Seung-Hui Cho, the student who murdered 32 people that day. All but one of Livlu’s students escaped through another door, but Cho broke through and Livlu and one of his students were murdered. And I always think: What if the professor had been armed? He could have ended the slaughter right there at the door. But Livlu couldn’t be armed because Virginia Tech was a “gun free zone” (except for the gun Cho used to murder his classmates and teachers).”

The 2011 massacre of 91 in Norway also comes to mind. All of the terrible slaughters have been in gun free zones or their equivalent.

In any case, there’s no way guns are going to be prohibited or confiscated in the U.S., and that fact has nothing to do with either Mr. T or what you imagine is a “gun lobby.” Obama kept talking about things like that and if you check the figures (I could go dig out one of Bart’s charts, but I don’t have time to bother) you’ll find that Obama was the most successful gun salesman the U.S. has ever seen. People rushed out to guy guns before the man could cause a problem. The hardware simply isn’t going away. Even if guns were outlawed, outlaws would have guns, just as they have in countries that ban guns. But even if it were possible to eliminate guns entirely from the world, you’d see the kind of increase in knife attacks London has seen recently, and you’d see people driving trucks and cars into crowds, as has been the case in several countries.

The problem is with the people. I suspect that somewhere down the road there’ll be a serious revolt against the kind of behavior people are displaying at the moment, just as there was a gradual revolt against the outrages of Elizabethan England, ending in the recently departed puckered lips of Victorianism. Excesses come and go. Let’s pray that this excess soon will pass away.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 04:32:17 pm
It is politically difficult for Republican members of the Senate (or of the House of Representatives, for that matter) to support stronger gun regulation, regardless of what they personally believe, because if they do there is a significant activist faction within their party that would sponsor intraparty primary election challenges to them that would threaten their ability to run for re-election.  I suspect there are quite a few who would prefer to do more, but most U.S. federal legislators are professional politicians, and are reluctant—to say the least—to jeopardize their chance of remaining in office.  (Some Democrats in more conservative states also tend to be cautious about supporting aggressive gun control, but the threat to them typically is in the general election—i.e., the defection of voters who oppose more regulation to a Republican opponent—rather than a primary challenge.)

Largely because of the increasing frequency of incidents like yesterday's in Texas and Ohio, a number of proposals have been introduced in the Congress to create federal regulatory regimes similar to those in Europe and elsewhere.  These include a federal gun ownership licensing requirement, more comprehensive regulation of sales as well as a requirement for registration of non-commercial sales (i.e., between individuals), and bans on the sale of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.  These might have other benefits, but with roughly 400 million (sic) privately-owned firearms in the United States, it doesn't seem likely that these would meaningfully reduce the number of mass shootings.  One congressman has proposed a law that would authorize a "buyback" of assault weapons (https://swalwell.house.gov/sites/swalwell.house.gov/files/Freedom%20from%20Assault%20Weapons%20Act.pdf) by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which might plausibly reduce the carnage when mass shootings do take place, but as far as I know it hasn't even been referred for committee evaluation yet.

A number of states have recently enacted new gun control laws, and that's where I would expect most of the legislative activity to remain unless the Democrats are able to regain control of the Senate in 2020.
States have some regulatory control, such as in NYC where it's almost impossible to get a carry permit unless you're a well-connected Hollywoodite.   But other state or local laws have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  I doubt if there will be many changes made that will make a difference.  Most of the constitutional ones are already regulated into criminal code.  Even if COngress took over, there's not much they can change.  Even outlawing "assault rifles" wouldn't change much of anything.  It's all "good feeling" legislation but will make little difference on the ground.  The risk in doing it, as the NRA keeps reminding us, is that it becomes a slippery slope.  Suddenly, more severe rules are imposed that will take away guns, any and all guns. 

I'm ambivalent on Congress "doing what's right", whatever that means.  While I respect legislators who have the chutzpah to act on their own risking getting thrown out of office, ultimately they are responsible to the people, the voters who put them in office.  So if they respect the voters wishes, isn't that more democratic than legislating against those wishes?  After all, if the electorate wanted, you can do away with guns in one fell swoop.  Just add an Amendment to the constitution reversing the 2nd Amendment. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 04, 2019, 04:32:33 pm
Guess the guns have just spoken again down in Texas.

Nothing much changes; the protests will probably come up again, but so will the counter-arguments and nothing concrete will be done. What a terrible situation.

Hey Rob, you were right!

(Can you predict lottery numbers too? If so, please PM me.)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 04, 2019, 04:44:17 pm

Americans today are a free people.  With all due respect to outsiders who don;t live here, we don't need foreigners telling us how to stay free.   We'll stick with our constitution.

Most mass murders in USA were committed by free American citizens who are sticking to their constitution, not by the foreigners.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 04, 2019, 04:46:49 pm
Really? What is "white-supremacist" about Ohio shooting? Ohio is as white as it gets, and the gunmen killed his own sister there. How about the school shooting recently by a leftist, transgender boy? The outrage (if any) lasted about 2 seconds in the loony-left mainstream media, before being forgotten, as it doesn't fit the "white supremacy" narrative. Shooting in Las Vegas, at a country music festival, where attendees are usually associated with rednecks, deplorables, or Republicans? The guy was white, but where is the "supremacy" part? Shooting in Dallas, by a black BLM-sympathizer? Etc., etc.


Maybe you haven't seen this https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/456118-texas-gop-senators-respond-to-el-paso-shooting (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/456118-texas-gop-senators-respond-to-el-paso-shooting).

Ok, so you've brought up some instances where "white supremacy" was not a factor and now we have one that seems to be. There may be others, there may not be, I don't know. Did this diversion serve a purpose? Did it move the discussion forward in any way?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 04, 2019, 04:48:57 pm

Americans today are a free people.  With all due respect to outsiders who don;t live here, we don't need foreigners telling us how to stay free.   We'll stick with our constitution.

Why are you going down this route again? You've been on the Brexit forum giving your opinions about a country not your own for weeks.

This is an opinion discussion forum. If you don't want to read opinions that are different from your own, you may be in the wrong place.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 06:02:00 pm
... Did this diversion serve a purpose? Did it move the discussion forward in any way?

I was responding to Elliot’s diversion.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 06:03:49 pm
Sometimes, mom meme knows best:
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 04, 2019, 06:17:13 pm
Always so vulgar.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 04, 2019, 06:50:40 pm
Sometimes, mom meme knows best:
If done right away after the committed offense, it could mitigate the future risks quite effectively.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 07:14:27 pm
Since the lefties love science, here is the science guy:

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 07:28:54 pm
Chicago’s response to the shootings: “Hold my beer!”
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 04, 2019, 08:15:49 pm
Since the lefties love science, here is the science guy:

So you are saying that avoidable gun deaths are okay????

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 08:20:06 pm
So you are saying that avoidable gun deaths are okay????

They are “avoidable”? How?

Tell me and I’ll nominate you for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 04, 2019, 08:21:51 pm
I was responding to Elliot’s diversion.

So you were. Too many sub-threads for me to keep track of, I lost my place.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 04, 2019, 09:01:07 pm
They are “avoidable”? How?

Tell me and I’ll nominate you for a Nobel Peace Prize.

You are saying that they were totally unavoidable?

They were more avoidable by taking corrective action, instead of no action.
Since when did no action whatsoever change a misguided ideology?
Since when did a President's stoking of racial discrimination solve anything?
Since when did you do anything to solve the issues?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 09:18:54 pm
Why are you going down this route again? You've been on the Brexit forum giving your opinions about a country not your own for weeks.

This is an opinion discussion forum. If you don't want to read opinions that are different from your own, you may be in the wrong place.
I was responding to an opinion by a non-American that called Americans racist and unfree.  Those are fighting words and were over the top. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 04, 2019, 09:48:05 pm
...
Since when did no action whatsoever change a misguided ideology?
Since when did a President's stoking of racial discrimination solve anything?
Since when did you do anything to solve the issues?

Since you've been imagining those things.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 04, 2019, 10:04:45 pm

Maybe you haven't seen this https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/456118-texas-gop-senators-respond-to-el-paso-shooting (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/456118-texas-gop-senators-respond-to-el-paso-shooting).

Ok, so you've brought up some instances where "white supremacy" was not a factor and now we have one that seems to be. There may be others, there may not be, I don't know. Did this diversion serve a purpose? Did it move the discussion forward in any way?

The murderer in Dayton may have been a leftist, Antifa supporter who supported Warren and Sanders.  But that could be speculation as well.  Who knows at this point who this guy was? Why don't we wait until the investigation gets going before jumping to conclusions.  Regardless, these nut jobs are crazy. Left or right or unaffiliated, nut jobs are just angry with society because they're losers.  Unfortunately, we mostly can;t know who's going to flip out before they do.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=60569
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on August 05, 2019, 07:12:11 am
They are “avoidable”? How?

Tell me and I’ll nominate you for a Nobel Peace Prize.
For obvious reasons you are not entitled to give me that price, otherwise look at some basic research and statistics:

USA
https://massshootingtracker.org/data/2019
https://everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Analysis_of_Mass_Shooting_033117.pdf

Europe
https://vlaamsvredesinstituut.eu/en/pressrelease/19-massaschietpartijen-met-319-doden-in-europa-tussen-2009-2015/

I agree with Rob; give everybody an atomic bomb to defend himself and you see the statistics go up.
Take away the arms and you see the statistics go down.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 05, 2019, 08:54:01 am
Interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal this morning which pointed out that with the increase in population we now have a million people with serious mental illness drifting around the country; people who, sixty years ago, would have been confined to mental institutions.

Of course, that simply couldn't help to explain the murders that are taking place. After all, as the left sixty years ago bled publicly: it's unfair to keep these poor people cooped up. I remember the whole thing. I even had a schizophrenic cousin who was removed from care and promptly disappeared.

Golly. Maybe guns aren't really the problem. If they are, how come, when I was a kid, we all had guns but there almost never was a shooting except by the Mafia?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 05, 2019, 09:03:45 am
For obvious reasons you are not entitled to give me that price, otherwise look at some basic research and statistics:

USA
https://massshootingtracker.org/data/2019 (https://massshootingtracker.org/data/2019)
https://everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Analysis_of_Mass_Shooting_033117.pdf (https://everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Analysis_of_Mass_Shooting_033117.pdf)

Europe
https://vlaamsvredesinstituut.eu/en/pressrelease/19-massaschietpartijen-met-319-doden-in-europa-tussen-2009-2015/ (https://vlaamsvredesinstituut.eu/en/pressrelease/19-massaschietpartijen-met-319-doden-in-europa-tussen-2009-2015/)

I agree with Rob; give everybody an atomic bomb to defend himself and you see the statistics go up.
Take away the arms and you see the statistics go down.



45000 Americans are killed every year driving.  Funny thing though. No one wants to take away their cars. They're willing to put up with the carnage.  And get this.  About half of the auto deaths was caused by drinking.  Yet, amazingly, we reversed a constitutional amendment that had stopped the manufacturing of alcohol that could have saved thousands annually.  Silly us, we're now legalizing marijuana, state by state, that's going to add to the carnage on the road to the tune of hundreds of more deaths a year, a lot more than occur with mass shootings.  And there's no constitutional protection for any of these things like we have against eliminating guns. We could stop it and the Supreme Court would not interfere.   We're a strange people.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 05, 2019, 09:14:33 am
Interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal this morning which pointed out that with the increase in population we now have a million people with serious mental illness drifting around the country; people who, sixty years ago, would have been confined to mental institutions.

Of course, that simply couldn't help to explain the murders that are taking place. After all, as the left sixty years ago bled publicly: it's unfair to keep these poor people cooped up. I remember the whole thing. I even had a schizophrenic cousin who was removed from care and promptly disappeared.

Golly. Maybe guns aren't really the problem. If they are, how come, when I was a kid, we all had guns but there almost never was a shooting except by the Mafia?

That's what I remember as a kid too.   The first was the shoot up in the Texas tower at the university in 1966.  He didn't use an AR-15 although one of his guns was a single-shot carbine that looks like a hunting rifle.  He killed 17 people.  That was a milestone in mass murder.  The killer turned out to have a tumor in his brain.  I know people who have family members that roam around the streets who would have been hospitalized years ago.  They're now homeless or semi homeless.  The problem is many of them go off their meds which was the main reason those hospitals were shut down years ago.  To treat people with psychotropic drugs rather than keeping them locked up.  Unfortunately, there's no way to force them to stay on their meds. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 05, 2019, 09:21:07 am
Interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal this morning which pointed out that with the increase in population we now have a million people with serious mental illness drifting around the country; people who, sixty years ago, would have been confined to mental institutions.

Of course, that simply couldn't help to explain the murders that are taking place. After all, as the left sixty years ago bled publicly: it's unfair to keep these poor people cooped up. I remember the whole thing. I even had a schizophrenic cousin who was removed from care and promptly disappeared.

Golly. Maybe guns aren't really the problem. If they are, how come, when I was a kid, we all had guns but there almost never was a shooting except by the Mafia?

Related to mental illness:
In my town, there is a little charity store which has been operating for 28 years. All profits go to Mental Health institute and they employ volunteers recovering from mental illness.
Suffice to say, very beneficial - financially and also to many people involved on temporary basis as employees. Also good for the general community. Now the store is closing its doors, and also closing the opportunity for many recovering mental patients to get back into productive life. Not sure what is the reason for closing, but weighing the benefit of continuing operation vs any costs to keep it in business, closing of the store seems a shortsighted and pour choice.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 05, 2019, 09:44:05 am
45000 Americans are killed every year driving.  Funny thing though. No one wants to take away their cars. They're willing to put up with the carnage.  And get this.  About half of the auto deaths was caused by drinking.  Yet, amazingly, we reversed a constitutional amendment that had stopped the manufacturing of alcohol that could have saved thousands annually.  Silly us, we're now legalizing marijuana, state by state, that's going to add to the carnage on the road to the tune of hundreds of more deaths a year, a lot more than occur with mass shootings.  And there's no constitutional protection for any of these things like we have against eliminating guns. We could stop it and the Supreme Court would not interfere.   We're a strange people.  :)


Let's see if I get this: you claim the USA has no laws (with teeth) against driving whilst under the influence of alcohol or other drugs? Traffic deaths, unless due to such self-inflicted reasons as drugs, booze and suicide, are due to accident, which by definition can hardly be prevented unless you refuse to maintain your vehicle properly, in which case you are culpable. Unlike guns, whose only raison d'être is killing, cars are a means of transportation, nothing more or less. The logic you have attempted to apply with such a concatenation is unsustainable.

Gun deaths, however, may happen because of booze and other such influences, but accident is due to carelessness and that hardly causes the mass killings that bring guns into more visible disrepute. You don't set out armed with a shit-load of magazines (not of the reading kind) and guns, intent on public mass murder, by accident.

The booze industry brings in a lot of money: as ever, cherchez la femme, or in this case, the loot. Just like your guns, then.

Regarding legalisation of drugs - I agree with you: it beggers belief and makes one wonder how many politicians have a vested interest in not getting arrested for having their version of a good time and a runny nose.

Yes, you are a strange people indeed; nobody could sensibly argue with you on that one. Trouble is, you are not alone in your strangenesses. So far, I don't think you've done a Brexit! Well, only in minor ways like nuclear non-deals and Paris Accords on climate... thing is, as with Brexit, such little moments don't just affect yourselves.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 05, 2019, 10:00:50 am
Golly. Maybe guns aren't really the problem. If they are, how come, when I was a kid, we all had guns but there almost never was a shooting except by the Mafia?

No internet?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 05, 2019, 10:14:57 am

Let's see if I get this: you claim the USA has no laws (with teeth) against driving whilst under the influence of alcohol or other drugs? Traffic deaths, unless due to such self-inflicted reasons as drugs, booze and suicide, are due to accident, which by definition can hardly be prevented unless you refuse to maintain your vehicle properly, in which case you are culpable. Unlike guns, whose only raison d'être is killing, cars are a means of transportation, nothing more or less. The logic you have attempted to apply with such a concatenation is unsustainable.

Gun deaths, however, may happen because of booze and other such influences, but accident is due to carelessness and that hardly causes the mass killings that bring guns into more visible disrepute. You don't set out armed with a shit-load of magazines (not of the reading kind) and guns, intent on public mass murder, by accident.

The booze industry brings in a lot of money: as ever, cherchez la femme, or in this case, the loot. Just like your guns, then.

Regarding legalisation of drugs - I agree with you: it beggers belief and makes one wonder how many politicians have a vested interest in not getting arrested for having their version of a good time and a runny nose.

Yes, you are a strange people indeed; nobody could sensibly argue with you on that one. Trouble is, you are not alone in your strangenesses. So far, I don't think you've done a Brexit! Well, only in minor ways like nuclear non-deals and Paris Accords on climate... thing is, as with Brexit, such little moments don't just affect yourselves.
Guns have many purposes just as cars do.  They protect people, families, homes and businesses.  They're used for hunting. They provide citizens with a way of defending the country against a tyrannical government.  Ask the people in Venezuela what I mean or those in Cuba.  What are the poor unarmed people in Hong Kong going to do when the Red Chinese enter their city with tanks like Tiananmen Square?

Guns like cars have many laws against improper use.  You can;t hunt without a license that usually require training.  You have to go through a background check when buying a new gun.  Any jerk can buy a car and speed on the highway.  You can't carry in many places.  In NYC such violation could get you in jail for one year.  Rob someone with a gun, (armed robbery as opposed to that without a gun), and you'll spend many more years in jail just for the armed part.  No one ever says American jail sentences are light when guns are involved. Meanwhile speeding through a red light will get you a monetary fine only  even though the act could have killed a couple of children walking across the street. 

My point is that people are willing to put up with mayhem, whether caused by cars or guns, because they want to continue to use them.  Guns apparently are even more important as the founders of America protected that right in our Constitution.  Frankly, I trust their rationale for granting people that right more than the frothy and faulty arguments against that right.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 05, 2019, 10:22:42 am
No internet?

Cheers,
Bart
I believe that film and internet and other visual cues do play a part.  Since ISIS has lost its territories, there seems to be less people who will do mass murder in terrorist attacks.  There seem to be copycats who do things because others are doing them. It's a strange and crazy situation.  People on the edge seem to get pushed over it when they see others doing harmful acts.  One nut job seems to give another nut job the license to act out.  Media has started to not even mention the perpetrators name in the hopes that future potential killers won;t do anything since they won;lt get their name publicized.  Not sure that would work, but it's a start. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 05, 2019, 10:24:27 am
No internet?

Cheers,
Bart

No doubt that's part of the problem, Bart. No TV either in the beginning. Getting rid of TV probably could save the Western World from ultimate destruction.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 05, 2019, 10:49:48 am
Guns have many purposes just as cars do.  They protect people, families, homes and businesses.  They're used for hunting. They provide citizens with a way of defending the country against a tyrannical government.  Ask the people in Venezuela what I mean or those in Cuba.  What are the poor unarmed people in Hong Kong going to do when the Red Chinese enter their city with tanks like Tiananmen Square?

Guns like cars have many laws against improper use.  You can;t hunt without a license that usually require training.  You have to go through a background check when buying a new gun.  Any jerk can buy a car and speed on the highway.  You can't carry in many places.  In NYC such violation could get you in jail for one year.  Rob someone with a gun, (armed robbery as opposed to that without a gun), and you'll spend many more years in jail just for the armed part.  No one ever says American jail sentences are light when guns are involved. Meanwhile speeding through a red light will get you a monetary fine only  even though the act could have killed a couple of children walking across the street. 

My point is that people are willing to put up with mayhem, whether caused by cars or guns, because they want to continue to use them.  Guns apparently are even more important as the founders of America protected that right in our Constitution.  Frankly, I trust their rationale for granting people that right more than the frothy and faulty arguments against that right.


Alan, I could spend all my waking hours answering your points, but as you never reply to anything directly (assuming you absorb it in the first place), just like any old politician, and continue on your merry way stitching one non sequitur to the next, the task is futile. I leave you in your compartment with Alice. I'm not equipped for her world.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 05, 2019, 11:41:17 am
I was responding to an opinion by a non-American that called Americans racist and unfree.  Those are fighting words and were over the top.
You are as thin-skinned as your idol. And lash out too, like Pavlov's dog. But what else can you expect? Rational discussion was never in the cards.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 05, 2019, 12:27:53 pm
For the lighter side of the news https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/456155-ohio-gop-lawmaker-blames-shootings-on-gay-marriage-video-games-open (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/456155-ohio-gop-lawmaker-blames-shootings-on-gay-marriage-video-games-open).

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 05, 2019, 12:33:06 pm

Alan, I could spend all my waking hours answering your points, but as you never reply to anything directly (assuming you absorb it in the first place), just like any old politician, and continue on your merry way stitching one non sequitur to the next, the task is futile. I leave you in your compartment with Alice. I'm not equipped for her world.
Just another ad hominem attack.  You didn't address my points. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 05, 2019, 12:33:37 pm
You are as thin-skinned as your idol. And lash out too, like Pavlov's dog. But what else can you expect? Rational discussion was never in the cards.
Just another ad hominem attack.  You didn't address my points. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 05, 2019, 12:36:24 pm
For the lighter side of the news https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/456155-ohio-gop-lawmaker-blames-shootings-on-gay-marriage-video-games-open (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/456155-ohio-gop-lawmaker-blames-shootings-on-gay-marriage-video-games-open).


What's funny about the breakdown of the family?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 05, 2019, 12:37:35 pm
Just another ad hominem attack.  You didn't address my points.
I was taught not to try to have a rational discussion with an irrational person.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 05, 2019, 12:41:20 pm
I was taught not to try to have a rational discussion with an irrational person.
Another ad hominem attack.    You seem to be in a great mood today.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 05, 2019, 12:53:53 pm
Another ad hominem attack.  You seem to be in a great mood today.
Just placing your arguments in context.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 05, 2019, 12:58:48 pm
Just placing your arguments in context.
Do you really think I'm Pavlov's dog? ("ruff")  Or "thin-skinned"?  That I "lash out"?  That I'm "irrational"?  I haven't been called those many names since me and my wife had a big fight last month. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 05, 2019, 12:59:26 pm
Do you really think I'm Pavlov's dog? ("ruff")  Or "thin-skinned"?  That I "lash out"?  That I'm "irrational"?  I haven't been called those many names since me and my wife had a big fight last month.
Yes, I really think you act like Pavlov's dog in response to certain statements. Yes, I really think you are thin-skinned. Yes, I really think you lash out. Yes, I really think you are irrational. The proof is in your posts.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 05, 2019, 01:04:36 pm
Y'all are gonna get our toys taken away again.  :(
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 05, 2019, 01:18:51 pm
Y'all are gonna get our toys taken away again.  :(

+1

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 05, 2019, 01:37:09 pm
So much for the "white supremacy" in mass shootings.

NOTE: I do not vouch for the accuracy of the meme, but it seems legit, given the definition of "mass shootings" as 4+, which would easily include a bunch of gang shootings.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 05, 2019, 03:45:43 pm
Yes, I really think you act like Pavlov's dog in response to certain statements. Yes, I really think you are thin-skinned. Yes, I really think you lash out. Yes, I really think you are irrational. The proof is in your posts.


Fab, you are wasting your time.

Like myself, I'm sure there are better things you can find to do than try to whip the fog.

:-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on August 05, 2019, 05:30:54 pm
So much for the "white supremacy" in mass shootings.

NOTE: I do not vouch for the accuracy of the meme, but it seems legit, given the definition of "mass shootings" as 4+, which would easily include a bunch of gang shootings.

Maybe you did miss the point; in the Texas case the reason of the shooting was that a white skinned man killed Mexicans because he thought to many of them had entered Texas...

Nobody ( here or anywhere else ) stated that all mass killings were caused by white males with racist motives....

So what is your point exactly?

Yes, according to the statistics the people in the US like to kill one another relatively much more than in many other countries and their favourite weapon is the gun...
Some say it is they enormous amount of guns available, other say it must be something else because guns need people to kill people.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 05, 2019, 06:06:12 pm
... Nobody ( here or anywhere else ) stated that all mass killings were caused by white males with racist motives....

In this very thread (note the plural):

These shooters are not 'crazies', 'lunatics', 'nut jobs' etc. They are highly-motivated, white supremacist terrorists...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on August 05, 2019, 06:27:35 pm
Nobody ( here or anywhere else ) stated that all mass killings were caused by white males with racist motives....

Certainly not all, but according to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation:

Quote
[T]here have been more domestic terrorism subjects disrupted by arrest and more deaths caused by domestic terrorists than international terrorists in recent years.  We are most concerned about lone offenders, primarily using firearms, as these lone offenders represent the dominant trend for lethal domestic terrorists. . . .

Individuals adhering to racially motivated violent extremism ideology have been responsible for the most lethal incidents among domestic terrorists in recent years, and the FBI assesses the threat of violence and lethality posed by racially motivated violent extremists will continue.  The current racially motivated violent extremist threat is decentralized and primarily characterized by lone actors.  These actors tend to be radicalized online and target minorities and soft targets using easily accessible weapons.

—Testimony by Assistant Director Michael C. McGarrity, counterterrorism division, and Deputy Assistant Director Calvin A. Shivers, criminal investigative division (https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/confronting-white-supremacy), before the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight and Reform Committee, Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, June 4, 2019.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: elliot_n on August 05, 2019, 06:35:01 pm
Ah, there's seems to have been a misunderstanding. I wasn't claiming that ALL gun crime is committed by the far right :)

I was simply pointing to the recent rise in white supremacist terrorism, and suggesting that it should be viewed in terms of ideology rather than mental health ('nut job' etc).

Your leader admitted as much today (through gritted teeth).





Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 05, 2019, 06:37:49 pm
My understanding is that a mass shooting is one in which 3 or more (or maybe 4 or more) people are shot/killed/injured. Does anyone know if they attempt to separate those into cases where, for example, some ex-employee shoots colleagues, that is, targeted shootings of people the attacker already knows and has a beef against vs truly random shootings of people that the perpetrators don't know? Without this additional breakdown information, attempting to make general statements about what political or racial motivations are at work is a bit of a waste of time. There will be cases in which they apply and others in which they don't.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 05, 2019, 06:45:51 pm
... I was simply pointing to the recent rise in white supremacist terrorism, and suggesting that it should be viewed in terms of ideology rather than mental health ('nut job' etc)...

There is no white supremacy terrorism other than lone-wolf, nut-job kind, as obvious from the FBI report that Chris cited above. 

There is no platform that calls for mass shootings, and no organization claimed responsibility. There is no culture of martyrdom among those groups, and no perp has been directly associated with those fringe groups.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 05, 2019, 06:53:29 pm
... Without this additional breakdown information, attempting to make general statements about what political or racial motivations are...

Here is one source:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019

Note that, when you scroll to the bottom, out of about 250 mass shootings, only 2 were school shootings and only one in a “place of worship.” The last one could be terrorism, but even for that I am not sure, as I didn’t look into details.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: elliot_n on August 05, 2019, 07:04:14 pm
There is no white supremacy terrorism other than lone-wolf, nut-job kind, as obvious from the FBI report that Chris cited above.

Ideology is not in the FBI's remit. It is working with blinkers on.

Quote
There is no platform that calls for mass shootings, and no organization claimed responsibility.

This is asymmetrical warfare. No organisations. No leaders. Just web forums and ideology (4chan, 8chan etc).

Quote
There is no culture of martyrdom among those groups, and no perp has been directly associated with those fringe groups.

You know that's not true.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: elliot_n on August 05, 2019, 07:10:15 pm
The last one could be terrorism, but even for that I am not sure, as I didn’t look into details.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poway_synagogue_shooting
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 05, 2019, 07:13:18 pm
... You know that's not true.

I honestly don’t. Care to point out examples? I am open to learning something new.

As for ideology... I don’t visit those sites... is there an ideology that calls for lethal violence against certain groups?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 05, 2019, 07:34:10 pm
.... I haven't been called those many names since me and my wife had a big fight last month. 

This too close to home then? ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: elliot_n on August 05, 2019, 07:49:05 pm
I honestly don’t. Care to point out examples? I am open to learning something new.

Elliot Rodger is regarded as a martyr by many in the incel 'community'. He has inspired subsequent mass killings.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 05, 2019, 08:03:28 pm
Elliot Rodger is regarded as a martyr by many in the incel 'community'. He has inspired subsequent mass killings.

Come on, Elliot. From Wikipedia: "Elliot Rodger. Motive. Revenge for perceived sexual and social rejection." I'll admit that Wikipedia isn't always right, but if you're going to come out with stuff like this, give us your sources. You may be right, but just saying it ain't gonna cut it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 05, 2019, 08:47:52 pm
... Elliot Rodger. Motive. Revenge for perceived sexual and social rejection."...

That I can understand. He will be rewarded, finally, with 72 virgins. Ooops! Wrong ideology?  ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: elliot_n on August 05, 2019, 09:12:33 pm
Come on, Elliot. From Wikipedia: "Elliot Rodger. Motive. Revenge for perceived sexual and social rejection." I'll admit that Wikipedia isn't always right, but if you're going to come out with stuff like this, give us your sources. You may be right, but just saying it ain't gonna cut it.

Wikipedia and the recent BBC documentary 'Inside the Secret World of Incels'.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 09:36:58 am
Antifa, the left wing group, uses violence often in its methods.
https://nypost.com/2019/07/17/liberals-cheer-as-antifa-violence-escalates/

What about the Sanders supporter who tried to kill Republican congressmen playing baseball.  Five people were shot.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/james-hodgkinson-shooting-republicans-baseball-game

These were only two of many left-wing groups and terrorists dating back decades including the Black Liberation Army, The Weatherman and The Symbionese Liberation Army, just three that I remember.  Many of these groups even used bombs in their violence and assassinated cops regularly.

Black Liberation Army
A splinter group made up of the more radical members of the Black Panther Party, the Black Liberation Army (BLA) sought to overthrow the US government in the name of racial separatism and Marxist ideals. The Fraternal Order of Police blames the BLA for the murders of 13 police officers. According to a Justice Department report on BLA activity, the group was suspected of involvement in over 60 incidents of violence between 1970 and 1980.

Symbionese Liberation Army
The Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) was an American self-styled, far left "urban guerrilla warfare group" that considered itself a revolutionary vanguard army. The group committed bank robberies, two murders, and other acts of violence between 1973 and 1975. Among their most notorious acts was the kidnapping of the newspaper heiress Patty Hearst.

Weathermen
The Weather Underground Organization was a far left organization active from 1969 to 1975. It originated in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)[23] composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters. The group collapsed shortly after the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975.

The point is, America has a rich history of single nut jobs of all persuasions as well as violent groups from one end of the political spectrum to the other.  These groups have long pre-dated Trump.  Wacko Americans of all stripes don;t need much to get them going. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 09:49:14 am
For the heck of it, here's just one of the aboves list of leftist activities when they existed including assassinations, bombings etc. Frankly, until I read the article, I forget just how violent they were.
The Weathermen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Weatherman_actions
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 06, 2019, 09:53:44 am
Antifa, the left wing group, uses violence often in its methods.
https://nypost.com/2019/07/17/liberals-cheer-as-antifa-violence-escalates/

What about the Sanders supporter who tried to kill Republican congressmen playing baseball.  Five people were shot.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/james-hodgkinson-shooting-republicans-baseball-game

These were only two of many left-wing groups and terrorists dating back decades including the Black Liberation Army, The Weatherman and The Symbionese Liberation Army, just three that I remember.  Many of these groups even used bombs in their violence and assassinated cops regularly.

Black Liberation Army
A splinter group made up of the more radical members of the Black Panther Party, the Black Liberation Army (BLA) sought to overthrow the US government in the name of racial separatism and Marxist ideals. The Fraternal Order of Police blames the BLA for the murders of 13 police officers. According to a Justice Department report on BLA activity, the group was suspected of involvement in over 60 incidents of violence between 1970 and 1980.

Symbionese Liberation Army
The Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) was an American self-styled, far left "urban guerrilla warfare group" that considered itself a revolutionary vanguard army. The group committed bank robberies, two murders, and other acts of violence between 1973 and 1975. Among their most notorious acts was the kidnapping of the newspaper heiress Patty Hearst.

Weathermen
The Weather Underground Organization was a far left organization active from 1969 to 1975. It originated in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)[23] composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters. The group collapsed shortly after the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975.

The point is, America has a rich history of single nut jobs of all persuasions as well as violent groups from one end of the political spectrum to the other.  These groups have long pre-dated Trump.  Wacko Americans of all stripes don;t need much to get them going.

Indeed, no shortage of gunplay. Ever read what happened in Matewan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan) back in 1920. You have often explained the omnipresence of guns with Americans' desire to protect yourselves from government incursion, how do you feel about the same when perpetrated by private companies? The labour "war" in Matewan was one of the the largest battles ever to take place on American soil. How many people know about it?

Another fascinating piece of history are the so-called "race riots" in the early 1900s https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/america-s-other-civil-war-1.5151203 (https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/america-s-other-civil-war-1.5151203) where black and immigrant neighbourhoods in American cities were attacked by avowed white supremacist groups resulting in thousands of deaths with few prosecutions. These incidents may not be taught in schools or mentioned in popular media but that doesn't mean that people don't remember them.

By those standards, today's fringe groups are wimps!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 06, 2019, 09:59:58 am
Indeed, no shortage of gunplay. Ever read what happened in Matewan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan) back in 1920. You have often explained the omnipresence of guns with Americans' desire to protect yourselves from government incursion, how do you feel about the same when perpetrated by private companies? The labour "war" in Matewan was one of the the largest battles ever to take place on American soil. How many people know about it?

Another fascinating piece of history are the so-called "race riots" in the early 1900s https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/america-s-other-civil-war-1.5151203 (https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/america-s-other-civil-war-1.5151203) where black and immigrant neighbourhoods in American cities were attacked by avowed white supremacist groups resulting in thousands of deaths with few prosecutions. These incidents may not be taught in schools or mentioned in popular media but that doesn't mean that people don't remember them.

By those standards, today's fringe groups are wimps!

Certainly a positive!  The problem with history is, historians tend to write more on the positives then the negatives (aside from wars).  So we have too much nostalgia for the past and some how feel it was better.  It wasn't. 

FYI, looks like the Dayton shooter was an extreme left winger and Warren fan.  Dayton shooter appeared to tweet extreme left views and had an abiding interest in violence (https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/us/connor-betts-dayton-shooting-profile/index.html)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 06, 2019, 10:15:52 am
Or just the other day:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dayton-killer-left-winger-elizabeth-warren

Fox news published Wall Street Journal Editorial Board's opinion (I am linking Fox News simply because it is not beyond a paywall; emphasis mine):

Quote
... his politics appear to have been left of center. The shooter recently tweeted that he would “happily” vote for Senator Warren. His Twitter profile also read: “he/him/anime fan/metalhead/leftist/i’m going to hell and i’m not coming back.” In December last he wrote: “This is America: Guns on every corner, guns in every house, no freedom but to kill.” A month before that, he wrote: “Vote blue for gods sake.”

If you have access to WSJ, here is a direct link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/politics-and-the-shooters-11565047588

Another angle, friends' testimonies:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/dayton-gunman-anti-2nd-amendment-not-conservative-right-leaning-left-tweets-conner-betts-will-el-fakir

Quote
... his former pal was “definitely not a right-leaning person. His political views definitely leaned to the left. And believe it or not, he was actually pro-gun control. He was actually anti-Second Amendment.”

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 06, 2019, 10:20:51 am
Regardless of all this, I still think his motive had something to do with his sister.  I just can't believe it was purely happenstance that she was there and then killed by him. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 06, 2019, 10:28:48 am
Regardless of all this, I still think his motive had something to do with his sister.  I just can't believe it was purely happenstance that she was there and then killed by him. 

My point in posting the above is that when you are a nut job, it doesn't matter what triggers you: left rhetoric or right rhetoric, you are still a nut job.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 06, 2019, 10:30:54 am
My point in posting the above is that when you are a nut job, it doesn't matter what triggers you: left rhetoric or right rhetoric, you are still a nut job.

Yes, good point. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 06, 2019, 10:45:55 am
Exactly, Slobodan. And it's why we need to begin confining nut jobs again the way we did until sixty or so years ago.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 10:49:20 am
Indeed, no shortage of gunplay. Ever read what happened in Matewan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan) back in 1920. You have often explained the omnipresence of guns with Americans' desire to protect yourselves from government incursion, how do you feel about the same when perpetrated by private companies? The labour "war" in Matewan was one of the the largest battles ever to take place on American soil. How many people know about it?

Another fascinating piece of history are the so-called "race riots" in the early 1900s https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/america-s-other-civil-war-1.5151203 (https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/america-s-other-civil-war-1.5151203) where black and immigrant neighbourhoods in American cities were attacked by avowed white supremacist groups resulting in thousands of deaths with few prosecutions. These incidents may not be taught in schools or mentioned in popular media but that doesn't mean that people don't remember them.

By those standards, today's fringe groups are wimps!
I wasn't around for the race riots of the early 1900's.  But I did live during the race riots after Martin Luther King was assassinated.  Cities burned and dozens were killed across America although my home town of NYC was mostly calm.   Baltimore, which needed 5000 paratroopers to restore order,  never recovered fully as the current arguments between the president and Baltimore's congressmen have reminded people. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_assassination_riots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_assassination_riots)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 10:56:49 am
Exactly, Slobodan. And it's why we need to begin confining nut jobs again the way we did until sixty or so years ago.
Not sure that's the solution either. After all, the reason the hospitals were closed, was because they were inhumane, breeding grounds for violence and sexual abuse of patients.  Which reminds me of the movie and book, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 06, 2019, 11:04:58 am
There is not a single group that has exclusivity on terrorism (other than that most of them are home-grown). The terrorists come in many colors, and they find excuses in different ideologies (if any). And then there are those who are not out to sow terror, but rather death and destruction is the single goal.

But, how does it help if a President stokes racism and division (and he already started before he was elected into office)? And that in a country with easy access to (semi-)automatic assault guns. It's asking for trouble, and it appears that 'El Paso' was a result of it.

Think of it, more Americans have died in the USA by gun violence, than in all wars combined. Obviously, having more guns doesn't help. In fact, a smaller percentage of Americans have guns. But those who do have guns, have many more guns than they used to have. The total number of guns is increasing. Surely, there has to be a way to reduce the number of guns in circulation, even without banning gun ownership.

What's so horrible about a bipartisan gun background check bill, passed by Congress in February (2019), that the Senate Majority leader is not willing to bring to vote? That makes McConnell's tweet on Saturday that he and the country were "horrified" by the "senseless violence" in El Paso, very disingenuous.

Ocasio-Cortez demands McConnell stop 'giving bogus excuses' and pass gun background check bill
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-demands-mcconnell-stop-giving-bogus-excuses-and-pass-gun-background-check-bill
Quote
"The House passed HR8, a Bipartisan Background Checks Act, *5 months ago* and the Senate has yet to vote on it," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in response to McConnell’s own tweet. "It was one of our 1st major priorities after ending the gov shutdown. You’ve been sitting on it since February giving bogus excuses. Care to explain the people why?"

The measure, HR 8, was passed back in February with overwhelming support from the newly elected Democratic majority and some Republican support.

Those who do nothing about the issue, or even block (part of) a solution, are part of the problem. They make themselves complicit in prolonging the unnecessary suffering of American families.

And that's only part of the issues. Talk about nut jobs ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 11:13:42 am
There is not a single group that has exclusivity on terrorism (other than that most of them are home-grown). The terrorists come in many colors, and they find excuses in different ideologies (if any). And then there are those who are not out to sow terror, but rather death and destruction is the single goal.

But, how does it help if a President stokes racism and division (and he already started before he was elected into office)? And that in a country with easy access to (semi-)automatic assault guns. It's asking for trouble, and it appears that 'El Paso' was a result of it.

Think of it, more Americans have died in the USA by gun violence, than in all wars combined. Obviously, having more guns doesn't help. In fact, a smaller percentage of Americans have guns. But those who do have guns, have many more guns than they used to have. The total number of guns is increasing. Surely, there has to be a way to reduce the number of guns in circulation, even without banning gun ownership.

What's so horrible about a bipartisan gun background check bill, passed by Congress in February (2019), that the Senate Majority leader is not willing to bring to vote? That makes McConnell's tweet on Saturday that he and the country were "horrified" by the "senseless violence" in El Paso, very disingenuous.

Ocasio-Cortez demands McConnell stop 'giving bogus excuses' and pass gun background check bill
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-demands-mcconnell-stop-giving-bogus-excuses-and-pass-gun-background-check-bill (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-demands-mcconnell-stop-giving-bogus-excuses-and-pass-gun-background-check-bill)
Those who do nothing about the issue, or even block (part of) a solution, are part of the problem. They make themselves complicit in prolonging the unnecessary suffering of American families.

And that's only part of the issues. Talk about nut jobs ...

Cheers,
Bart


People are horrified when a drunk driver kills a family of five.  Yet, states are passing laws making marijuana use legal knowing that it's going to add more carnage on the roads as more people drive impaired.  Where's the sense in that?  The fact is, people are willing to sacrifice death and destruction for certain freedoms.  I'm sure we all read about all those people who died taking selfies by edges of cliffs they slipped off from.    There's no good accounting for stupidity.  But with guns, at least there is a constitutional protection for the right to have them. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 06, 2019, 11:14:08 am
Not sure that's the solution either. After all, the reason the hospitals were closed, was because they were inhumane, breeding grounds for violence and sexual abuse of patients.  Which reminds me of the movie and book, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

I don't know where you're getting your information, Alan, but I was there. I was in my late twenties when the crap started, and what I remember is a bleeding heart onslaught from the left about how unfair it was to keep these people locked up. After all, they hadn't committed a crime, and modern pharmaceutical help will keep them in line. Yes, there were some bad situations in the asylums, just as there are in today's nursing homes. But those problems weren't as bad as massacres in gun-free zones.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 06, 2019, 11:25:22 am
... how does it help if a President stokes racism and division...

He doesn’t. Except in your mind.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 11:25:28 am
I don't know where you're getting your information, Alan, but I was there. I was in my late twenties when the crap started, and what I remember is a bleeding heart onslaught from the left about how unfair it was to keep these people locked up. After all, they hadn't committed a crime, and modern pharmaceutical help will keep them in line. Yes, there were some bad situations in the asylums, just as there are in today's nursing homes. But those problems weren't as bad as massacres in gun-free zones.
I agree there was a lot of hyperbole on the left.  But drugs did help these people for the most part.  No need to lock them up.  I don;t think the killers in EL Paso or Dayton would have qualified for a mental hospital had they been open.  Most terrorist type killings are done either by people with political agendas.  Or they flip out before the incident like the guy who loses his job and then goes back and kills half a dozen employees.  Their past history is not severe enough to imprison them otherwise we would have 5 million slightly disturbed people eligible for these hospitals.  The courts would not approve it not do I think they should.  Obviously, we have a problem with people who flip out.  But, like I said previously, we have a much larger problem with drunken driving which causes thousands of deaths.  Yet we live with it.  Either we jail drunken drivers if they killed someone.  Or if they just got caught with a DUI, the court might give them the option of going to rehabilitation rather than jail.  Maybe we can figure out a way of doing that with mental cases although I suspect a lot of that goes on now with families getting their family members help.  It's a tough situation with no easy solution. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 06, 2019, 11:30:29 am
As Alan pointed out, not a single mass shooter would have qualified for a mental institution. You can’t lock up someone just because they are weird. You can’t even put them under FBI monitoring without ACLU complaining. Probably the best approach would be those “red flag” laws, though I know nothing about it in greater detail.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 11:44:39 am
As Alan pointed out, not a single mass shooter would have qualified for a mental institution. You can’t lock up someone just because they are weird. You can’t even put them under FBI monitoring without ACLU complaining. Probably the best approach would be those “red flag” laws, though I know nothing about it in greater detail.
The FBI doesn't have the resources anyway to follow people around.  They couldn't keep up with potential Al Qaeda terrorists.  It takes like a dozen agents to follow just one suspect.  What could they do with millions of like you said "weird" people.  In any case, if you want to see "weird", just visit my city, New York. 


Here's one I met in Coney Island.  (This is a photo site, after all.) :)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/3718/12200315376_bf2353476a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/jA6NH7)Pals (https://flic.kr/p/jA6NH7) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr

and another, a whole group of them, I think they were devil worshipers or something like that in Central Park

(https://live.staticflickr.com/6177/6176983652_08b9945755_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/apQE39)Ceremony (https://flic.kr/p/apQE39) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr

these women in mid-Manhattan might qualify if someone reported them.  But you'd have to arrest half the people there if that was the case. :)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/5246/5344994234_d7b3704ae8_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/99juz1)Smile (https://flic.kr/p/99juz1) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 06, 2019, 12:10:06 pm
As Alan pointed out, not a single mass shooter would have qualified for a mental institution. You can’t lock up someone just because they are weird. You can’t even put them under FBI monitoring without ACLU complaining. Probably the best approach would be those “red flag” laws, though I know nothing about it in greater detail.

That's certainly strange. Somehow we managed to do it until about sixty years ago.

Oh, and there was one kid turned in by his grandma. He was about to shoot up the place.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 06, 2019, 12:32:36 pm
... Somehow we managed to do it until about sixty years ago...

Sixty years ago we had families, family values, and family ties that lessened the sense of loneliness (the lone in lone wolf), social isolation and social rejection. And we had no opportunity for instant infamy via social media. Having guns was not a problem then.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 06, 2019, 12:57:56 pm
I wasn't around for the race riots of the early 1900's.  But I did live during the race riots after Martin Luther King was assassinated.  Cities burned and dozens were killed across America although my home town of NYC was mostly calm.   Baltimore, which needed 5000 paratroopers to restore order,  never recovered fully as the current arguments between the president and Baltimore's congressmen have reminded people. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_assassination_riots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_assassination_riots)

You may have missed my point. Those "riots" in the 1920s were not "race riots", some people just choose to call them that to mask what really went on, which was white supremacists going into non-white and immigrant neighbourhoods killing people, setting fire to their homes, and in large measure getting away with it, as some states declined to investigate and prosecute. It was a longish podcast that I posted a link to, about 50 min, so it requires some effort to listen and not everyone is so inclined. That's understandable, but the reference is there for anyone who wants to listen.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 06, 2019, 02:09:07 pm
Ilhan Omar issued a statement regarding the latest mass shootings:

"Some people did something and we all are losing our rights." ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 03:32:42 pm
You may have missed my point. Those "riots" in the 1920s were not "race riots", some people just choose to call them that to mask what really went on, which was white supremacists going into non-white and immigrant neighbourhoods killing people, setting fire to their homes, and in large measure getting away with it, as some states declined to investigate and prosecute. It was a longish podcast that I posted a link to, about 50 min, so it requires some effort to listen and not everyone is so inclined. That's understandable, but the reference is there for anyone who wants to listen.
America today is not the America of the 1920's any more than it is the America before 1863 when slavery was legal.  Would you believe, we actually have had a black president who was re-elected for a second term.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on August 06, 2019, 03:32:54 pm
You can’t lock up someone just because they are weird. You can’t even put them under FBI monitoring without ACLU complaining.

There's an even more fundamental reason why the government can't put "weird" people under FBI monitoring: the FBI has no authority to conduct domestic intelligence.*  Nor does any other federal agency.  Before the government can engage in domestic surveillance, it is constitutionally required to persuade a court that it has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed or is imminent:

Quote
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
— Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) (1791)

Other democratic countries with strong civil liberties traditions do have domestic intelligence agencies—e.g., the United Kingdom's MI-5 or Germany's Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz—but proposals to create one here have so far failed to gain much political traction, and in any event would need to be very carefully crafted to avoid Fourth Amendment issues.

———
*The FBI can conduct counterintelligence monitoring of foreigners in the United States.  However, if a U.S. citizen or permanent resident comes under suspicion of acting as an intelligence agent of a foreign power, a judicial warrant is required.  There is a special court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/about-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court), that considers such applications by the government.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 03:45:30 pm
There's an even more fundamental reason why the government can't put "weird" people under FBI monitoring: the FBI has no authority to conduct domestic intelligence.*  Nor does any other federal agency.  Before the government can engage in domestic surveillance, it is constitutionally required to persuade a court that it has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed or is imminent:
— Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) (1791)

Other democratic countries with strong civil liberties traditions do have domestic intelligence agencies—e.g., the United Kingdom's MI-5 or Germany's Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz—but proposals to create one here have so far failed to gain much political traction, and in any event would need to be very carefully crafted to avoid Fourth Amendment issues.

———
*The FBI can conduct counterintelligence monitoring of foreigners in the United States.  However, if a U.S. citizen or permanent resident comes under suspicion of acting as an intelligence agent of a foreign power, a judicial warrant is required.  There is a special court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/about-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court), that considers such applications by the government.
Of course you raised the whole issue with the spying on Trump and his campaign using the phony dossier as "evidence" for the FISA court paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democrats who were his opposition using statements from Russian KGB agents.  Did Hillary conspire with the Russians in an American presidential election?  Did they lie to the FISA court to destroy a president?  Have we gone too far in allowing the government to get involved in our affairs secretly?   Should we trust the FISA court or get rid of it?  Have they caught any real terrorists because of the FISA court?  How can we trust our own government when stuff like this happens?  What if a Democrat president is the next victim of secret political "coups"?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 06, 2019, 03:48:17 pm
Hook, line, and sinker.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 03:50:09 pm
There's an even more fundamental reason why the government can't put "weird" people under FBI monitoring: the FBI has no authority to conduct domestic intelligence.*  Nor does any other federal agency.  Before the government can engage in domestic surveillance, it is constitutionally required to persuade a court that it has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed or is imminent:
— Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) (1791)

Other democratic countries with strong civil liberties traditions do have domestic intelligence agencies—e.g., the United Kingdom's MI-5 or Germany's Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz—but proposals to create one here have so far failed to gain much political traction, and in any event would need to be very carefully crafted to avoid Fourth Amendment issues.

———
*The FBI can conduct counterintelligence monitoring of foreigners in the United States.  However, if a U.S. citizen or permanent resident comes under suspicion of acting as an intelligence agent of a foreign power, a judicial warrant is required.  There is a special court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/about-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court), that considers such applications by the government.
State and local police apparently can "spy" on private citizens at least in "public" arenas.  NYC's police department has a very aggressive investigative group who go after terrorists and potential terrorists.  They were putting spies into Muslim mosques in New Jersey where previous terrorists were  affiliated.  NYC never told the State of New Jersey that they were doing it and pissed off the NJ government. I think NYPD promised to stop but I'm not sure if they did. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 03:56:05 pm
An apparent violation of the US Constitution as California tries to release Trump's tax records.
Voters sue California over tax return law targeting Trump
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/456250-voters-sue-california-over-tax-return-law-targeting-trump (https://thehill.com/policy/finance/456250-voters-sue-california-over-tax-return-law-targeting-trump)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 06, 2019, 04:10:59 pm
America today is not the America of the 1920's any more than it is the America before 1863 when slavery was legal.  Would you believe, we actually have had a black president who was re-elected for a second term.

But you brought up those wacko leftie groups from the 60s? Is American today the same as the America of the 60s?

You have claimed that Americans have guns because they're wary of government incursions into their freedoms from way back during the Revolutionary War. Is American today the America of 1776?

Frankly, I am losing track of what point you're trying to make. My point in bringing up those incidents from the past was that you were trying to convince us that the left was the cause of all the current violence (well, them or crazy people, I have to admit I am kind of confused right now). If you want to explain things, it's best to have all the facts, not just the ones you like.

Also, I would just like to remind you all that the Soviet Union was reknowned for its "mental" institutions, just sayin'.

But so long as you all are blaming the 60s and Jack Nicholson movies, maybe you'd like to throw in Elvis, rock & roll, blue jeans and long hair too. Geez folks, talk about a thread going off the rails.

But we should look at the bright side. At least a lot of people seem to be in agreement that there is actually something wrong. Agreeing that there is a problem is often the first step.

In a recent interview I heard with the historian/author Yuval Noah Harari, he asked an interesting question of the people who think we're living in terrible times and need to go back to some magical period when things were better. What year, exactly, would you want to go back to when things were better for people?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 04:24:49 pm
But you brought up those wacko leftie groups from the 60s? Is American today the same as the America of the 60s?

You have claimed that Americans have guns because they're wary of government incursions into their freedoms from way back during the Revolutionary War. Is American today the America of 1776?

Frankly, I am losing track of what point you're trying to make. My point in bringing up those incidents from the past was that you were trying to convince us that the left was the cause of all the current violence (well, them or crazy people, I have to admit I am kind of confused right now). If you want to explain things, it's best to have all the facts, not just the ones you like.

Also, I would just like to remind you all that the Soviet Union was reknowned for its "mental" institutions, just sayin'.

But so long as you all are blaming the 60s and Jack Nicholson movies, maybe you'd like to throw in Elvis, rock & roll, blue jeans and long hair too. Geez folks, talk about a thread going off the rails.

But we should look at the bright side. At least a lot of people seem to be in agreement that there is actually something wrong. Agreeing that there is a problem is often the first step.

In a recent interview I heard with the historian/author Yuval Noah Harari, he asked an interesting question of the people who think we're living in terrible times and need to go back to some magical period when things were better. What year, exactly, would you want to go back to when things were better for people?


Most of your post does not reflect what I said.  Where did I blame for anything good old Jack Nicholson, Elvis, rock and roll, blue jeans (which I'm wearing right now), and long hair which is impossible at this point, check my avatar.  :)   Soviet mental institutions?  My post was opposed to restarting them mental institutions here in the US.  Maybe we should lock up people who don't read posts before complaining? :)


Fortunately, the crazy and much more dangerous groups on the left and right are not around currently.  Most of the wackos are individuals who act out.   So all the angst about this is mainly for political reasons to peel of votes for the upcoming presidential election.  The politicians don;t really care about those killed.  They are just using these incidents as points on their political spears.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 06, 2019, 04:32:39 pm

Most of your post does not reflect what I said.  Where did I blame for anything good old Jack Nicholson, Elvis, rock and roll, blue jeans (which I'm wearing right now), and long hair which is impossible at this point, check my avatar.  :)   Soviet mental institutions?  My post was opposed to restarting them mental institutions here in the US.  Maybe we should lock up people who don't read posts before complaining? :)


Fortunately, the crazy and much more dangerous groups on the left and right are not around currently.  Most of the wackos are individuals who act out.   So all the angst about this is mainly for political reasons to peel of votes for the upcoming presidential election.  The politicians don;t really care about those killed.  They are just using these incidents as points on their political spears.

It began as a reply to your reply to me. Then I went a little farther and addressed the recent direction of the discussion. I don't think this is the first time that has happened on these pages nor will it be the last. That's how discussions go.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 04:34:28 pm
It began as a reply to your reply to me. Then I went a little farther and addressed the recent direction of the discussion. I don't think this is the first time that has happened on these pages nor will it be the last. That's how discussions go.
Reminds me of the saying, When you're up to your ass beating down the alligators, you forget that the original reason you were there was to drain the swamp. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 07, 2019, 08:56:25 am
Here's an uncomfortable news item. Bullet-proof backpacks for children who are going back to school https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/bulletproof-backpacks-school-shootings_ca_5d498060e4b01ae816c8b3bd (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/bulletproof-backpacks-school-shootings_ca_5d498060e4b01ae816c8b3bd).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on August 07, 2019, 08:59:23 am
Here's an uncomfortable news item. Bullet-proof backpacks for children who are going back to school https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/bulletproof-backpacks-school-shootings_ca_5d498060e4b01ae816c8b3bd (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/bulletproof-backpacks-school-shootings_ca_5d498060e4b01ae816c8b3bd).
Maybe also a idea to weapon all these children - just in case... they need to defend themselfes...
Semi automatic shotguns will do..
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 09:37:21 am
Here's an uncomfortable news item. Bullet-proof backpacks for children who are going back to school https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/bulletproof-backpacks-school-shootings_ca_5d498060e4b01ae816c8b3bd (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/bulletproof-backpacks-school-shootings_ca_5d498060e4b01ae816c8b3bd).
A place for some nut job kid to hide his weapon?  In NYC, in the tough high schools, they have metal detection equipment the kids go through. Of course there are armed cops there as well.  But this is all to watch the students mainly, not some terrorist invasion.  I agree though that all these things are not conducive to a good education.  On the other hand, when I was a kid during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union and the US stood armed to the teeth with nuclear missiles, we use to practice hiding under our classrooms seats or going into corridors in case an atomic bomb war occurred.  I don't think we were any worse off in life later on because of it. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: elliot_n on August 07, 2019, 09:50:23 am
Maybe also a idea to weapon all these children - just in case... they need to defend themselfes...
Semi automatic shotguns will do..

Puppy pistols:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLjAj8620Nk
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on August 07, 2019, 12:21:28 pm
A place for some nut job kid to hide his weapon?  In NYC, in the tough high schools, they have metal detection equipment the kids go through. Of course there are armed cops there as well.  But this is all to watch the students mainly, not some terrorist invasion.  I agree though that all these things are not conducive to a good education.  On the other hand, when I was a kid during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union and the US stood armed to the teeth with nuclear missiles, we use to practice hiding under our classrooms seats or going into corridors in case an atomic bomb war occurred.  I don't think we were any worse off in life later on because of it.
The good old days when hiding under schoolbanks was enough to protect you from a nuclear attack...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on August 07, 2019, 12:26:57 pm
The good old days when hiding under schoolbanks was enough to protect you from a nuclear attack...
That was for politician protection.... ;D ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 04:46:34 pm
That was for politician protection.... ;D ;)
Fortunately, we never had to find out if hiding under our desk was actually safer in a nuclear attack.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 07, 2019, 04:53:12 pm
Fortunately, we never had to find out if hiding under our desk was actually safer in a nuclear attack.  :)

We did the same, on the other side of the ocean, if that would make you feel better ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 05:14:58 pm
We did the same, on the other side of the ocean, if that would make you feel better ;)
When I served in the USAF in the mid 1960's, part of the time I was in the 416th Heavy Bombardment Wing in upstate New York, now out-of-business.  It was a Strategic Air Command (SAC) base with B52 bombers with multi-nuclear bombs on 20 minute standby  takeoff.  That way they could take off before your side's bombers and missiles could hit them 

In retrospect, we were all nuts on both sides.  I guess we felt safer hiding under desks.  We're a dangerous species. It's amazing we made it to this millenia. God must be laughing at our stupidity. :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 07, 2019, 05:18:35 pm
... That way they could take off before your side's bombers and missiles could hit them... 

Not really "your side," we were in-between you guys (Yugoslavia was never a Warsaw Pact country, nor behind the Iron Curtain). We had to practice in case either of you guys goes crazy (or both)  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 06:23:05 pm
Not really "your side," we were in-between you guys (Yugoslavia was never a Warsaw Pact country, nor behind the Iron Curtain). We had to practice in case either of you guys goes crazy (or both)  :)
I don't know if I would have felt safer knowing that then. ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 08, 2019, 02:43:42 am
Hong Kong these days:

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 08, 2019, 09:29:38 am
Hong Kong these days:


The sign saying they need the 2nd Amendment is prescient.  Of course they don't have guns.  And they know the horror of what's about to happen to them because they're unarmed.  And that's the whole point of the amendment.  To protect us from tyrants and loss of freedom.  It's saddening and hopeful that people on the other side of the world understand this better then so many of our own Americans. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 08, 2019, 10:53:16 pm
Ah, that “gun violence”:

Four dead and two injured in California stabbing rampage https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49284329
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 09, 2019, 04:38:50 am
Ah, that “gun violence”:

Four dead and two injured in California stabbing rampage https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49284329

USA Gun violence
August 2, 2019: Suffolk, Virginia, 2 killed, 3 injured
August 3, 2019: El Paso, Texas, 22 killed, 24 injured
August 4, 2019: Dayton, Ohio, 10 killed, 26 injured
August 4, 2019: Chicago, Illinois, 0 killed, 7 injured
August 4, 2019: Memphis, Tennesee, 1 killed, 3 injured
August 4, 2019: Chicago, Illinois, 1 killed, 7 injured
August 5, 2019: Brooklyn, New York, 0 killed, 4 injured
August 5, 2019: Suitland, Maryland, 1 killed, 3 injured
August 6, 2019: Detroit, Michigan, 0 killed, 4 injured
August 7, 2019: Saint Louis, Missouri, 2 killed, 2 injured

And that's just the first week ...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 09, 2019, 04:43:03 am
[...] And that's the whole point of the amendment.  To protect us from tyrants and loss of freedom.

If you need guns to protect you, then you've already lost.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 06:31:31 am
If you need guns to protect you, then you've already lost.

Cheers,
Bart
I don't think Washington,  Jefferson, Madison and the other American patriots would agree with you. I'd rather trust our constitution than your advice.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 09, 2019, 07:37:44 am
If you need guns to protect you, then you've already lost.

Cheers,
Bart

The Netherlands believe surrender is the best defense, right Bart?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on August 09, 2019, 08:27:46 am
The Netherlands believe surrender is the best defense, right Bart?
WWII is 70+ years in the past in case you just came out of the bush...
( and your North-South civil war more than 150 years ago)
Lets us say our neighbors in the street are more friendly and fortunately have no guns to express themselves.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 09, 2019, 08:35:09 am
The Netherlands believe surrender is the best defense, right Bart?

Change the record.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 09, 2019, 08:54:25 am
The Netherlands believe surrender is the best defense, right Bart?

If only you understood how typically American your reaction is ...

'We'  prefer to prevent it from getting that far out of hand, 'you' seem to only want to react with lethal force and make more casualties in anticipation of what might (or might not) come. Need I remind you that more people have died in the USA by gun violence than in all previous wars combined? And that's not even acccounting for the suffering of the survivors with permanent trauma (and their families).

In July 2019 alone, in the USA, 32 people were killed by gun violence, and 178 were injured. It is out-of control madness !!!

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 08:55:17 am
WWII is 70+ years in the past in case you just came out of the bush...
( and your North-South civil war more than 150 years ago)
Lets us say our neighbors in the street are more friendly and fortunately have no guns to express themselves.
What's good for one country may not be good for another.  The United States of America was born in war as we unshackled ourselves from British colonial rule.  Guns were required for personal defense as well as against an armed tyrannical colonial government.  There was huge distrust of central government as there is today.  Our Founders knew about royalty in Europe and elsewhere.  They rejected it wanting nothing to do with it.  They feared its power to remove people's economic and civil freedoms.  So they made America as a Federal Republic where each State is Sovereign having their own governments, constitutions, court systems and leaders.  Each of the 50 states is also charged with defending itself against a tyrannical central government.  America's expansionist experience from East to West also made the gun an integral part of our experience.  "Have Gun Will Travel" is not just the name of a popular TV western series of the 1960's. 

You don't have this situation, so you're accustomed to either royalty or to strong central governments over centuries of their rule.  The fact is also that the US government and systems has survived after 200 plus years without being overthrown or replaced in any way.  That says a lot for the strength of our Constitution which the 2nd Amendment is a part.  We did fight a brutal Civil War that is an expression of the 2nd Amendment regardless of whose side you might have agreed with.  It's easy to say "you're not like us and should be" rather than trying to understand where our cultural differences lie due to major differences we experienced in history.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 09, 2019, 09:02:25 am
What's good for one country may not be good for another.  The United States of America was born in war as we unshackled ourselves from British colonial rule.  Guns were required for personal defense as well as against an armed tyrannical colonial government.  There was huge distrust of central government as there is today.  Our Founders knew about royalty in Europe and elsewhere.  They rejected it wanting nothing to do with it.  They feared its power to remove people's economic and civil freedoms.  So they made America as a Federal Republic where each State is Sovereign having their own governments, constitutions, court systems and leaders.  Each of the 50 states is also charged with defending itself against a tyrannical central government.  America's expansionist experience from East to West also made the gun an integral part of our experience.  "Have Gun Will Travel" is not just the name of a popular TV western series of the 1960's. 

You don't have this situation, so you're accustomed to either royalty or to strong central governments over centuries of their rule.  The fact is also that the US government and systems has survived after 200 plus years without being overthrown or replaced in any way.  That says a lot for the strength of our Constitution which the 2nd Amendment is a part.  We did fight a brutal Civil War that is an expression of the 2nd Amendment regardless of whose side you might have agreed with.  It's easy to say "you're not like us and should be" rather than trying to understand where our cultural differences lie due to major differences we experienced in history.

I tend to be cynical of too much ideology being rammed down my throat. My cynical brain tells me that it's more likely that the "founding fathers" were just rich people who didn't want to pay taxes to the king. Insofar as the British crown was not providing services in exchange for these taxes, they had a point. But what they did, in case you haven't noticed, was to form their own central government with its own institutions, which happened to serve their circumstances better.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 09:16:39 am
I tend to be cynical of too much ideology being rammed down my throat. My cynical brain tells me that it's more likely that the "founding fathers" were just rich people who didn't want to pay taxes to the king. Insofar as the British crown was not providing services in exchange for these taxes, they had a point. But what they did, in case you haven't noticed, was to form their own central government with its own institutions, which happened to serve their circumstances better.
You really don't understand much about our government and what standards our founders used to create it.  They understood there has to be a government for a country to work.  However, over and over, the constitution they wrote and its rules were to diminish central government power.  The bicameral Congress with and upper and lower house both required to make law.  An executive branch that could veto its legislation as a counter balance.  The limited government the constitution created by listing only certain enumerated powers the central government was entitled to do leaving all other power to the States and people.  The creation of a Bill of Rights that resided in the people.  An electoral system and Senate system that equalized sovereign power of each state with the other state despite the population difference in each state.  Yes, you're being too cynical.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 09, 2019, 09:22:34 am
[...]
You don't have this situation, so you're accustomed to either royalty or to strong central governments over centuries of their rule.  The fact is also that the US government and systems has survived after 200 plus years without being overthrown or replaced in any way.  That says a lot for the strength of our Constitution which the 2nd Amendment is a part.

I beg to differ, it says very little.

Apparently, our system of governing state affairs didn't require the population to revolt against its own chosen government since we declared our independence from Spanish rule on July 22, 1581. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Abjuration)

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 09:31:45 am
I beg to differ, it says very little.

Apparently, our system of governing state affairs didn't require the population to revolt against its own chosen government since we declared our independence from Spanish rule on July 22, 1581. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Abjuration)

Cheers,
Bart

I'm not familiar with your history or how you'd like to live.  Unlike you however, I won;t tell you your system is screwy, bad, etc. and that you should change it.  I accept your culture and how you developed to do what you do. 

I just find it strange that not being an American and living 3000 miles away on another continent does not stop you from knowing just how we should live and govern ourselves.  You really don;t have all the answers.  You complain about America telling the rest of the world how to live, and I can agree with you there. Yet, you feel you are so wise to tell us how to live.  Maybe a little humility on both sides is called for. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 09, 2019, 09:32:03 am
If only you understood how typically American your reaction is ...

'We'  prefer to prevent it from getting that far out of hand, 'you' seem to only want to react with lethal force and make more casualties in anticipation of what might (or might not) come. Need I remind you that more people have died in the USA by gun violence than in all previous wars combined? And that's not even acccounting for the suffering of the survivors with permanent trauma (and their families).

In July 2019 alone, in the USA, 32 people were killed by gun violence, and 178 were injured. It is out-of control madness !!!

And, of course, I'm sure you don't understand how typically Dutch your reaction is, Bart. If you're going to toss off numbers, you need to bring in the background against which the numbers play to have the numbers mean anything at all. Yes, that's an unfortunate number of murders, but it's a puny number compared with the murders that take place routinely in leftist-governed cities like Chicago or Detroit. It's also a puny number compared with the people we lost in WW II pulling Western Europe's nuts out of the fire. We did it twice. You're probably right: for you guys, surrender is the best defense. Beats arming yourselves and fighting. That might lead to gun deaths. But in the end, we always seem to be the people who pay the price for your surrender. And yes, that's a typical American sentiment.

The murders are a problem, but they're not a gun problem.They're a people problem.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 09, 2019, 10:22:50 am
The murders are a problem, but they're not a gun problem.They're a people problem.

No guns, no gun violence.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 09, 2019, 10:28:35 am
Absolutely right, Bart. No guns, no gun violence. No knives, no knife violence. No cars, no car violence. Etc., etc., etc. If we do away with tools completely then you'd get down to trying to control fighting or choking or other bare-handed murder. What's your point? Guns and knives and cars are here. They aren't going away. If you take away the guns of honest people, only criminals will have guns, because there's no way to round up and destroy all the guns in the world. Even suggesting such a thing indicates a disconnect from reality.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 09, 2019, 10:30:57 am
I’ve come across this on Facebook. So beautifully written, it restores my faith in the next generation and reenforces what I’ve been saying all along: younger Americans simply do not have a freaking clue what socialism is.

Quote
If you are fearful that the new generation of voters don’t get it, read this article written by Alyssa Ahlgren. I think her analysis of why they think the way they do is exactly correct. 

“I’m sitting in a small coffee shop near Nokomis trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of Democratic candidates calling for policies to “fix” the so-called injustices of capitalism. I put my phone down and continue to look around. I see people talking freely, working on their MacBook’s, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me. We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we’ve become completely blind to it. Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose. These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don’t give them a second thought. We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty. One. Times. Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful.

Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, “An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity.”

Never saw American prosperity. Let that sink in. When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I’ve ever heard in my 26 years on this earth. Now, I’m not attributing Miss Ocasio-Cortez’s words to outright dishonesty. I do think she whole-heartedly believes the words she said to be true. Many young people agree with her, which is entirely misguided. My generation is being indoctrinated by a mainstream narrative to actually believe we have never seen prosperity. I know this first hand, I went to college, let’s just say I didn’t have the popular opinion, but I digress.

Let me lay down some universal truths really quick. The United States of America has lifted more people out of abject poverty, spread more freedom and democracy, and has created more innovation in technology and medicine than any other nation in human history. Not only that but our citizenry continually breaks world records with charitable donations, the rags to riches story is not only possible in America but not uncommon, we have the strongest purchasing power on earth, and we encompass 25% of the world’s GDP. The list goes on. However, these universal truths don’t matter. We are told that income inequality is an existential crisis (even though this is not an indicator of prosperity, some of the poorest countries in the world have low-income inequality), we are told that we are oppressed by capitalism (even though it’s brought about more freedom and wealth to the most people than any other system in world history), we are told that the only way we will acquire the benefits of true prosperity is through socialism and centralization of federal power (even though history has proven time and again this only brings tyranny and suffering).

Why then, with all of the overwhelming evidence around us, evidence that I can even see sitting at a coffee shop, do we not view this as prosperity? We have people who are dying to get into our country. People around the world destitute and truly impoverished. Yet, we have a young generation convinced they’ve never seen prosperity, and as a result, elect politicians dead set on taking steps towards abolishing capitalism. Why? The answer is this, my generation has ONLY seen prosperity. We have no contrast. We didn’t live in the great depression, or live through two world wars, or see the rise and fall of socialism and communism. We don’t know what it’s like not to live without the internet, without cars, without smartphones. We don’t have a lack of prosperity problem. We have an entitlement problem, an ungratefulness problem, and it’s spreading like a plague.

With the current political climate giving rise to the misguided idea of a socialist utopia, will we see the light? Or will we have to lose it all to realize that what we have now is true prosperity? Destroying the free market will undo what millions of people have died to achieve.

My generation is becoming the largest voting bloc in the country. We have an opportunity to continue to propel us forward with the gifts capitalism and democracy has given us. The other option is that we can fall into the trap of entitlement and relapse into restrictive socialist destitution. The choice doesn’t seem too hard, does it?”

Alyssa Ahlgren

EDIT: For those with INRARTS mentality, I added emphasis in bold.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 09, 2019, 10:35:30 am
I’ve come across this on Facebook. So beautifully written, it restores my faith in the next generation and reenforces what I’ve been saying all along: younger Americans simply do not have a freaking clue what socialism is.

INRATS but I am reliably informed that socialism means watching HBO ?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 09, 2019, 10:41:03 am
INRATS but I am reliably informed that socialism means watching HBO ?

And he is baaack!!! Welcome back, Jeremy! Though I have no freaking clue what you meant by the above, or what “INRATS” stands for.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 10:41:51 am
INRATS but I am reliably informed that socialism means watching HBO ?

Only if HBO becomes a human right. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 09, 2019, 10:42:45 am
I’ve come across this on Facebook. So beautifully written, it restores my faith in the next generation and reenforces what I’ve been saying all along: younger Americans simply do not have a freaking clue what socialism is.
The poor in America are not sitting around in coffee shops blogging on their MacBooks.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 09, 2019, 10:47:50 am
The poor in America are not sitting around in coffee shops blogging on their MacBooks.

I'm sure they're eating cake. Plus ca change ...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 10:52:29 am
And he is baaack!!! Welcome back, Jeremy! Though I have no freaking clue what you meant by the above, or what “INRATS” stands for.

Essentially, another acronym for being lazy. 

Urban Dictionary: INRATS (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=INRATS)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 11:07:17 am
And he is baaack!!! Welcome back, Jeremy! Though I have no freaking clue what you meant by the above, or what “INRATS” stands for.
We're really getting old Slobo.  I didn't know what it meant either. :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 11:10:56 am
I’ve come across this on Facebook. So beautifully written, it restores my faith in the next generation and reenforces what I’ve been saying all along: younger Americans simply do not have a freaking clue what socialism is.

Well if Democrat take over government in 2021, we're going to have a lot more socialism. wind and solar, and Red China stealing our property.  Well, they are socialist after all. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 09, 2019, 11:18:21 am
Well if Democrat take over government in 2021, we're going to have a lot more socialism. wind and solar, and Red China stealing our property.  Well, they are socialist after all.

And more nuclear plants. No, wait, fewer nuclear plants. Darn - maybe I was right the first time. It's so hard keeping track these days.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 09, 2019, 06:39:15 pm
Trump singing Señorita (must watch, sound on):

https://www.facebook.com/slobodan.blagojevic/posts/10157404434716505?notif_id=1565389075478999&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic

 :D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 08:20:57 am
Well, it seems the people of Kashmir want their guns to fight for their political freedom.  They seems to understand our 2nd Amendment more than most Americans do.

"Inside Kashmir's lockdown: 'Even I will pick up a gun'"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49294301 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49294301)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 10, 2019, 08:35:11 am
Trump singing Señorita (must watch, sound on):

https://www.facebook.com/slobodan.blagojevic/posts/10157404434716505?notif_id=1565389075478999&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic

 :D

I like better the Rancherita - livelier music and more attractive singers. Start at 50sec.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MvsMdkwcVI
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 10, 2019, 08:41:23 am
This young man wanted to test his constitutional rights in a Walmart https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49303879 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49303879). Maybe not the best timing.

It would be interesting to repeat this test using a non-white person carrying a gun.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 10, 2019, 08:59:19 am
This young man wanted to test his constitutional rights in a Walmart https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49303879 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49303879). Maybe not the best timing.

And he was stopped by a good guy with a gun.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: mbaginy on August 10, 2019, 09:00:29 am
This young man wanted to test his constitutional rights in a Walmart https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49303879 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49303879). Maybe not the best timing.

It would be interesting to repeat this test using a non-white person carrying a gun.
What a jerk that guy is!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 09:36:40 am
What a jerk that guy is!

They should take his guns away for just being a dope. :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: mbaginy on August 10, 2019, 09:49:46 am
They should take his guns away for just being a dope. :)
His wife seems a million times smarter and more mature than her dumbass husband.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 10, 2019, 02:03:07 pm
Arkancide:

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 02:20:44 pm
Arkancide:


I wonder who paid to take the suicide watch off?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 10, 2019, 02:37:55 pm
I wonder who paid to take the suicide watch off?

Indeed.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 10, 2019, 03:01:23 pm
Area 51:

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 11, 2019, 03:36:05 pm
Weekly Shooting Summary as reported by Reuters:

Quote
Between gun massacres, a routine, deadly seven days of U.S. shootings

A boy accidentally killed by his father during a fishing trip in Montana.
A woman dead and her husband behind bars after a single gunshot in a Dallas hotel room.
During a week bookended by mass shootings that killed 34 people, hundreds of others were shot to death across 47 U.S. states.

The deaths were the sort of everyday murders, suicides and accidents that may not grab the headlines of mass shootings, but in many ways show the true toll of the gun violence endemic to the United States.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shooting-insight/between-gun-massacres-a-routine-deadly-seven-days-of-u-s-shootings-idUSKCN1V10A3
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 11, 2019, 03:56:52 pm
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

"Ten charts on the rise of knife crime in England and Wales"

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 11, 2019, 05:47:31 pm
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

"Ten charts on the rise of knife crime in England and Wales"

Good thing they don't have guns then, isn't it.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on August 11, 2019, 05:56:04 pm
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

"Ten charts on the rise of knife crime in England and Wales"
sharp apples and dead pears
- as you know only 100 years ago they correlated temp - skin colour - rainfall and IQ.
Your figures would be accepted then as logical, not anymore.
US accidental death correlated with GB knife crime??

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 11, 2019, 07:07:27 pm
...US accidental death correlated with GB knife crime?i

Did I mention correlation? My post followed Les’ post, in which he commingled gun accidents, mass shootings, murders, crime committed with guns. So my answer addressed two unrelated issues mentioned by Les: that crime can be and is committed with something else if guns not available (e.g., knives in the U.K.) and, second, that gun accidents are a minuscule occurrence relative to other accidents. You are 10-20x more likely to die from a bathroom fall* than from a gun accident, for instance. Then again, no media will report your fall.

* a.k.a. bathtub violence

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 11, 2019, 07:18:53 pm
Who says Epstein was not on a suicide watch?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 11, 2019, 09:17:57 pm
ACCIDENTAL DEATH RATES

Quite insightful statistics, Slobodan
Surprising that poisoning is on the 2nd place, compared with gun deaths on 16th place (almost 30 times more people killed by poison than by bullets.
Poisoning will include all kinds of substances - drugs, alcohol, chemicals, wrong meds, deadly mushrooms, poisonous plants, snakes, and even expired food items from the supermarket.     
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 11, 2019, 10:00:11 pm
Quite insightful statistics, Slobodan
Surprising that poisoning is on the 2nd place, compared with gun deaths on 16th place (almost 30 times more people killed by poison than by bullets.
Poisoning will include all kinds of substances - drugs, alcohol, chemicals, wrong meds, deadly mushrooms, poisonous plants, snakes, and even expired food items from the supermarket.     
You missed my cousin's cooking.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 11, 2019, 10:05:44 pm
You missed my cousin's cooking.

 ;D
Alan,
half of your posts should be posted to the Humour thread.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 11, 2019, 10:24:30 pm
Yours are pretty satirical too., Les. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 12, 2019, 12:28:27 am
...even expired food items from the supermarket.     

So many salad and veggie recalls. Not a single bacon recall  ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 12, 2019, 12:57:25 am
So many salad and veggie recalls. Not a single bacon recall  ;)

Bacon seems to be quite safe - that is, when it comes to recalls. But many other meat and poultry products were recalled for Listeria this year.

Quote
More than 3,300 pounds of ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, ranging from roast beef wraps to chicken salads, are being recalled from retail locations in Texas because the FDA found Listeria monocytogenes

https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2019/04/meat-and-poultry-wrap-salad-products-recalled-for-listeria-in-facility/

In Canada, we hear about 10-15 food recalls a month, mostly for cheese, yogurts and ice cream.  But also for meat - even for bison and fish products.

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia/newsroom/food-recall-warnings/complete-listing/eng/1351519587174/1351519588221?ay=2019&fr=0&fc=0&fd=0&ft=1
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 12, 2019, 04:45:12 am
Quite insightful statistics, Slobodan
Surprising that poisoning is on the 2nd place, compared with gun deaths on 16th place (almost 30 times more people killed by poison than by bullets.
Poisoning will include all kinds of substances - drugs, alcohol, chemicals, wrong meds, deadly mushrooms, poisonous plants, snakes, and even expired food items from the supermarket.   

Yes, interesting. Not that that reduces the largely avoidable suffering (and deaths) from gun violence.

And Slobodan missed another important statistic, most people die in bed ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: amolitor on August 12, 2019, 04:13:47 pm
Nuclear bombs are not really that bad when you think about it.

I mean, sure, a million people "get killed", but when you break it down it's only 50,000 or so from the actual blast.

Maybe 200,000 from heat, which, you know, lots of things are hot. Fire is hot. The Sun is hot. Do you hate the Sun or something? Then like 400,000 from beta radiation, which also cures cancer, so. You're against cancer, right? My dad died of cancer so don't even GO THERE.

And then like 350,000 die later on SUPPOSEDLY from the bomb, but who really knows, right? I mean, the fake left-wing media just makes up so much stuff, who can really be sure. Here's the a youtube video from a respected guy that suggests that those 350,000 people didn't even exist.

So really it's just 50,000 people and that many people can die from a few conventional bombs ANYWAYS, and anyways donuts kill more people than that in a few days.

Nuclear bombs are actually good.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 12, 2019, 06:28:04 pm
There have been pork and beef recalls.  there is also this story where tragedy was narrowly averted:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/04/health/pork-antibiotic-resistance-salmonella.html
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 12, 2019, 07:09:07 pm
There have been pork and beef recalls.  there is also this story where tragedy was narrowly averted:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/04/health/pork-antibiotic-resistance-salmonella.html

Alan,

thanks for the link, it is a quite alarming article.
To entice also others to read it, here are some of the findings in the article:

Quote
There are 2,500 different types of salmonella. The one that infected Mikayla is called 4,5,12:i-minus. It first showed up in the late 1980s in Portugal, and then in Spain, Thailand, Taiwan, Switzerland and Italy. In the United States, infections it causes have risen 35 percent over the past decade, while the overall rate of salmonella infections has stayed constant.

The strain typically resists four major antibiotics: ampicillin, streptomycin, sulfisoxazole and tetracycline.

Environmental Working Group, a research organization, found that 71 percent of pork chops at supermarkets in the United States carried resistant bacteria, second only to ground turkey, at 79 percent.

If it is in the pork chops, most likely it can be found also in bacon.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 12, 2019, 09:50:54 pm
Alan,

thanks for the link, it is a quite alarming article.
To entice also others to read it, here are some of the findings in the article:

If it is in the pork chops, most likely it can be found also in bacon.

I'll stick with steak and lamb chops.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 13, 2019, 07:58:18 am
I'll stick with steak and lamb chops.
Most beef comes from feedlot fattened cattle who have a lot of antibiotics in their diet so I would not say that it's any safer.  If the lamb chops come from pasture raised sheep, chances of microbial contamination are reduced (but not zero).  Pork is the biggest offender because of the move to the big "factory" farms.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 13, 2019, 08:19:27 am
I'll stick with steak and lamb chops.
Aiming for another heart surgery?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 13, 2019, 08:34:22 am
Aiming for another heart surgery?

How does it work in USA? Do you get discount on the second surgery?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 13, 2019, 09:06:41 am
Thanks guys worrying about my health. You make a good point. The big issue with me is my diabetes  2 which means lowering my carb intake.I love bread.     It had been  a bigger issue. But who knows? Yesterday I had a 6.1 on my A1C which is the lowerst diabetes count in 10 years. I seem to be doing well in that area. I'm allowed to eat meat just smaller portions.   I should ieat more chicken and fish,  and try to but I do prefer red meat better.  Also lost 20 pounds.  And exercising more.     Diet is the hardest thing to do for me.   It's not easy.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 13, 2019, 09:45:09 am
Diets are not easy, and eating small portions is even more difficult. What I found and it works for me, eating a large bowl of salad before the main meal. Could be any salad, just lettuce or mixed, ideally without any oil dressing, and that really fills you, so your main meal can be then a small size. And skip dessert and cheese.

If you have to have meat, contrary to conventional wisdom, a lean sirloin steak contains less cholesterol than a fat chicken leg. Beef or pork contain generally more fat than chicken or turkey, but when it comes to antibiotics and growth hormones, they are all equally bad. Farmed salmon is not much better.

(https://www.healthline.com/hlcmsresource/images/topic_centers/High-Cholesterol/CholesterolControl_01ChickenLeg.jpg)
(https://www.healthline.com/hlcmsresource/images/topic_centers/High-Cholesterol/CholesterolControl_03Sirloin.jpg)

https://www.healthline.com/health/high-cholesterol/chicken-vs-beef#2
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 13, 2019, 10:22:29 am
Diets are not easy, and eating small portions is even more difficult. What I found and it works for me, eating a large bowl of salad before the main meal. Could be any salad, just lettuce or mixed, ideally without any oil dressing, and that really fills you, so your main meal can be then a small size. And skip dessert and cheese.

If you have to have meat, contrary to conventional wisdom, a lean sirloin steak contains less cholesterol than a fat chicken leg. Beef or pork contain generally more fat than chicken or turkey, but when it comes to antibiotics and growth hormones, they are all equally bad. Farmed salmon is not much better.

(https://www.healthline.com/hlcmsresource/images/topic_centers/High-Cholesterol/CholesterolControl_01ChickenLeg.jpg)
(https://www.healthline.com/hlcmsresource/images/topic_centers/High-Cholesterol/CholesterolControl_03Sirloin.jpg)

https://www.healthline.com/health/high-cholesterol/chicken-vs-beef#2 (https://www.healthline.com/health/high-cholesterol/chicken-vs-beef#2)
Fortunately, sirloin is my favorite so that;s what I usually eat.  I keep it to 4 ounces unless I'm going out to eat.  My heart doctor believes you can eat any amount of meat and fat like the Atkins diet as long as you stay away from carbs.  The other issue is diabetes complicates the diet and makes everything bad. :-\   It's not fun getting old.  I feel like my old film camera.   :P  
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 13, 2019, 10:32:00 am
ROTFL. How can you guys go on and on and on with this crap?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 13, 2019, 10:45:50 am
What's the secret Russ? :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 13, 2019, 10:52:52 am
That's the whole point, Alan. There IS no secret. What will be will be, and all the arguments in the world by posters on LuLa aren't gonna change that.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 13, 2019, 10:55:17 am
Russ, are you talking about the constitution or constipation?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 13, 2019, 11:14:18 am
Russ, are you talking about the constitution or constipation?

More like diarrhea than constipation, Les. Actually, it's logorrhea: "Pathologically excessive (and often incoherent) talking." Wow! How could a description of what goes on in The Coffee Corner be more accurate than that?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 13, 2019, 11:19:21 am
Moe like diarrhea than constipation, Les. Actually, it's logorrhea: "Pathologically excessive (and often incoherent) talking." Wow! How could a description of what goes on in The Coffee Corner be more accurate than that?

Right! Especially denying and denigrating scientifically confirmed facts and studies.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 13, 2019, 11:37:19 am
Absolutely! "Scientific consensus." Right?  :o
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 13, 2019, 11:42:56 am
Absolutely! "Scientific consensus." Right?  :o

Russ, I don't know which items are refuting now. The chicken and beef specs above or antibiotics and hormones in the supermarket meats?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: stamper on August 13, 2019, 12:43:07 pm
Aiming for another heart surgery?

Is this a reference to fat? If so the fat in the meat is perfectly fine.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: stamper on August 13, 2019, 12:47:51 pm
Thanks guys worrying about my health. You make a good point. The big issue with me is my diabetes  2 which means lowering my carb intake.I love bread.     It had been  a bigger issue. But who knows? Yesterday I had a 6.1 on my A1C which is the lowerst diabetes count in 10 years. I seem to be doing well in that area. I'm allowed to eat meat just smaller portions.   I should ieat more chicken and fish,  and try to but I do prefer red meat better.  Also lost 20 pounds.  And exercising more.     Diet is the hardest thing to do for me.   It's not easy.   

It isn't a diet but an eating plan. Weight loss is secondary to good blood sugar levels.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 14, 2019, 09:50:08 am
So the Democrats including some of the presidential candidates.intend to make the biggest blow to our government and constitution by "packing" the court with liberal justices.    Of course the compliant media in the liberal press buries this news.  And they accuse Trump of of tyrannical actions.

"Radical Dems Threaten SCOTUS: ‘Heal’ Itself or Face Restructuring"
https://www.libertyheadlines.com/radical-dems-scotus-restructuring/ (https://www.libertyheadlines.com/radical-dems-scotus-restructuring/)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 14, 2019, 10:39:23 am
So the Democrats including some of the presidential candidates.intend to make the biggest blow to our government and constitution by "packing" the court with liberal justices.    Of course the compliant media in the liberal press buries this news.  And they accuse Trump of of tyrannical actions.

"Radical Dems Threaten SCOTUS: ‘Heal’ Itself or Face Restructuring"
https://www.libertyheadlines.com/radical-dems-scotus-restructuring/ (https://www.libertyheadlines.com/radical-dems-scotus-restructuring/)

Is it illegal for Congress to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 14, 2019, 11:12:15 am
Is it illegal for Congress to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court?

No, but it would need votes in the both the Senate and House.  The important thing to consider is the following:

"As with other Democratic efforts to undermine established rules of order, any attempt by the Left to pack the courts could set a dangerous precedent and eventually backfire against them."

Technically speaking, you need a 60% vote to enact this change.  However, if the majority party decided to take away the filibuster rule on this occasion, you can get it passed with a simple majority.  So, assuming that a Dem wins next term and the Senate flips with the house remaining the same, this could happen.  But it then opens the possibility of the Republicans doing the same when they are in power.  Considering the pandora's box the Dems in the Senate opened with the same rule change they enacted during Obama, and how that lead us to having two new Trump appointees on the court, I would not consider the move prudent.  I can't see it ending well in the long run and would only make the court more political. 

Do we really want to make the courts more political with this? 

The only time that I know of the court being packed was during the Civil War, and one could make a pretty compelling argument that this was to combat the objectively bad practice of slavery.  To pack the court for other less serious issues would be dubious.  FDR tried to do the same during his presidency and it backfired on him. 

Additionally, I cant see this happening anyway.  It really appears that it is only those low in the poles that are calling for this, more then likely a way to score percentage points and stay alive. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on August 14, 2019, 11:26:42 am
Is it illegal for Congress to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court?

No: the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to determine the composition of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, and, with the exception of a few specific types of lawsuits where the Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" (e.g., disputes involving two or more of the states), the scope of their jurisdiction.

The Court has had as few as six justices, but since 1869 the membership has been fixed at nine.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 14, 2019, 11:28:44 am
No, but it would need votes in the both the Senate and House.  The important thing to consider is the following:

Do we really want to make the courts more political with this? 

The only time that I know of the court being packed was during the Civil War, and one could make a pretty compelling argument that this was to combat the objectively bad practice of slavery.  To pack the court for other less serious issues would be dubious.  FDR tried to do the same during his presidency and it backfired on him. 

Additionally, I cant see this happening anyway.  It really appears that it is only those low in the poles that are calling for this, more then likely a way to score percentage points and stay alive.
A better approach is to remove lifetime tenure for Supreme and other Federal Court judges.  What entitles one branch of government to have lifetime tenure?  One can debate what the appropriate length of time a judge can serve but lifetime should not be it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on August 14, 2019, 11:39:35 am
lifetime tenure ensures slow change over time.
part of the design of the three branches of government.
President - every 4 years possible
Senate - every 6 years, 33% possible every 2 years
House - every 2 years.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: amolitor on August 14, 2019, 11:43:13 am
The Supreme Court has lifetime tenure for excellent reasons, and the system works very well.

At present, we're seeing a full-court decades long press from the right to pack it with compliant justices, and the effort has been spotty because of the lifetime tenure. The radical right wing firebrands simply slow down and become thoughtful, because they have nothing to prove, there is nowhere to go, they have arrived.

I assume precisely the opposite process applies when the left gets into the court-packing game, but since they've been thwarted with moderate success in recent years it's not at the top of my mind.

Roberts, in particular, has been a grave disappointment to the right. They keep hoping for Scalia, but they're not doing much finding.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 14, 2019, 11:43:18 am
I already knew the answer - it was a rhetorical question ;)

But an interesting discussion nonetheless.  Joe - I agree with your concern, and I wouldn't support support packing the court in this manner for precisely the reasons you state.  I am, however, amused that this technically perfectly legal approach is decried as an assault on liberty and egregious tyranny by the same people that gleefully, but in theory legally, denied Garland so much as a vote.

The larger point is that some group of people need to step back from the zero sum model of political behavior, even at the cost of short term gain.  This assumes, of course, that the other side (we can call them "Republicans" for the sake of argument) would behave accordingly in response, and not just consolidate their power.  They won't under Trump and (especially) McConnell, but maybe later...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 14, 2019, 11:52:58 am
Roberts has deliberately moderated the Court's decisions to the left to make it seem less political and to prevent the packing of the Court. The irony is that the left sees his weakness and is coming out for packing the court to even push him even further to the left.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: amolitor on August 14, 2019, 11:57:55 am
Roberts has deliberately moderated the Court's decisions to the left to make it seem less political and to prevent the packing of the Court

Citation needed.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 14, 2019, 12:27:04 pm
Trump shouldn't have blinked. The Chinese are hurting because of tariffs.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/economy/china-economy-slowdown-tariffs/index.html
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 14, 2019, 12:31:06 pm
Citation needed.
Do you always believe what other people tell you to believe? Don't you ever form your own opinions?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: amolitor on August 14, 2019, 01:05:08 pm
Do you always believe what other people tell you to believe? Don't you ever form your own opinions?

You made a pretty specific claim about Justice Roberts' motivations. An insulting one, to be honest, as your claim is (essentially) that Roberts is acting politically rather than judicially. Are you prepared to back this up, or is it just a hypothesis?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 14, 2019, 02:18:56 pm
Yes he's acting politically.   It's my opinion. If you have a different one, I'll be glad to hear it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 14, 2019, 02:21:16 pm
Looks as if Andrew no longer is going to be with us -- at least for a while. Maybe forever.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 14, 2019, 02:26:47 pm
Looks as if Andrew no longer is going to be with us -- at least for a while. Maybe forever.

??
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 14, 2019, 02:43:11 pm
Slobodan, check the new thread: "Seriously, Roussak?"
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 15, 2019, 10:09:52 pm
It seems Trump wants to buy Greenland from the Danes. Harry Truman, a Democrat, also tried to buy the island when he was president back in 1946.  If it was good enough for Harry, it should be good enough for Donald.  Let's see.  Trump Tower Greenland.  Or Greenland, the 51st State.  Maybe both.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/politics/trump-buy-greenland-wall-street-journal/index.html
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 15, 2019, 10:23:18 pm
It seems Trump wants to buy Greenland...

Why buy? Just occupy and annex. Then again, maybe Danes would be happy (aren't they?) to get rid of it cheaply?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 16, 2019, 03:55:32 am
Why buy? Just occupy and annex. Then again, maybe Danes would be happy (aren't they?) to get rid of it cheaply?

As I note no smiley, may I take it at face value? If so, hello Russia; you taught us well! Or shouid that be: empire wasn't such a bad idea...

And when the snow clears, all that land and the possibilities for more minerals - why would a daft Dane want to keep it?

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 16, 2019, 09:10:55 am

He said he wanted to buy it, not steal it. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 16, 2019, 09:53:26 am
The Danes turned down Trump's offer saying he's "mad".  Actually I think he's clever.  First, he really believes it's warming up despite leaving the Paris accord.  That's going to make minerals and the land more valuable.  Also, we have Thule Air Base there for 70 years or so, and an important NATO missile early warning system.  The Chinese are making overtures to gain land against the West like they have with those islands in the South China Sea.  The last thing we need is armed Chinese territory between North America and Europe.  Greenland also sits near the Arctic Circle that may become the sea passage for commerce between the continents if the Arctic Sea melts most of the time.  There are also minerals there that could be mined.  Securing that land against Russia and China would be prudent and in America's and Europe's interest.  You can knock Trump all you want.  But he knows a good real estate deal when he sees it. 
https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/trump-floats-purchase-world-largest-island-report-190816075404759.html (https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/trump-floats-purchase-world-largest-island-report-190816075404759.html)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 16, 2019, 10:06:04 am
The Danes turned down Trump's offer saying he's "mad".  Actually I think he's clever.  First, he really believes it's warming up despite leaving the Paris accord.  That's going to make minerals and the land more valuable.  Also, we have Thule Air Base there for 70 years or so, and an important NATO missile early warning system.  The Chinese are making overtures to gain land against the West like they have with those islands in the South China Sea.  The last thing we need is armed Chinese territory between North America and Europe.  Greenland also sits near the Arctic Circle that may become the sea passage for commerce between the continents if the Arctic Sea melts most of the time.  There are also minerals there that could be mined.  Securing that land against Russia and China would be prudent and in America's and Europe's interest.  You can knock Trump all you want.  But he knows a good real estate deal when he sees it. 
https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/trump-floats-purchase-world-largest-island-report-190816075404759.html (https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/trump-floats-purchase-world-largest-island-report-190816075404759.html)
The Danes are not interested in selling Greenland for the same reasons Trump is interested in buying it. But that probably didn't occur to the stable genius.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 16, 2019, 10:29:58 am
A little history for those who think Trump is mad:

Quote
... Following World War II, the U.S. under President Harry Truman developed a geopolitical interest in Greenland and in 1946 offered to buy it from Denmark for $100 million. But Denmark refused to sell. And that was the second failed attempt—the State Department had also launched an inquiry into buying Greenland and Iceland in 1867."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 16, 2019, 11:11:34 am
The US Virgin Islands use to belong to the Danes as well.  It was called the Danish West Indies. We bought it from them in 1917.  Alaska was bought from the Russians.  When we bought it, it was proclaimed Seward's Follies after the Secretary of State who pushed for it.  We paid two cents an acre.
 What a deal!!.  They thought he was batty.   The best deal was the Louisiana Purchase where we bought the entire center of our country from Napoleon.   Apparently his lover Joséphine was complaining about some bauble she wanted and the little Emperor needed some cash.  :)

So buying Greenland sounds like a good idea.  What's the expression?  everything's for sale at the right price.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 16, 2019, 11:21:08 am
As I note no smiley, may I take it at face value?...

Sure.

But I skipped a few steps. First, we will impose tariffs on Danish goods (btw, what goods? I know only of Bang & Olufsen and pastry). Then, if that doesn't work, crippling sanctions. And if that doesn't work, bombing into submission. I should know.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 16, 2019, 12:33:04 pm
Sure.

But I skipped a few steps. First, we will impose tariffs on Danish goods (btw, what goods? I know only of Bang & Olufsen and pastry). Then, if that doesn't work, crippling sanctions. And if that doesn't work, bombing into submission. I should know.
Well we already have the air base there.😑
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 16, 2019, 01:36:38 pm
Always best to proceed in small steps. Try to gain control of your own streets first, then see if you find Greenland on a map. :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 16, 2019, 01:45:23 pm
... see if you find Greenland on a map. :)

Fair point ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 16, 2019, 02:02:05 pm
The inside joke when I was in the USAF in the 1960s was that if you screwed up they would transfer you to Thule Air Base in Greenland where there was a girl behind every tree.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 17, 2019, 03:30:56 pm
Ooops! When lofty ideals meat fiscal sustainability ;)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/world/finland-health-care-intl/index.html?no-st=1566069188&fbclid=IwAR1qxBPRe5ODYpJhzXh606c6gp5yUk_le4sKBc9oSIXNZ37DEvbg6AGWkUA

"The 'dark side' of Finland's famous free health care"

Quote
... In March, the Finnish government resigned because it failed to get its health care reform through Parliament -- becoming the second government in a row to fail to do so... just after Juha Sipila's government resigned, the governor of the bank of Finland, Ollie Rehn, warned that reform remained urgent "from the point of view of fiscal sustainability."... To make Finland's health care system financially sustainable, one of the aims of the last government's reform proposal was to cut costs by centralizing services and introducing more private options.... Way back in 2013, the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was already warning that Finland was lagging behind many other OECD countries in having high rates of unmet needs...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 17, 2019, 04:40:44 pm
Sure.

But I skipped a few steps. First, we will impose tariffs on Danish goods (btw, what goods? I know only of Bang & Olufsen and pastry). Then, if that doesn't work, crippling sanctions. And if that doesn't work, bombing into submission. I should know.


Good grief, Slobodan, you overlooked the best of them: Helena Christensen!

Had the B&O and, today, only the speakers remain, attached to the wall...

:-(
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 17, 2019, 05:07:38 pm
Looks as if Andrew no longer is going to be with us -- at least for a while. Maybe forever.

That would be a shame. I enjoy his articles.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: rabanito on August 18, 2019, 05:06:40 am
That would be a shame. I enjoy his articles.

So do I
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: stamper on August 18, 2019, 05:51:39 am
Looks as if Andrew no longer is going to be with us -- at least for a while. Maybe forever.

His detachment from the forum is well deserved?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 18, 2019, 06:23:39 am
Looks as if Andrew no longer is going to be with us -- at least for a while. Maybe forever.

I have suspended Molitor's ability to post to the forums, for reasons which are easily ascertainable. He is not prevented from writing for the site, if that is what Josh wants; I have no involvement in LuLa outside the forums.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 18, 2019, 10:05:30 am
That would be a shame. I enjoy his articles.

I say good riddance. Lousy photographer and a short-fuse jerk.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 18, 2019, 11:03:07 am
Iranian tanker leaves Gibraltar.  Where do you think it's going?  What's happening to British tanker Iran seized?
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201908181076576556-iranian-tanker-grace-1-leaving-gibraltar-after-month-long-arrest-video/
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 18, 2019, 11:11:01 am
Iranian tanker leaves Gibraltar.  Where do you think it's going?  What's happening to British tanker Iran seized?
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201908181076576556-iranian-tanker-grace-1-leaving-gibraltar-after-month-long-arrest-video/
The Gibralter court refused to enforce the US seizure warrant. Probably a good thing since Iran would have retaliated.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 18, 2019, 11:24:24 am
The Gibralter court refused to enforce the US seizure warrant. Probably a good thing since Iran would have retaliated.
Do you have any answers to my questions?
 Where do you think it's going?  What's happening to British tanker Iran seized?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 18, 2019, 11:39:11 am
Do you have any answers to my questions?
 Where do you think it's going?  What's happening to British tanker Iran seized?
We will have to see where the Iranian tanker goes. Iran still has the U.K. tanker.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 18, 2019, 12:00:02 pm
Why did the British let Gibraltar release the tanker before the British was release.  Maybe they agree secretly
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 18, 2019, 12:04:35 pm
I say good riddance. Lousy photographer and a short-fuse jerk.

I thought we'd disavowed personal attacks?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 18, 2019, 12:10:13 pm
Why did the British let Gibraltar release the tanker before the British was release.  Maybe they agree secretly
If I were Iran, I would keep the UK tanker until the Iranian tanker gets where it is going.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 18, 2019, 01:08:44 pm
I thought we'd disavowed personal attacks?
Only when they are punished by the moderator.  Some people constantly engage in ad hominems and seem to get away with it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 18, 2019, 01:40:46 pm
Why did the British let Gibraltar release the tanker before the British was release.  Maybe they agree secretly

Maybe they wish they had never stopped it in the first place. If Gib finds no cause to hold on to it, then free it. There's no need to bring in and consider the opinion of every other desktop genius in Internetlandia.

Seems likely to me that the info was as flawed as that of the WOMD that brought about much of the mess that now haunts yet another part of the Middle East. It also seems to me that as long as those with the oil want to sell it to us who want to buy it, then let them get on with their lives as they see fit. Only when we attempt to impose our western ideology onto those places do we piss them off and bring about so much grief for ourselves, if not for the undertakers.

We do it our way, they theirs. Let it be; we don't have all the right answers for life.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 18, 2019, 02:26:38 pm
Maybe they wish they had never stopped it in the first place. If Gib finds no cause to hold on to it, then free it. There's no need to bring in and consider the opinion of every other desktop genius in Internetlandia.

Seems likely to me that the info was as flawed as that of the WOMD that brought about much of the mess that now haunts yet another part of the Middle East. It also seems to me that as long as those with the oil want to sell it to us who want to buy it, then let them get on with their lives as they see fit. Only when we attempt to impose our western ideology onto those places do we piss them off and bring about so much grief for ourselves, if not for the undertakers.

We do it our way, they theirs. Let it be; we don't have all the right answers for life.
But Iran is imposing its will on others.  So that's a two way street.  How long do you sit back without reacting? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 18, 2019, 03:05:42 pm
But Iran is imposing its will on others.  So that's a two way street.  How long do you sit back without reacting?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 18, 2019, 06:43:40 pm
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Nobody has clean hands when it comes to the Middle East. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 18, 2019, 06:47:47 pm
... as long as those with the oil want to sell it to us who want to buy it, then let them get on with their lives as they see fit...

Yes, lets trade. It surely would never occur to them to use oil as a weapon and impose an embargo on us, causing prices to quadruple ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 18, 2019, 06:57:46 pm
Yes, lets trade. It surely would never occur to them to use oil as a weapon and impose an embargo on us, causing prices to quadruple ;)
Actually, now that America's production has almost doubled, we would stand to profit big time if they did.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: HSakols on August 18, 2019, 09:51:05 pm
Quote
I say good riddance. Lousy photographer and a short-fuse jerk.

Slobadan should also be banned. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 18, 2019, 10:06:40 pm
Slobadan Slobodan should also be banned. 

Be my guest.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: HSakols on August 18, 2019, 10:13:28 pm
Good Ole Boys Club
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 18, 2019, 10:16:58 pm
Good Ole Boys Club

There is a new sheriff in town, and young, you can approach him directly.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: HSakols on August 18, 2019, 10:27:37 pm
And if he has any balls he will ban you. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 18, 2019, 10:37:03 pm
And if he has any balls he will ban you. 

What is your complaint? That I called “jerk” a guy who exploded into uncontrolled rage and direct personal and vulgar attack, and not the first time?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 19, 2019, 04:08:28 am
I thought we'd disavowed personal attacks?

Depends. Are you new around here ?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 20, 2019, 11:22:54 am
Iranian tanker leaves Gibraltar.  Where do you think it's going?  What's happening to British tanker Iran seized?
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201908181076576556-iranian-tanker-grace-1-leaving-gibraltar-after-month-long-arrest-video/ (https://sputniknews.com/europe/201908181076576556-iranian-tanker-grace-1-leaving-gibraltar-after-month-long-arrest-video/)

The plot thickens.
"U.S. has conveyed its 'strong position' to Greece about Iranian tanker: official"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-usa-greece/us-has-conveyed-its-strong-position-to-greece-about-iranian-tanker-official-idUSKCN1V920F (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-usa-greece/us-has-conveyed-its-strong-position-to-greece-about-iranian-tanker-official-idUSKCN1V920F)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 20, 2019, 11:31:02 am
The plot thickens.
"U.S. has conveyed its 'strong position' to Greece about Iranian tanker: official"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-usa-greece/us-has-conveyed-its-strong-position-to-greece-about-iranian-tanker-official-idUSKCN1V920F (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-usa-greece/us-has-conveyed-its-strong-position-to-greece-about-iranian-tanker-official-idUSKCN1V920F)
Conveyed its strong position. Wooo....
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 20, 2019, 11:33:15 am
The plot thickens.
"U.S. has conveyed its 'strong position' to Greece about Iranian tanker: official"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-usa-greece/us-has-conveyed-its-strong-position-to-greece-about-iranian-tanker-official-idUSKCN1V920F (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-usa-greece/us-has-conveyed-its-strong-position-to-greece-about-iranian-tanker-official-idUSKCN1V920F)

Bully boy of the western world.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 20, 2019, 11:54:52 am
Conveyed its strong position. Wooo....

Maybe he wants to buy Greece ?   ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 20, 2019, 11:57:24 am
Maybe he wants to buy Greece ?   ;)
Why would you want to buy someone else's debt?  :)  On the other hand, sipping Ouzo on the Mediterranean sounds pretty nice.  Nah. I'll just visit.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 20, 2019, 11:57:56 am
Maybe he wants to buy Greece ?   ;)
There is just no telling what is distracting him today.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 20, 2019, 12:02:18 pm
2020 Presidential Election - Democrat nominee update.
Biden again doubles the next two Warren and Bernie.  Harris fades.  The mayor holds 5%.  The others disappear.  What a group. Looks like it will be two white racist septuagenarians duking it out. :)
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/cnn-poll-08-20-19/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/cnn-poll-08-20-19/index.html)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 20, 2019, 02:04:16 pm
2020 Presidential Election - Democrat nominee update.
Biden again doubles the next two Warren and Bernie.  Harris fades.  The mayor holds 5%.  The others disappear.  What a group. Looks like it will be two white racist septuagenarians duking it out. :)
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/cnn-poll-08-20-19/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/cnn-poll-08-20-19/index.html)

I really wondering how much longer the handlers can keep the gaffe machine at bay. 

You know if he makes it to the general election he is going to screw himself regardless.  Either he will limit his public appearances, making him look like ... um ... Hillary, or he will just start making gaffes, one after the other. 

On top of that, my brother is a hardcore liberal and works in politics, and I have been clued into the fact that Biden's handlers routinely bully reporters and confiscate equipment of less then knowledgable photographers and delete stuff they don't like to limit embarrassments.  (This has lead me to tell my brother exactly what his rights are and what security can and can not do.  They have no right even touch your gear or review your work; they can only ask you to leave.) 

Not surprised about Harris.  Her feathers were really ruffled last debate and she handled it by belittling her aggressor, had no real response. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 20, 2019, 02:07:43 pm
... Biden's handlers routinely bully reporters and confiscate equipment of less then knowledgable photographers and delete stuff they don't like to limit embarrassments...

They learned from the best:
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 20, 2019, 02:32:07 pm
I really wondering how much longer the handlers can keep the gaffe machine at bay. 

You know if he makes it to the general election he is going to screw himself regardless.  Either he will limit his public appearances, making him look like ... um ... Hillary, or he will just start making gaffes, one after the other. 

On top of that, my brother is a hardcore liberal and works in politics, and I have been clued into the fact that Biden's handlers routinely bully reporters and confiscate equipment of less then knowledgable photographers and delete stuff they don't like to limit embarrassments.  (This has lead me to tell my brother exactly what his rights are and what security can and can not do.  They have no right even touch your gear or review your work; they can only ask you to leave.) 

Not surprised about Harris.  Her feathers were really ruffled last debate and she handled it by belittling her aggressor, had no real response. 

I think he's going to be tough.  He's a likeable guy.  Nice smile.  The press will cover for his gaffs and they will just compare them favorably to Trump's malapropisms. 

Frankly, Trump would do better against Pocahontas or Sanders.  Even Harris.  What's interesting, is you don't hear the press constantly making the point that Biden only has 30% of the vote; that 70% of the people don't want him.  Remember with Trump they kept saying that he can only get about 30-35%, that most people don't like him.  There's no way he can win.  Interesting how their tune changes when the candidate is a Democrat. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 20, 2019, 03:15:05 pm
There's no way he can win.  Interesting how their tune changes when the candidate is a Democrat.
According to a recent Fox News pool, Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Harris all beat Trump. Naturally Trump said there was something wrong at Fox News and he doesn't believe the poll. I think it is way too early. The election is more than a year away.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 20, 2019, 05:20:01 pm
According to a recent Fox News pool, Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Harris all beat Trump...

There was a 97% scientific and statistical consensus that Clinton would beat Trump.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 20, 2019, 05:29:40 pm
There was a 97% scientific and statistical consensus that Clinton would beat Trump.
You forgot to quote this part of my post.

I think it is way too early. The election is more than a year away.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 20, 2019, 07:57:44 pm
According to a recent Fox News pool, Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Harris all beat Trump. Naturally Trump said there was something wrong at Fox News and he doesn't believe the poll. I think it is way too early. The election is more than a year away.

These are all hypothetical polls against a possible Dem.  Wait until the rubber meets the road and voters have a clear choice between definitive policy votes.  Anyone other then Biden, and Trump is a sure win; as much as you may hate Trump, he is on the popular side of every major issue, which all polls have been showing as well.  If Biden gets the ticket, he may have a chance, but I feel the gaff machine combined with an already showing loss of clarity from age (not to mention he looks like he aged so much since 2016), that I feel it will still be hard for him to pull it off. 

On top of that, it should be noted that all of these polls quoted in the media is of the over all public, not the gerneal electorate.  If you look at only those who are registered to voted, the race is pretty even overall.  The swing states are the deciding factor, and last I checked, about 3 weeks ago, Trump was ahead in those states. 

Like we learned the last time, it is the electoral college that picks the winner, not the populous. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 20, 2019, 08:25:21 pm
It all boils down to which FLOTUS you want to look at the next four years ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 20, 2019, 10:19:16 pm
This must be part of negotiating the Greenland deal, I suppose, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458179-trump-says-hes-postponing-meeting-with-denmarks-leader-over-greenland (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458179-trump-says-hes-postponing-meeting-with-denmarks-leader-over-greenland). Cancellation of the meeting was probably met with relief by the Danish PM.

I'm confused. Is this an SNL skit?   :)


Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 20, 2019, 11:16:17 pm
This must be part of negotiating the Greenland deal, I suppose, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458179-trump-says-hes-postponing-meeting-with-denmarks-leader-over-greenland (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458179-trump-says-hes-postponing-meeting-with-denmarks-leader-over-greenland). Cancellation of the meeting was probably met with relief by the Danish PM.

I'm confused. Is this an SNL skit?   :)




Greenland in 10 Years.  No ice but...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECC_EB6U8AAwxcq?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 20, 2019, 11:38:30 pm
Greenland in 10 Years.  No ice but...

Fits in very nicely and complements the other buildings. That's exactly what Greenland needs.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 21, 2019, 03:53:22 am
This must be part of negotiating the Greenland deal, I suppose, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458179-trump-says-hes-postponing-meeting-with-denmarks-leader-over-greenland (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458179-trump-says-hes-postponing-meeting-with-denmarks-leader-over-greenland). Cancellation of the meeting was probably met with relief by the Danish PM.

I'm confused. Is this an SNL skit?   :)

In Trumpica anything is possible. Now he'll have to take Greenland by force, or bring them to their knees with a trade war.  :o
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 21, 2019, 03:56:35 am
In Trumpica anything is possible. Now he'll have to take Greenland by force, or bring them to their knees with a trade war.  :o

Apparently he has cancelled his trip to see the Queen of Denmark because the Danish PM didn't take his real estate plan seriously. Is he 5 years old, or what?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 21, 2019, 07:47:34 am
Fits in very nicely and complements the other buildings. That's exactly what Greenland needs.
We'll all have to move into tall buildings when the ice melts. Oh wait.  That's another thread.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 21, 2019, 07:58:21 am
We'll all have to move into tall buildings when the ice melts. Oh wait.  That's another thread.


Heysoos, Alan, get it right for once: we'll have to move into boats!

Mind you, if this particular mortal coil is still not unwound or unshuffled, that would allow it to revert to its late-seventies dream. Could my wife have been mistaken, for once? Sadly (not sure about that one), I doubt it.

:-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on August 21, 2019, 08:01:46 am
This must be part of negotiating the Greenland deal, I suppose, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458179-trump-says-hes-postponing-meeting-with-denmarks-leader-over-greenland (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458179-trump-says-hes-postponing-meeting-with-denmarks-leader-over-greenland). Cancellation of the meeting was probably met with relief by the Danish PM.

This is a very dangerous precedent.  Now government leaders all over the world will be refusing to sell chunks of their territory just to avoid having to meet with Trump.

I have it on very good authority that within the next few hours, Prime Minister Trudeau plans to announce that Saskatchewan will never be for sale.  (No offense intended to any other province; it's just that senior Canadian officials reportedly are taking bets on how Trump will spell the name when he tweets his response.)

Not to be outdone, President López Obrador of México is cooking up una muy picante escalada.  He intends to say that he is taking Texas back—and that the United States will have pay for it!  As you can expect, this is certain to provoke un terremoto tweeterífico from el señor Loco del norte.  Brace yourselves for some shaky times in international politics.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 21, 2019, 08:24:01 am
Apparently he has cancelled his trip to see the Queen of Denmark because the Danish PM didn't take his real estate plan seriously. Is he 5 years old, or what?
I thought he was rude too.  But I did some research to see what was up with the deal.  Greenland is very strategic.  Especially with the Arctic being free from ice, Russia, China, USA, and others will be competing for mineral rights in the Arctic Sea as well as access for commercial ship traffic.  Greenland is in a strategic position to defend that area. We already have Thule Air Base there defending NATO countries from ballistic missiles.  Greenland itself has huge mineral deposits.   President Truman 80 years ago tried to buy Greenland, so it;s not something new.

My guess, this is an opening gambit. Typically Trump, he asks for everything then settles for a lot less.  He bangs you over the head with a 2 by 4.
 Then when he stops, you're so happy he did stop, you're willing to give him something.  It's how he negotiates.   Maybe the US government wants to at least buy part of it, or get some 99 year lease or agreement to expand our military there.   So he asks for everything, cancels the meeting in a tiff, but leaves the door open for future meeting with the Danish government when they can discuss something less than buying the whole island. It's not how I would negotiate.  You've got to have no shame.  But then again I'm neither a president nor a billionaire.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 21, 2019, 08:28:43 am
This is a very dangerous precedent.  Now government leaders all over the world will be refusing to sell chunks of their territory just to avoid having to meet with Trump.

I have it on very good authority that within the next few hours, Prime Minister Trudeau plans to announce that Saskatchewan will never be for sale.  (No offense intended to any other province; it's just that senior Canadian officials reportedly are taking bets on how Trump will spell the name when he tweets his response.)

Not to be outdone, President López Obrador of México is cooking up una muy picante escalada.  He intends to say that he is taking Texas back—and that the United States will have pay for it!  As you can expect, this is certain to provoke un terremoto tweeterífico from el señor Loco del norte.  Brace yourselves for some shaky times in international politics.

Sasketchewan would be a problem since that would divide the country into the Flat Canada and Hilly Canada.
But maybe we could put up Newfoundland for sale instead. Much closer in distance and appearance to Greenland than any other province.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 21, 2019, 08:45:57 am
Oh no, not more earthquakes! What will happen to all that indispensable grass etc. that forms so much of the GDP?

There will be transportational chaos at the border and the little "amateur flier" airports along el norte, just as there are going to be at the edges of the DK (Disunited Kingdom) after Little Ben strikes midnight on the last day of October.

A wise and prescient US govermnent will have already stockpiled vast suppliee of the narcotics to help get the home junkies through that period of stress, just as the UK one is promising to do with cancer drugs and silly things like wine and good foods. Come to think of it, an earthquake could induce some subtle, unexpected and unfactored changes into the design of motorcars/parts made south of the border. There must be a new song looking for an outlet there: Johnny Cash might have worked out how to produce such models, a little part at a time.

On the brighter side: a possible outlet for a new Cooter gig for the Border Patrol? I hope so: enjoyed seeing the first one! This time, though, can we have a few more señoritas taking part? Perhaps Salma H. has a few spare days and not too many spare blouses?

I live in eternal hope, confounding the critics who perceive me as a walking negative!

:-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 21, 2019, 10:32:25 am
I thought he was rude too.  But I did some research to see what was up with the deal.  Greenland is very strategic.  Especially with the Arctic being free from ice, Russia, China, USA, and others will be competing for mineral rights in the Arctic Sea as well as access for commercial ship traffic.  Greenland is in a strategic position to defend that area. We already have Thule Air Base there defending NATO countries from ballistic missiles.  Greenland itself has huge mineral deposits.   President Truman 80 years ago tried to buy Greenland, so it;s not something new.

My guess, this is an opening gambit. Typically Trump, he asks for everything then settles for a lot less.  He bangs you over the head with a 2 by 4.
 Then when he stops, you're so happy he did stop, you're willing to give him something.  It's how he negotiates.   Maybe the US government wants to at least buy part of it, or get some 99 year lease or agreement to expand our military there.   So he asks for everything, cancels the meeting in a tiff, but leaves the door open for future meeting with the Danish government when they can discuss something less than buying the whole island. It's not how I would negotiate.  You've got to have no shame.  But then again I'm neither a president nor a billionaire.

You slay me. You take this nonsense seriously? Personally I think he just confused Greenland with Iceland, which is a much nicer place to go on vacation. There are photos on this very site from Iceland, but I don't remember any from Greenland, but I could be wrong about that.

If the US wants to expand its base in Greenland for military/political reasons, then there are tried and true diplomatic channels to accomplish this that have been in place since 1945 among NATO allies. Those procedures didn't need to be improved by wild-ass public tweets.

Alan, are you actually a paid Russian troll? :)      Because that would explain a lot.

Coming back to Trump. Doesn't it concern you that the only employees he can keep long term are his own kids? Doesn't it concern you that no American banks will lend him money? Or is that all "fake news".
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 21, 2019, 10:34:59 am
I see that Trump is now giving voting advice to Jewish people https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458135-trump-jews-that-vote-democrat-show-lack-of-knowledge-or-great. (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458135-trump-jews-that-vote-democrat-show-lack-of-knowledge-or-great)

I was wondering, does he have advice for Catholics or Muslims too. Or atheists.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 21, 2019, 10:40:41 am
There are photos on this very site from Iceland, but I don't remember any from Greenland, but I could be wrong about that.


To briefly divert into photography- Greenland is a fantastic location. Check out the work of Hans Strand and I think Kevin published some  Greenland photos here.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 21, 2019, 10:42:57 am
I see that Trump is now giving voting advice to Jewish people https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458135-trump-jews-that-vote-democrat-show-lack-of-knowledge-or-great. (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458135-trump-jews-that-vote-democrat-show-lack-of-knowledge-or-great)

I was wondering, does he have advice for Catholics or Muslims too. Or atheists.

Assuming that Jews have mixed loyalties - classic anti-Semitism.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 21, 2019, 10:57:24 am
... I was wondering, does he have advice for Catholics or Muslims too. Or atheists.

Of course: be loyal to America.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 21, 2019, 11:01:49 am
If a diplomat says:

- yes, he means maybe
- maybe, he means no
- no, he is not a diplomat

If a lady says:

- no, she means maybe
- maybe, she means yes
- yes, she is not a lady

I am confused. Since the prime minister of Denmark is (supposedly) a lady (or one of the 63 genders in any case), she definitely is not a (very good) diplomat, but, as a lady, maybe there is a chance we will buy Greenland after all?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 21, 2019, 11:04:23 am
The question is: what the hell are we going to buy it with? I suppose we could trade Los Angeles for it. That would solve a problem or two. We certainly can't afford to pay cash.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 21, 2019, 11:29:06 am
I see that Trump is now giving voting advice to Jewish people https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458135-trump-jews-that-vote-democrat-show-lack-of-knowledge-or-great. (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458135-trump-jews-that-vote-democrat-show-lack-of-knowledge-or-great)

I was wondering, does he have advice for Catholics or Muslims too. Or atheists.

Give it some time and he will.

Or maybe he will up the ante for the Jewish electorate and have the crowds chant: "Send them back"? Anything seems possible.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 21, 2019, 11:33:13 am
The question is: what the hell are we going to buy it with? I suppose we could trade Los Angeles for it. That would solve a problem or two. We certainly can't afford to pay cash.
Sell long term binds. We apparently don't have any problem incurring debt. The Republicans just passed a trillion dollar tax cut ballooning the defecit for as far as the eye can see. And what do we have to show for it? A couple of quarters of growth and companies buying back their stock instead of investing or increasing wages.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 21, 2019, 11:40:02 am
The Republicans just passed a trillion dollar tax cut ballooning the defecit for as far as the eye can see.

Golly! So the Republicans took back the House? I didn't realize that. I thought the election was to come next year.

Fab, instead of posting crap like this, why don't you go out and shoot some more pictures of lakes or rivers or something?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 21, 2019, 11:41:40 am
... companies buying back their stock instead of investing or increasing wages.

There is nothing wrong with stock buybacks. It simply means the company sees no immediate opportunity for investment and returns the cash to shareholders so that they can invest it better or spend it. In any case, it helps the economy. As for wage increases, some companies were giving extra bonuses, but my last company (J&J) decided to shift the funds into innovation.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 21, 2019, 11:52:59 am
You slay me. You take this nonsense seriously? Personally I think he just confused Greenland with Iceland, which is a much nicer place to go on vacation. There are photos on this very site from Iceland, but I don't remember any from Greenland, but I could be wrong about that.

If the US wants to expand its base in Greenland for military/political reasons, then there are tried and true diplomatic channels to accomplish this that have been in place since 1945 among NATO allies. Those procedures didn't need to be improved by wild-ass public tweets.

Alan, are you actually a paid Russian troll? :)      Because that would explain a lot.

Coming back to Trump. Doesn't it concern you that the only employees he can keep long term are his own kids? Doesn't it concern you that no American banks will lend him money? Or is that all "fake news".
What are you suggesting.  That I made a mistake by not voting for Hillary?  That maybe I should vote for the socialist Bernie or Pocahontas, the fraudulent American Indian?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 21, 2019, 11:58:14 am
I see that Trump is now giving voting advice to Jewish people https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458135-trump-jews-that-vote-democrat-show-lack-of-knowledge-or-great. (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458135-trump-jews-that-vote-democrat-show-lack-of-knowledge-or-great)

I was wondering, does he have advice for Catholics or Muslims too. Or atheists.
The point he was making is that some Jews are backing some Democrats in a knee-jerk manner who have shown they are anti-Semitic.  That's a pretty dumb thing to do and unloyal to your own self and interests.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 21, 2019, 12:13:39 pm
The point he was making is that some Jews are backing some Democrats in a knee-jerk manner who have shown they are anti-Semitic.  That's a pretty dumb thing to do and unloyal to your own self and interests.

As I often thought: much similarity between parts of the US population and the Irish ones.

When is an American not either a Democrat or a Republican? Probably the same moment that an Irish person is not a Catholic or a Protestant.

Which prompts me to think that in the latter case, not so different to the spaces between Suni and Shia.

Interesting.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 21, 2019, 12:52:21 pm
Golly! So the Republicans took back the House? I didn't realize that. I thought the election was to come next year.

Fab, instead of posting crap like this, why don't you go out and shoot some more pictures of lakes or rivers or something?

What?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 21, 2019, 12:52:56 pm
What are you suggesting.  That I made a mistake by not voting for Hillary?  That maybe I should vote for the socialist Bernie or Pocahontas, the fraudulent American Indian?

?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 21, 2019, 01:02:20 pm
What?
RSL is short of reasoned arguments so he is mocking me and my photography instead.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 21, 2019, 01:02:49 pm
?
Red herring.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 21, 2019, 01:12:26 pm
What?

The point is, Robert, that the House had to pass the cut along with the Senate. The House still is Democrat. To say that the "Republicans just passed a trillion dollar tax cut," is a bit over the top. Quite a bit. But it's pretty clear that Fab doesn't know the difference.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 21, 2019, 02:11:59 pm
The point is, Robert, that the House had to pass the cut along with the Senate. The House still is Democrat. To say that the "Republicans just passed a trillion dollar tax cut," is a bit over the top. Quite a bit. But it's pretty clear that Fab doesn't know the difference.
The House and Senate were both in Republican hands when the trillion dollar tax cut was enacted. But don't let facts get in the way of your story. Your problem is that your knee jerks so fast you don't have time to read the post before you respond.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 21, 2019, 02:56:33 pm
.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 21, 2019, 04:03:21 pm
The House and Senate were both in Republican hands when the trillion dollar tax cut was enacted. But don't let facts get in the way of your story. Your problem is that your knee jerks so fast you don't have time to read the post before you respond.

Yeah, you're right, Fab. I didn't check the date. And of course, there's no chance a Democrat congress -- House or Senate -- would ever pass anything like that... er, unless they called it the Obama 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 21, 2019, 05:52:19 pm
.
I already get Social Security and Medicare, free healthcare. What else are they offering?😀
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 21, 2019, 06:18:37 pm
I already get Social Security and Medicare, free healthcare. What else are they offering?😀
Are you in some kind of program the rest of us seniors are not?  I pay a monthly premium for Medicare along with co-pays every time I go to the doctor (Medigap insurance covers that).  The Medicare premium is also means tested and the more income you have from pensions/investments the higher your premium is.   I just had my physical last week and Medicare doesn't pay for that or the lab work.  TNSTAAFL!!!!    (short for There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 21, 2019, 06:29:55 pm
Are you in some kind of program the rest of us seniors are not?  I pay a monthly premium for Medicare along with co-pays every time I go to the doctor (Medigap insurance covers that).  The Medicare premium is also means tested and the more income you have from pensions/investments the higher your premium is.   I just had my physical last week and Medicare doesn't pay for that or the lab work.  TNSTAAFL!!!!    (short for There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch).
Well, that's true.  I do pay a monthly fee and there is a small deductible every year; I think it's about $175.  I don;t pay a co-pay.  My secondary insurance picks that up.  I pay for that too.  So yeah.  It's not totally free.  But if the Danes buy us, they'll make everything free.  Plus they got hot women too.  That's why he can't go there.  Melania took one look at the Premier and told Donald he's staying home.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 21, 2019, 07:37:27 pm
Denmark offers to buy USA.

Would they accept all Americans?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 21, 2019, 08:54:04 pm
... Melania took one look at the Premier and told Donald he's staying home.  :)

Bingo! :D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 21, 2019, 10:36:37 pm
And he's doubling down! https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458316-trump-stuns-with-denmark-fight (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458316-trump-stuns-with-denmark-fight).

Is this because of a bar bet or something?

Is it a diversion from something else that's even weirder?

I mean, seriously, does he not have anything to do?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 21, 2019, 10:44:14 pm
And he's doubling down! https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458316-trump-stuns-with-denmark-fight (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458316-trump-stuns-with-denmark-fight).

Is this because of a bar bet or something?

Is it a diversion from something else that's even weirder?

I mean, seriously, does he not have anything to do?
Well, no one's talking about collusion or obstruction or racism or guns.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 21, 2019, 11:06:22 pm
The plot thickens.
"U.S. has conveyed its 'strong position' to Greece about Iranian tanker: official"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-usa-greece/us-has-conveyed-its-strong-position-to-greece-about-iranian-tanker-official-idUSKCN1V920F (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-usa-greece/us-has-conveyed-its-strong-position-to-greece-about-iranian-tanker-official-idUSKCN1V920F)
So now what?  The plot thickens even more.  Let's take bets on what's going to happen.  I think Iran will sail the boat directly to Syria to offload the oil challenging the US to do something about it.  Then the US Navy seizes the boat.  What do you think?  What about the boat Iran seized.  Isn't that one British?
"Greece says it will not help Iranian tanker to reach Syria"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-greece-idUSKCN1VB0QU (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-greece-idUSKCN1VB0QU)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 22, 2019, 07:48:58 am
Here's a different approach to the "Greenland" issue https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/08/exhausted-americans-petition-greenland-to-purchase-us-instead/ (https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/08/exhausted-americans-petition-greenland-to-purchase-us-instead/). :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 22, 2019, 09:27:41 am
Well, no one's talking about collusion or obstruction or racism or guns.

Next week, he's buying Iceland. You heard it here first.   ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: mbaginy on August 22, 2019, 11:16:08 am
Is it a diversion from something else that's even weirder?
Hey Robert, how can anyone question him?  I just heard him exclaim, while glancing towards the heavens, "I am the chosen one!"
Oh dear, this moron is completely off his rocker!  Can't someone in the White House help him have some sort of accident?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 22, 2019, 11:18:14 am
.... Can't someone in the White House help him have some sort of accident?

This type of statement could get you referred to the FBI.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: mbaginy on August 22, 2019, 11:24:25 am
This type of statement could get you referred to the FBI.
I pose no threat to him.  I'm saddened to think of too many assassinations of good leaders while others (not only this guy; don't even want to print his name) remains to spew his venom.  A number of other leaders should also encounter accidents for all I care, but the Chosen One is a complete disaster.  In the US!!  I also find that extremely sad, while most of the GOP remains silent.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 22, 2019, 11:24:52 am
This type of statement could get you referred to the FBI.

But he wouldn't believe them; the FBI, I mean.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 22, 2019, 11:49:06 am
Hey Robert, how can anyone question him?  I just heard him exclaim, while glancing towards the heavens, "I am the chosen one!"
Oh dear, this moron is completely off his rocker!  Can't someone in the White House help him have some sort of accident?
You got to have a good sense of humor to understand Trump's hyperbolic sense of rhetoric. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 22, 2019, 11:50:43 am
... I'm saddened to think of too many assassinations of good leaders while others... remains to spew his venom.  A number of other leaders should also encounter accidents...

Once again, you are advocating assassinations of your political opponents. Despicable  >:(
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 22, 2019, 11:52:00 am
I pose no threat to him.  I'm saddened to think of too many assassinations of good leaders while others (not only this guy; don't even want to print his name) remains to spew his venom.  A number of other leaders should also encounter accidents for all I care, but the Chosen One is a complete disaster.  In the US!!  I also find that extremely sad, while most of the GOP remains silent.
Trump's a good leader defending the US as an American president should.  Our last president was too busy wanted his tuchus kissed by the rest of the world to really defend us. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 22, 2019, 12:08:57 pm
Once again, you are advocating assassinations of your political opponents. Despicable  >:(

Despicable, yes.  Also deplorable.

Ladies and gentlemen, quoth the President of the United States:
 
"...So here, I just wrote this down today. Hillary wants to raise taxes -- it's a comparison. I want to lower them. Hillary wants to expand regulations, which she does bigly. Can you believe that? I will reduce them very, very substantially, could be as much as 70 to 75 percent. Hillary wants to shut down energy production. I want to expand it. Lower electric bills, folks! Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know..."

Hey - this is also the source of that "bigly" thing.  This quote just keeps giving :D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: mbaginy on August 22, 2019, 12:09:10 pm
Trump's a good leader defending the US as an American president should.  Our last president was too busy wanted his tuchus kissed by the rest of the world to really defend us.
Shoot first, ask questions later?  Hurrah for us and to hell with all the others?  Yeah, right, Alan.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 22, 2019, 12:10:10 pm
Oh dear, this moron is completely off his rocker!  Can't someone in the White House help him have some sort of accident?

That is an exceptionally silly, and rather offensive, thing to write, and it has no place here (or anywhere else, for that matter). Have a care.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 22, 2019, 12:12:19 pm
That is an exceptionally silly, and rather offensive, thing to write, and it has no place here (or anywhere else, for that matter). Have a care.

Jeremy

If only Trump himself would post here.  You'd never get a break :D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: mbaginy on August 22, 2019, 12:14:19 pm
That is an exceptionally silly, and rather offensive, thing to write, and it has no place here (or anywhere else, for that matter). Have a care.

Jeremy
Oh my, okay I'm gone.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 22, 2019, 12:22:33 pm
Yeah, you're right, Fab. I didn't check the date. And of course, there's no chance a Democrat congress -- House or Senate -- would ever pass anything like that... er, unless they called it the Obama 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill.

Nice job of slithering.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 22, 2019, 01:39:28 pm
It's no slither, Peter. Both parties are driving us to become the modern equivalent of the Weimar Republic. The Republicans are shameless when it comes to spending, but the Democrats put them to shame with their spending.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 22, 2019, 01:47:48 pm
You got to have a good sense of humor to understand Trump's hyperbolic sense of rhetoric. 

+1

As someone else said: "The media takes Trump literally, but not seriously. His supporters take him seriously, but not literally."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 22, 2019, 02:47:24 pm
+1

As someone else said: "The media takes Trump literally, but not seriously. His supporters take him seriously, but not literally."

How can there be anyone left who takes him either literally or seriously?

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 22, 2019, 03:02:20 pm
How can there be anyone left who takes him either literally or seriously?

Plenty of those who take him literally, literally a half of the country, if not the world. The other half takes him seriously (in a positive sense).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 22, 2019, 03:06:55 pm
Plenty of those who take him literally, literally a half of the country, if not the world. The other half takes him seriously (in a positive sense).
I don't know about being taken seriously, but the latest AP poll shows him with a 62% disapproval rating. Fake news no doubt.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 22, 2019, 03:15:52 pm
I don't know about being taken seriously, but the latest AP poll shows him with a 62% disapproval rating. Fake news no doubt.

Wait for the election night.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 22, 2019, 03:17:25 pm
Wait for the election night.
Yes, there is still one year, three months to go.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 22, 2019, 03:19:00 pm
I don't know about being taken seriously, but the latest AP poll shows him with a 62% disapproval rating. Fake news no doubt.

An AP poll will show any republican with an over 50% disapproval rating, Fab. As Slobodan pointed out, what do you think the poll results were before the last election? What's really hilarious is to play back the projections of the "news" media and pundits the day of the election. Hillary was a shoo-in.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 22, 2019, 03:20:20 pm
I don't know about being taken seriously, but the latest AP poll shows him with a 62% disapproval rating. Fake news no doubt.
Rasmussen got his approval rating at 48%, disapproval at 50%.
Without knowing who's doing the poll, how they're doing the poll, and what questions they're asking, you're going to get different kinds of statistics. You can prove anything you want.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 22, 2019, 03:25:02 pm
Yes, there is still one year, three months to go.

Still plenty of time for the Dems to screw it up even more.  I read an interesting piece that shows Biden's run is pretty much a repeat of HRK.  He is the safe choice that attacks Trump instead of focusing on policy, and can not draw crowds.   I dont see it working out for him.  As a matter of fact, every safe choice in the last 6 or 7 presidential elections, on either side, ended up loosing. 

The only problem though is that the bold candidates are too far left to get elected, especially in the swing states. 

Unless a charismatic centrist appears, I can't see it working out so well for the Dems. 

Last, you learn something new every day.  I have never seen shoo-in spelled out before and definitely would have thought it was shoe-in.  I had to look it up just to confirm.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 22, 2019, 03:25:22 pm
You also need to know what question the poll's asking. You can fix the outcome of almost any poll by asking the right question.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 22, 2019, 03:26:27 pm
Rasmussen got his approval rating at 48%, disapproval at 50%.
Without knowing who's doing the poll, how they're doing the poll, and what questions they're asking, you're going to get different kinds of statistics. You can prove anything you want.
Not quite anything.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 22, 2019, 03:28:24 pm
You also have to take into consideration if the polling is of the general public or the general electorate.  Many of these polls show the numbers for the overall public.  If you only consider those registered to vote, the numbers get a lot closer. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 22, 2019, 03:29:34 pm
... I have never seen shoo-in spelled out before and definitely would have thought it was shoe-in.

In case of Biden (and every other Democrat) the proper spelling is "shoo off" ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 23, 2019, 06:06:43 am
The Danish press are enjoying themselves
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 23, 2019, 10:11:02 am
Time to nuke Denmark, as Ted Cruz foresaw in 2016.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 23, 2019, 11:20:37 am
Since we are talking about headlines, here is one I saw on CNN this morning that I found interesting, "Lemon & Cuomo Imagine Trump Prepping 'Chosen One' Line."

CNN insists that both Lemon and Cuomo are non-biased reporters and not commentators.  Now I am not saying the news should not be critical of persons in power, however no credible news reporters would ever engage in this kind of theatre.  I feel like CNN's credibility has dropped so much that some of their exact headlines could be used for news pieces that would be critical of the network.  If I saw this headline on any other news website, including the far left MSNBC, I would instantly think the story was making fun of CNN. 

It's a shame seeing a once well respected news source fall this far. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 23, 2019, 02:16:11 pm
Time to nuke Denmark, as Ted Cruz foresaw in 2016.


No, no, no, you've got it wrong. He wants Iceland, not Greenland. He's confused.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 23, 2019, 02:28:51 pm
How can there be anyone left who takes him either literally or seriously?
Looks like today the American stock market is taking him both literally and seriously.  You can't earn any money from savings accounts, the bond yields are now inverted, the equities market gets whipsawed every third day, the great tax cut only filtered down to the top 0.1% of which I am not one of; I hope I don't have to go back to work as a greeter at the local big box store.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 23, 2019, 02:50:33 pm
Looks like today the American stock market is taking him both literally and seriously.  You can't earn any money from savings accounts, the bond yields are now inverted, the equities market gets whipsawed every third day, the great tax cut only filtered down to the top 0.1% of which I am not one of; I hope I don't have to go back to work as a greeter at the local big box store.

When was the last time you earned money from a savings account?   ???
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 23, 2019, 02:51:31 pm
When was the last time you earned money from a savings account?   ???
We have not had one for many years.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 23, 2019, 02:56:42 pm
What's a savings account?🤔
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 23, 2019, 03:34:58 pm
Since we are talking about headlines, here is one I saw on CNN this morning that I found interesting, "Lemon & Cuomo Imagine Trump Prepping 'Chosen One' Line."

CNN insists that both Lemon and Cuomo are non-biased reporters and not commentators.  Now I am not saying the news should not be critical of persons in power, however no credible news reporters would ever engage in this kind of theatre.  I feel like CNN's credibility has dropped so much that some of their exact headlines could be used for news pieces that would be critical of the network.  If I saw this headline on any other news website, including the far left MSNBC, I would instantly think the story was making fun of CNN. 

It's a shame seeing a once well respected news source fall this far.

I get your point, but (honest question here) when are Trump's actions finally outrageous enough that the news is no longer obligated to simply report the facts?  Is your position that there's no line a president can cross that demands something beyond "President X said this today.  Supporters thrilled.  Opponents outraged.  The end."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 23, 2019, 03:42:31 pm
..."President X said this today.  Supporters thrilled.  Opponents outraged.  The end."

That what the news reporting should be. Let me decide if that is outrageous or not.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 23, 2019, 03:43:31 pm
I feel like CNN's credibility has dropped so much that some of their exact headlines could be used for news pieces that would be critical of the network.  If I saw this headline on any other news website, including the far left MSNBC, I would instantly think the story was making fun of CNN. 

It's a shame seeing a once well respected news source fall this far.

When was CNN ever a "respected news source," Joe? Back in the sixties we were calling it: CNN, the "Communist News Network."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 23, 2019, 03:49:06 pm
When was CNN ever a "respected news source," Joe? Back in the sixties we were calling it: CNN, the "Communist News Network."

No you weren't.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on August 23, 2019, 03:50:45 pm
When was CNN ever a "respected news source," Joe? Back in the sixties we were calling it: CNN, the "Communist News Network."
You memory is impaired. CNN was not founded until 1980.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 23, 2019, 03:51:51 pm
You memory is impaired...

Doesn't prevent Biden from running for president.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 23, 2019, 03:52:34 pm
I get your point, but (honest question here) when are Trump's actions finally outrageous enough that the news is no longer obligated to simply report the facts?  Is your position that there's no line a president can cross that demands something beyond "President X said this today.  Supporters thrilled.  Opponents outraged.  The end."

So one bad deed solves another? 

I have dealt with some pretty interesting situations on set where those whom I was dealing with were being very unprofessional.  Does that mean I should be equally as unprofessional too?  Should I as well destroy my reputation because some one else destroys theirs? 

Your comment makes no sense unless you are okay with ruining your reputation, and, if so, dont be surprised by the obvious consequences.  In the case of CNN, it's plummeting ratings. 

“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 23, 2019, 03:57:57 pm
You memory is impaired. CNN was not founded until 1980.

You're right, Fab. It was CBS, "The Communist Broadcasting System."

Nonetheless, the CNN name is appropriate.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 23, 2019, 04:02:02 pm
You're right, Fab. It was CBS, "The Communist Broadcasting System."

You thought the network fronted by Walter Cronkite, literally voted "the most trusted man in America" at the time and a critic of Democratic president Lyndon B Johnson's Vietnam policy, were a bunch of commies???
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 23, 2019, 04:07:46 pm
I get your point, but (honest question here) when are Trump's actions finally outrageous enough that the news is no longer obligated to simply report the facts?  Is your position that there's no line a president can cross that demands something beyond "President X said this today.  Supporters thrilled.  Opponents outraged.  The end."

The press never reported just the facts about Trump.  They've been biasing their reporting for three years.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 23, 2019, 04:08:09 pm
So one bad deed solves another?

Not what I said.   What I asked was whether or not you believe there's a point where someone's bad faith can hit a line where objective distance becomes irresponsible.

I have dealt with some pretty interesting situations on set where those whom I was dealing with were being very unprofessional.  Does that mean I should be equally as unprofessional too?  Should I as well destroy my reputation because some one else destroys theirs?

Neither your actions nor mine have an impact that has repercussions on, literally, the entire world.  But for the sake of the analogy, if your client is behaving in a manner that's beyond unprofessional, and into dangerous for your lighting assistant, for example, at what point do you stop politely noting that they're doing something wrong?

Your comment makes no sense unless you are okay with ruining your reputation, and, if so, dont be surprised by the obvious consequences.  In the case of CNN, it's plummeting ratings. 

Fair point.  On the other hand, Cuomo and Lemon are the exception to the trend. (https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/july-2019-ratings-cnn-sees-noticeable-year-over-year-drop-off-but-remains-a-top-10-cable-network-in-total-day/409984/). So where does that leave us?  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 23, 2019, 04:17:36 pm
Not what I said.   What I asked was whether or not you believe there's a point where someone's bad faith can hit a line where objective distance becomes irresponsible.

Neither your actions nor mine have an impact that has repercussions on, literally, the entire world.  But for the sake of the analogy, if your client is behaving in a manner that's beyond unprofessional, and into dangerous for your lighting assistant, for example, at what point do you stop politely noting that they're doing something wrong?

Fair point.  On the other hand, Cuomo and Lemon are the exception to the trend. (https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/july-2019-ratings-cnn-sees-noticeable-year-over-year-drop-off-but-remains-a-top-10-cable-network-in-total-day/409984/). So where does that leave us?  :)


What has Trump done along that line?  How has his actions been more dangerous or had greater repercussions (negative or positive? you didn;t indicate) than Democrats Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy and Obama and Republicans Reagan, Bush and Bush?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 23, 2019, 04:23:16 pm
Not what I said.   What I asked was whether or not you believe there's a point where someone's bad faith can hit a line where objective distance becomes irresponsible.

Neither your actions nor mine have an impact that has repercussions on, literally, the entire world.  But for the sake of the analogy, if your client is behaving in a manner that's beyond unprofessional, and into dangerous for your lighting assistant, for example, at what point do you stop politely noting that they're doing something wrong?

Fair point.  On the other hand, Cuomo and Lemon are the exception to the trend.. So where does that leave us?

I think objective distance is the only responsible response by the media, or at least those whom claim to be reporters and not commentators, with very very few exceptions.  (One exception would be the incident about two years ago where two network employees were shot to death live on air.  That obviously prevents those on air from being objective.  But disagreements with political policy is not an exception.) 

Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow can obviously get away with it, but both of those commentators and their networks opening admit to their shows not being a news program and being biased in one direction.  CNN repeatably claims Lemon and Cuomo are non-biased reporters.  This clearly shows they are not.  At some point in time, if they keep it up, people will stop watching them.  Maybe it will be one Trump is out of office and people come to their senses, but it will happen.  Not a great long term plan. 

Plus it goes back to the old saying, never fight with a pig, you'll both get dirty but the pig likes it. 

Insofar as your example, once again a response in not necessarily unwarranted, but what type of response would be professional or not.  Lets say a male client felt up a female assistant, does that mean I get him back and feel him up as well?  Hold him down and let my assistant get revenge?  An eye for an eye, right?  No.  I interject, pull him away (physically if need be but not necessarily by punching him), call the police and file a report.  That would still be professional. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 23, 2019, 05:05:16 pm
The press never reported just the facts about Trump.  They've been biasing their reporting for three years.
Seriously???  I know it's sometime hard to separate fact from fiction but here is a President whose documented false statements have set a record for the office.  I don't think it's biased reporting when fact checkers can fully document this stuff.  of course he did have the largest inaugural crowd in history.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 23, 2019, 05:10:12 pm

What has Trump done along that line?  How has his actions been more dangerous or had greater repercussions
Signed a tax bill that has blown a hole in the budge.  Started a trade war with China that is having adverse impact on US and world economy.  Weakened all kinds of environmental regulations.  Said that the coal industry is poised for a great comeback.  Had ICE put kids in cages and separated them from their parents.  Refused to disclose his tax returns after saying he would.  etc. etc. etc.

As Kurt Vonnegut so ably wrote, "...so it goes..."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 23, 2019, 05:16:20 pm
... Had ICE put kids in cages...

Peddling the known lie?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 23, 2019, 06:46:14 pm
Seriously???  I know it's sometime hard to separate fact from fiction but here is a President whose documented false statements have set a record for the office.  I don't think it's biased reporting when fact checkers can fully document this stuff.  of course he did have the largest inaugural crowd in history.
The mainstream press accused him and pushed the theme of treason with the Russians to destroy his presidency.  This was media conspiring in an attempted  palace coup. Everything else pales by comparison. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 23, 2019, 07:01:33 pm
Signed a tax bill that has blown a hole in the budge.  Started a trade war with China that is having adverse impact on US and world economy.  Weakened all kinds of environmental regulations.  Said that the coal industry is poised for a great comeback.  Had ICE put kids in cages and separated them from their parents.  Refused to disclose his tax returns after saying he would.  etc. etc. etc.

As Kurt Vonnegut so ably wrote, "...so it goes..."
My question was: "How has his actions been more dangerous or had greater repercussions." than the other presidents in recent past history.  None of the things you mention are major actions on his part that were so terrible or so great.  Weakend environmental regulations which he said and was elected on?  Didn't show his tax returns?  That's dangerous and has great repercussions?  Are you serious?   Blew the budget? (most presidents do) Said (said?) the coal industry is coming back? Challenged China with trade; heck Reagan challenged the Soviet Union with a military buildup that destroyed them luckily not causing WWIII.  What about Kennedy's stupid Bay of Pigs that also almost caused WWIII?  Johnson started a phony war (Gulf of Tonkin) as did Bush with WMD in Iraq.  Trump helped destroy ISIS's caliphate territory and stopped North Korea from testing nukes and ICBM's.  Not sure what's dangerous about that.

None of these things have been as dangerous as what previous president have done.  Some have important repercussions, but none are a big deal by past president's actions.  The fact is you and the major press has spun the news to make Trump into some evil monster, including collusion with the Russians.  It's all politics and frankly phoney. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 23, 2019, 07:44:00 pm
You thought the network fronted by Walter Cronkite, literally voted "the most trusted man in America" at the time and a critic of Democratic president Lyndon B Johnson's Vietnam policy, were a bunch of commies???

I thought Cronkite was a slippery liberal, James, who threw away our success in Vietnam after the failed Tet offensive. I still think that. There's no way I can forgive the guy.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 23, 2019, 08:05:42 pm
Trump doubles down with tariffs after China raises theirs:

"Trump Says He Will Raise Existing Tariffs on Chinese Goods to 30%"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/business/china-tariffs-trump.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/business/china-tariffs-trump.html)


Tells American businesses to stop doing business in China.
https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/trump-china-us-companies/2019/08/23/id/929767/ (https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/trump-china-us-companies/2019/08/23/id/929767/)


Who will blink first?    I think Trump is going to use this as the premier issue during next year's presidential election.  The Democrats are stuck because they favor going against the Chinese because of the theft of American intellectual property over the decades.  Even Democrats think China is a thief stealing other countries property as well.  If the Dems oppose Trump on this issue, most Americans will be against them.  If they support Trump, he'll look like a battling general that should be re-elected during an economic war.  If the economy goes into recession, something that might happen anyway, he can blame the "war" with China asking for another 4 years to "win it".  All other issues, emoluments, obstructions, tax returns, North Korea, climate, etc will pale to insignificance as Americans tighten their belts once again, this time in an economic war.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 23, 2019, 08:19:59 pm
Trump doubles down with tariffs after China raises theirs:

"Trump Says He Will Raise Existing Tariffs on Chinese Goods to 30%"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/business/china-tariffs-trump.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/business/china-tariffs-trump.html)


Tells American businesses to stop doing business in China.
https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/trump-china-us-companies/2019/08/23/id/929767/ (https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/trump-china-us-companies/2019/08/23/id/929767/)


Who will blink first?    I think Trump is going to use this as the premier issue during next year's presidential election.  The Democrats are stuck because they favor going against the Chinese because of the theft of American intellectual property over the decades.  Even Democrats think China is a thief stealing other countries property as well.  If the Dems oppose Trump on this issue, most Americans will be against them.  If they support Trump, he'll look like a battling general that should be re-elected during an economic war.  If the economy goes into recession, something that might happen anyway, he can blame the "war" with China asking for another 4 years to "win it".  All other issues, emoluments, obstructions, tax returns, North Korea, climate, etc will pale to insignificance as Americans tighten their belts once again, this time in an economic war.

I can’t believe that anyone is still pushing the absurd notion that a Trump is some kind of Machiavellian genius thinking steps ahead.  Hell, half the time the man doesn’t even work a day ahead. :/
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 23, 2019, 08:26:48 pm
I can’t believe that anyone is still pushing the absurd notion that a Trump is some kind of Machiavellian genius thinking steps ahead.  Hell, half the time the man doesn’t even work a day ahead. :/

Then you are not really paying attention. 

I am not going to say all of his actions are well thought out, but lets be honest with ourselves.  On three occasions in the last couple of months, he got the Dems to completely reverse course and support the Squad.  Remember, Pelosi on a couple of occasions, supported by polling that showed the majority of democratic voters disliked those members, was going to denounce their ideas and then Trump tweeted, and caused nearly the entire democratic party to whole heartedly support those members and associate themselves with their unpopular ideas. 

CNN even ran an article in which a democratic moderate house member stated that Trump won and what he did was "politically brilliant." 

To ignore this is foolhardy, and I bet most of the Dems are ignoring this, which only helps the Republicans. 

Insofar as the China tariffs, talk is cheap.  Feckless Obama, and Feckless Bush, and Feckless Clinton taught us time and time again that China is not going to respond to talk and us waving our finger.  The majority, on both sides, agree China is a nefarious actor not playing by the rules, manipulating its currency, stealing IP, etc.  They has shown that don't care what we say, and now is the perfect time for action.  China's economy is slowing and may be in recession, Hong Kong is finally waking up, along with the rest of the world.  There is not a better time then now to take action and reel them in so they play fairly on the world stage. 

And lets look at the grander picture here.  China is a dictatorship thats hold very little of the philosophies of the West.  They do not support freedom of speech or the press or religion or assembly or open fair elections.  Art is controlled, along with the Internet and the news and publications.  They do not support the freedom to protect yourself (2nd amendment), or self governance; they have kangaroo courts.  They oppress the Tibetans (they kidnapped the Dalia Panchen and replaced him with their own choice so to further control Tibet), and the northern muslims, and others.  Is this really the type of government you want to spread? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 23, 2019, 08:45:58 pm
I can’t believe that anyone is still pushing the absurd notion that a Trump is some kind of Machiavellian genius thinking steps ahead.  Hell, half the time the man doesn’t even work a day ahead. :/
Here's a guy without any political experience who beat all the Republicans and took on the Democrat establishments and won the presidency single handingly.  A guy who has used pressure points in business to get his way out-flanking everyone.     

Thanks, I think, for calling me a Machiavellian genius?  If I thought of it, so can he.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 23, 2019, 08:52:56 pm
Then you are not really paying attention. 

I am not going to say all of his actions are well thought out, but lets be honest with ourselves.  On three occasions in the last couple of months, he got the Dems to completely reverse course and support the Squad.  Remember, Pelosi on a couple of occasions, supported by polling that showed the majority of democratic voters disliked those members, was going to denounce their ideas and then Trump tweeted, and caused nearly the entire democratic party to whole heartedly support those members and associate themselves with their unpopular ideas. 

CNN even ran an article in which a democratic moderate house member stated that Trump won and what he did was "politically brilliant."

LOL. Are we really having this discussion?  Are we really in a world where attacking women with racist language, prompting people to defend them is considered brilliant?  Are we really in a world where defending a native-born person of color from a racist attack is supposed to tarnish you with assumed alignment with their politics? 

It's not brilliant, it's pathetic.  It's basic, remedial, lizard brain stuff.   It doesn't take forethought, it takes only an utter lack of shame and self-reflection, and it certainly doesn't speak to strategy. It's pure id.   

 
Insofar as the China tariffs, talk is cheap.  Feckless Obama, and Feckless Bush, and Feckless Clinton taught us time and time again that China is not going to respond to talk and us waving our finger.  The majority, on both sides, agree China is a nefarious actor not playing by the rules, manipulating its currency, stealing IP, etc.  They has shown that don't care what we say, and now is the perfect time for action.  China's economy is slowing and may be in recession, Hong Kong is finally waking up, along with the rest of the world.  There is not a better time then now to take action and reel them in so they play fairly on the world stage.

Obama's administration actually made some inroads to curbing IP theft, which Trump's bellicose posturing has pretty much undone, but sure - let's keep pretending that whacking someone over the head with a stick, even though it rebounds and hits your own head on each backswing, is "brilliant."

And lets look at the grander picture here.  China is a dictatorship thats hold very little of the philosophies of the West.  They do not support freedom of speech or the press or religion or assembly or open fair elections.  Art is controlled, along with the Internet and the news and publications.  They do not support the freedom to protect yourself (2nd amendment), or self governance.  They oppress the Tibetans (they kidnapped the Dalia Panchen and replaced him with their own choice so to further control Tibet), and the northern muslims, and others.  Is this really the type of government you want to spread?

Nope - we agree completely.  I've always been a fan of allowing western culture to do it's insidious work and rot oppressive regimes from the inside.  People tend to love freedom, the right to express themselves, Coca Cola and blue jeans.  But funny how when we start making their lives miserable they band together against us anyway, isn't it? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 23, 2019, 08:54:26 pm
Then you are not really paying attention. 

I am not going to say all of his actions are well thought out, but lets be honest with ourselves.  On three occasions in the last couple of months, he got the Dems to completely reverse course and support the Squad.  Remember, Pelosi on a couple of occasions, supported by polling that showed the majority of democratic voters disliked those members, was going to denounce their ideas and then Trump tweeted, and caused nearly the entire democratic party to whole heartedly support those members and associate themselves with their unpopular ideas. 

CNN even ran an article in which a democratic moderate house member stated that Trump won and what he did was "politically brilliant." 

To ignore this is foolhardy, and I bet most of the Dems are ignoring this, which only helps the Republicans. 

Insofar as the China tariffs, talk is cheap.  Feckless Obama, and Feckless Bush, and Feckless Clinton taught us time and time again that China is not going to respond to talk and us waving our finger.  The majority, on both sides, agree China is a nefarious actor not playing by the rules, manipulating its currency, stealing IP, etc.  They has shown that don't care what we say, and now is the perfect time for action.  China's economy is slowing and may be in recession, Hong Kong is finally waking up, along with the rest of the world.  There is not a better time then now to take action and reel them in so they play fairly on the world stage. 

And lets look at the grander picture here.  China is a dictatorship thats hold very little of the philosophies of the West.  They do not support freedom of speech or the press or religion or assembly or open fair elections.  Art is controlled, along with the Internet and the news and publications.  They do not support the freedom to protect yourself (2nd amendment), or self governance; they have kangaroo courts.  They oppress the Tibetans (they kidnapped the Dalia Panchen and replaced him with their own choice so to further control Tibet), and the northern muslims, and others.  Is this really the type of government you want to spread? 
Other countries should support Trump.  If he wins over China, all businesses everywhere will benefit.  The Chinese are stealing IP from everyone and forcing technology transfers for all companies doing business there regardless of what country they come from.  Of course, it maybe that other countries are afraid Trump will come after them next for unfair trade practices they have enacted.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 23, 2019, 08:58:07 pm
Here's a guy without any political experience who beat all the Republicans and took on the Democrat establishments and won the presidency single handingly.  A guy who has used pressure points in business to get his way out-flanking everyone.     

Thanks, I think, for calling me a Machiavellian genius?  If I thought of it, so can he.

Nah - you're not a Machiavellian genius - from what I've seen you're too kind to be that, and you're better for it.  I mean, you may be a genius, but you don't strike me as cruel and calculating in your own self interest :)

You're just not going convince me - ever - that exploiting the worst, most basic instincts in your base is "genius."  Or that doubling down on it doesn't make you a garbage pile of a human being.  Seeing everything as a transactional, zero-sum competition doesn't make you smart - it makes you simple, even if you benefit from the outcome of that calculation. 

 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 23, 2019, 09:01:45 pm
LOL. Are we really having this discussion?  Are we really in a world where attacking women with racist language, prompting people to defend them is considered brilliant?  Are we really in a world where defending a native-born person of color from a racist attack is supposed to tarnish you with assumed alignment with their politics? 

It's not brilliant, it's pathetic.  It's basic, remedial, lizard brain stuff.   It doesn't take forethought, it takes only an utter lack of shame and self-reflection, and it certainly doesn't speak to strategy. It's pure id.   

 
Obama's administration actually made some inroads to curbing IP theft, which Trump's bellicose posturing has pretty much undone, but sure - let's keep pretending that whacking someone over the head with a stick, even though it rebounds and hits your own head on each backswing, is "brilliant."

Nope - we agree completely.  I've always been a fan of allowing western culture to do it's insidious work and rot oppressive regimes from the inside.  People tend to love freedom, the right to express themselves, Coca Cola and blue jeans.  But funny how when we start making their lives miserable they band together against us anyway, isn't it? 

There you go pulling the race card.  It wasn't a racist attack.  It wasn't misogynist.  He was reminding the public of their anti-Semitism and anti-Israel positions.  That's politics.  All fair game. 

Obama made no in-roads.  They've continued to steal IP from us without abatement.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 23, 2019, 09:08:07 pm
There you go pulling the race card.  It wasn't a racist attack.  It wasn't misogynist.  He was reminding the public of their anti-Semitism and anti-Israel positions.  That's politics.  All fair game.

Alan, it *was* a racist attack. It was.  I agree 100%, by the way, that some of us lefties are way to eager to start assigning racial motives where there are none, but this instance was.  Telling brown people who were born in the USA to "go back where they came from" is racist.  Period.  And it's not just lefties that think so.  Donald Trump, the man, may not be racist.  But he continually stokes fear of extranational "others" (who generally happen to be brown) to gin up his base.  It's undeniable, and problematic.

Obama made no in-roads.  They've continued to steal IP from us without abatement.

You're unequivocally wrong here.  From a Columbia Law Review article (https://cblr.columbia.edu/secrets-secrets-the-trump-administration-and-chinese-intellectual-property-theft/)...

Quote
The United States also attempted to combat trade secret theft in ways beyond prosecutions.  In 2016, Congress passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which created a civil remedy to parallel the EEA’s criminal penalties.  Moreover, the Obama administration reached a cybersecurity agreement with the Chinese government in 2015 that included a bilateral promise to stop the theft of intellectual property from one another.  This diplomatic solution marked a promising step forward, although President Obama warned that the agreement’s words must be “followed by actions.”  Initially, China appeared to live up to its promise, as in the months after the agreement, Chinese commercial hacks of American companies dropped by roughly 90%.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 23, 2019, 09:09:56 pm
Nah - your not a Machiavellian genius - from what I've seen you're too kind to be that, and you're better for it.  I mean, you may be a genius, but you don't strike me as cruel and calculating in your own self interest :)

You're just not going convince me - ever - that exploiting the worst, most basic instincts in your base is "genius."  Or that doubling down on it doesn't make you a garbage pile of a human being.  Seeing everything as a transactional, zero-sum competition doesn't make you smart - it makes you simple, even if you benefit from the outcome of that calculation. 

 
Ah shucks.  I always wanted to be Machiavelli. :)


The fact is Trump always had China, NAFTA, TPP, etc in his crosshairs, long before he became president.  He didn't just think this up today.  Trying to protect American interests is the main job, maybe the only job, an America president is supposed to be doing.  That's not being cruel.  While I don;t agree with many things Obama did, I always give him credit for doing what he felt was in the best interests of America, as best he could.  I believe that to be the same with Trump and other presidents as well.  Sometimes they screw up, maybe often, and get us involved in foreign adventures we'd better off staying out of.  But that doesn't make them evil. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 23, 2019, 09:17:13 pm
Ah shucks.  I always wanted to be Machiavelli. :)


The fact is Trump always had China, NAFTA, TPP, etc in his crosshairs, long before he became president.  He didn't just think this up today.  Trying to protect American interests is the main job, maybe the only job, an America president is supposed to be doing.  That's not being cruel.  While I don;t agree with many things Obama did, I always give him credit for doing what he felt was in the best interests of America, as best he could.  I believe that to be the same with Trump and other presidents as well.  Sometimes they screw up, maybe often, and get us involved in foreign adventures we'd better off staying out of.  But that doesn't make them evil.

Sure, I can get on board with that.  I'm not one of the people that thinks Trump gears each policy announcement toward what benefits his personal bottom line - that's too cynical even for me ;)

But I do think that the has the impression that what's good for him is what's good for America, and I think he is grossly mistaken in thinking that his opinions, wants, and needs are reflective of all of us.  I also think that his vision as the "CEO" of the nation is flawed.  I believe his thinking is, not exactly short term, but to predicated on financial ROI and economic "fairness" in far too simple a sense.  He gets caught up on things like 2% NATO funding without realizing the secondary benefits of a stable Europe that may work out to far more commerce that the transactional nature of that 2% number.

I think he lacks the ability to think in terms beyond deals and exchange of material, and is unwilling to consider that the business of running a nation and, frankly, by virtue of his position, the world, is different from running a family business where all that matters is winning for "his" family. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 23, 2019, 09:20:54 pm
LOL. Are we really having this discussion?  Are we really in a world where attacking women with racist language, prompting people to defend them is considered brilliant?  Are we really in a world where defending a native-born person of color from a racist attack is supposed to tarnish you with assumed alignment with their politics? 

It's not brilliant, it's pathetic.  It's basic, remedial, lizard brain stuff.   It doesn't take forethought, it takes only an utter lack of shame and self-reflection, and it certainly doesn't speak to strategy. It's pure id.   

 
Obama's administration actually made some inroads to curbing IP theft, which Trump's bellicose posturing has pretty much undone, but sure - let's keep pretending that whacking someone over the head with a stick, even though it rebounds and hits your own head on each backswing, is "brilliant."

Nope - we agree completely.  I've always been a fan of allowing western culture to do it's insidious work and rot oppressive regimes from the inside.  People tend to love freedom, the right to express themselves, Coca Cola and blue jeans.  But funny how when we start making their lives miserable they band together against us anyway, isn't it?

Attacking some one who is a women is not sexist, nor is it racist to attack someone who is a different race.  Please state the exact tweets you considered to be sexist and racist. 

There are some pretty clear policy differences that the Squad has compared to the rest of the country, including Dems.  As a few Dems said, albeit anonymously, they were all brilliant moves by Trump.  Pelosi has been trying for months to separate the Dems from the Squad, but has not been able to do so due to Trump.  You may not agree with how he did it, but it did work. 

As was said in the past many times before, politics is a blood sport. 

On top of that, what has the house down to get any policies through? 

They refuse to work with Trump on everything, trying not to give him a win.  They created the border mess, by first ignoring it, then claiming it was made up, then recognizing it but refused to give any money to fix it until the 11th hour.  And then they were capitulated to go with what ever the Senate passed due to their inaction, a total loss due solely to their hatred for Trump. 

Then you have the collusion narrative, that they pushed down our throats only for it to be a total hoax.  Nadler and Schiff wasted two whole years of governing where they could actually had down something for the American people. 

It's been a loose loose for all of the moderate Dems in the House, and they have nothing to sell their constituents to get reelected.  I am amazed they have not yet retaliated against the leadership and started to denounce this stuff on their own.  They will probably wait until after the primaries, but it will be too little too late. 

Insofar as Obama helping to decrease IP threat, please show me those news articles.  I remember nothing of that happening, but could have certainly overlooked it.

For your last point, I am not so sure I understand this.  Are you saying the power hungry countries will just whither and die if only we accept them into the fold?  Kind of like Obama tried to do with Russia 2008 through 2012?  Remember, the 1980s are calling and they want their foreign policy back. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 23, 2019, 09:26:41 pm
Alan, it *was* a racist attack. It was.  I agree 100%, by the way, that some of us lefties are way to eager to start assigning racial motives where there are none, but this instance was.  Telling brown people who were born in the USA to "go back where they came from" is racist.  Period.  And it's not just lefties that think so.  Donald Trump, the man, may not be racist.  But he continually stokes fear of extranational "others" (who generally happen to be brown) to gin up his base.  It's undeniable, and problematic.

You're unequivocally wrong here.  From a Columbia Law Review article (https://cblr.columbia.edu/secrets-secrets-the-trump-administration-and-chinese-intellectual-property-theft/)...


"Go back from where you came from" isn't a racist attack but a political attack on people who others feel are not patriotic enough.  The statement could have just as easily been pointed at white men who originally were foreigners who made the statement the females did.  Frankly, I don;t think he should have used it because they're congresswomen and American citizens.  But I didn't take it as a racist statement that the left always seem to fall back on to smear political opponents.

Regardless of what the Columbia Law Review said, China has gone back to their old ways and continue to steal from us.  If they've reduced the theft, it;s only because there's not much left to steal.  They've gotten most of it already.  The fact is the CHinese Communists never had economic or scientific prowess because of the way the Reds ran the country.  So they became thieves and stole their way to success using cheap, almost slave labor to advance their economy.  They stole military secrets from everyone that now threatens everyone, especially in the Far East.  The stole those islands in the South China Sea and militarized them against their neighbors.  They're not a good actor in the world and would have you and me working for them if they get a chance.   Unfortunately, because of America's singular economic and military power, we are again "charged" with  keeping the peace.  I wish we could avoid it.  But I don't know how.   

Trump is going it alone because he always did things alone.  WHen you join with others, it slows down your actions and decisions and waters down the effort.  You have to get everyone else to agree to every move you want to make. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 23, 2019, 09:45:53 pm

From a Columbia Law Review article (https://cblr.columbia.edu/secrets-secrets-the-trump-administration-and-chinese-intellectual-property-theft/)...

What does this prove?  So we brought criminal cases against a foreign country and companies here?  China is a country that is known for vehemently defending it's companies and deflecting any punishments from them, so what does it matter. 

As the UN has shown countless times in the past, international courts really do nothing. 

From your article, "the Obama administration reached a cybersecurity agreement with the Chinese government in 2015 that included a bilateral promise to stop the theft of intellectual property from one another.  This diplomatic solution marked a promising step forward, although President Obama warned that the agreement’s words must be “followed by actions.”  Initially, China appeared to live up to its promise, as in the months after the agreement, Chinese commercial hacks of American companies dropped by roughly 90%.

Since 2016, however, Chinese trade secret theft has once again increased at an alarming pace." 

So Obama's great success here was to get the Chinese to stop hacking for about a year, only for them to start it up again, gang buster style, before he even left office.  Not a very great record, and clearly shows that China could care less what we do in our courts that have no jurisdiction in Asia.  They merely gave it a rest just long enough for it to blow over and Obama to become a lame duck president. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 23, 2019, 09:46:59 pm
Sure, I can get on board with that.  I'm not one of the people that thinks Trump gears each policy announcement toward what benefits his personal bottom line - that's too cynical even for me ;)

But I do think that the has the impression that what's good for him is what's good for America, and I think he is grossly mistaken in thinking that his opinions, wants, and needs are reflective of all of us.  I also think that his vision as the "CEO" of the nation is flawed.  I believe his thinking is, not exactly short term, but to predicated on financial ROI and economic "fairness" in far too simple a sense.  He gets caught up on things like 2% NATO funding without realizing the secondary benefits of a stable Europe that may work out to far more commerce that the transactional nature of that 2% number.

I think he lacks the ability to think in terms beyond deals and exchange of material, and is unwilling to consider that the business of running a nation and, frankly, by virtue of his position, the world, is different from running a family business where all that matters is winning for "his" family. 


I agree that presidents deal with their own ego, pride and need for personal success and power.  Why else would anyone want to be president?  Part of their plans is re-election.  So they connive and plot often at the detriment of the country.  Obama pulled out of Iraq before the 2012 election because he said he would early in his first term.  He needed to show he kept his word to win re-election by "ending the war".  Everyone told him he'll only open Iraq up to another round of conflagration due to the vacuum created by our military leaving.  He ignored that advice and we got ISIS.

Regarding the NATO 2%, he was just stronger at pushing it.  Previous presidents complained, including Obama and Bush.  The difference is Trump being a power player, really knows how to use power to his advantage.  He did that in business riding over competitors and others.  So he's good at it as president.  Sometimes, maybe often, it looks mean.  Maybe it is.  But you have to be tough if you're president.  Guys like Xi and Kim will eat you for lunch if you're not.  Fact is, Americans want a tough president.   Weaklings need not apply. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 23, 2019, 10:24:08 pm
Attacking some one who is a women is not sexist, nor is it racist to attack someone who is a different race....

+1
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 23, 2019, 10:35:31 pm
+1

We all agree, and I believe I’ve been explicitly clear on this point.

I’m on a tablet now, gentlemen, so this will have to resume tomorrow.  I bid you good evening... :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 24, 2019, 07:26:48 am
"Go back from where you came from" isn't a racist attack but a political attack on people who others feel are not patriotic enough. 

Are you folks actually trying to put forward the argument that when someone says "Go back to where you came from" to people with dark skin, that it isn't racist?  Is this some kind of joke?

And since when does patriotism mean you can't criticize your own country's policies?

This is not a serious conversation. This is what I'd expect in a school yard or a bar.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 24, 2019, 07:45:57 am
From your article, "the Obama administration reached a cybersecurity agreement with the Chinese government in 2015 that included a bilateral promise to stop the theft of intellectual property from one another.  This diplomatic solution marked a promising step forward, although President Obama warned that the agreement’s words must be “followed by actions.”  Initially, China appeared to live up to its promise, as in the months after the agreement, Chinese commercial hacks of American companies dropped by roughly 90%.

And that even didn't require a Trade war that's currently already costing average Americans $600 or more a year. Ask the Farming community how much it has cost them, sofar. And things are only starting, because the Chines won't blink that soon. Their economy was starting to overheat with annual growth numbers in excess of 6.5%. A slowdown was welcome, and will improve their competitive position (devaluation of their currency, and buying products (like Soybeans from Brasil) in other parts of the world where they'd like to do more business anyway). By trading with Brasil, Brasil earns money with which they can buy Chinese manufactured products. Thank you USA for ending trade deals with those regions, China loves you for shooting yourself in the foot, and providing China the opportunity to pick up the pieces.

Quote
Since 2016, however, Chinese trade secret theft has once again increased at an alarming pace." 

So Obama's great success here was to get the Chinese to stop hacking for about a year, only for them to start it up again, gang buster style, before he even left office.  Not a very great record, and clearly shows that China could care less what we do in our courts that have no jurisdiction in Asia.  They merely gave it a rest just long enough for it to blow over and Obama to become a lame duck president.

They probably tried maximizing their gains during a transition of presidencies (with Trump as the Republican nominee), and at the same time increase value of the bargaining chip, they could use again with a new administration.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 24, 2019, 07:46:56 am
Are you folks actually trying to put forward the argument that when someone says "Go back to where you came from" to people with dark skin, that it isn't racist?  Is this some kind of joke?

And since when does patriotism mean you can't criticize your own country's policies?

This is not a serious conversation. This is what I'd expect in a school yard or a bar.

+1

Fully agree.

And for Alan K.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_back_where_you_came_from
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 08:02:18 am
Are you folks actually trying to put forward the argument that when someone says "Go back to where you came from" to people with dark skin, that it isn't racist?  Is this some kind of joke?

And since when does patriotism mean you can't criticize your own country's policies?

This is not a serious conversation. This is what I'd expect in a school yard or a bar.
Where I grew up in the Bronx in NYC, most kids were 1st and 2nd generation Jewish, Italian or Irish white kids.  When someone acted ignorant or like a foreigner rather than acting like a "patriotic" American, that was one of the "put downs" used - "go back where you came from".    It had nothing to do with race.  We were using it against each other.  We were all white. It was also used against the many foreigners who lived in NYC when they acted like non-Americans.  Sure it was a nationalistic or patriotic slur.  But again, it didn't have racial but rather national characteristics.  Now I don't know what Trump had in mind; I can't get into his mind.  But he's from NYC too.

Now that doesn't mean it isn;t used by some people as a racial slur.  I never used it that way.  And many other New Yorkers don't either.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 24, 2019, 08:04:42 am
Sure it was a nationalistic or patriotic slur.  But again, it didn't have racial but rather national characteristics. 

Eh?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 08:19:34 am
Eh?
Apparently you had different experiences.  Where was that and what was that?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 24, 2019, 08:24:53 am
Where I grew up in the Bronx in NYC, most kids were 1st and 2nd generation Jewish, Italian or Irish white kids.  When someone acted ignorant or like a foreigner rather than acting like a "patriotic" American, that was one of the "put downs" used - "go back where you came from".    It had nothing to do with race.  We were using it against each other.  We were all white. It was also used against the many foreigners who lived in NYC when they acted like non-Americans.  Sure it was a nationalistic or patriotic slur.  But again, it didn't have racial but rather national characteristics.  Now I don't know what Trump had in mind; I can't get into his mind.  But he's from NYC too.

Now that doesn't mean it isn;t used by some people as a racial slur.  I never used it that way.  And many other New Yorkers don't either.

Alan, I get it. When I was eight, I did the same.

You're going to have to make up your mind. Either Trump is a master manipulator genius or he's a babe in the woods who is dominated by the media who is out to get him. You can't have it both ways.

He either opened up his mouth and said something stupid when he shouldn't have and didn't "mean" it as a racist slur, or he knows what to say to raise the support of a racist sub-segment of his base. Either way, it's not a good way for a President to behave. It's not as if he doesn't know by now that his choice of words matters. It may be ok in this forum's context for Slobodan to say things that will incite "lefties" to apoplexy, but it's not ok for a President to do so, especially when you have on a couple of occasions yourself complained that he was not being treated with enough respect by forum contributors.

Saying "Oops, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that" can work once or twice, maybe, but after this much time and after this many occurrences, it's not an acceptable response from him. And I haven't heard his say yet anyway.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 24, 2019, 08:27:49 am
Excerpting some key points from James Fallows's good column in The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2019/08/if-trump-were-airline-pilot/596575/) (do check it out for links to his previous writings on Trump, particularly those written during the campaign).

But just from life I know this:

 -  If an airline learned that a pilot was talking publicly about being “the Chosen One” or “the King of Israel” (or Scotland or whatever), the airline would be looking carefully into whether this person should be in the cockpit.

 -   If a hospital had a senior surgeon behaving as Trump now does, other doctors and nurses would be talking with administrators and lawyers before giving that surgeon the scalpel again.

  -  If a public company knew that a CEO was making costly strategic decisions on personal impulse or from personal vanity or slight, and was doing so more and more frequently, the board would be starting to act. (See: Uber, management history of.)

  -  If a university, museum, or other public institution had a leader who routinely insulted large parts of its constituency—racial or religious minorities, immigrants or international allies, women—the board would be starting to act.

  -  If the U.S. Navy knew that one of its commanders was routinely lying about important operational details, plus lashing out under criticism, plus talking in “Chosen One” terms, the Navy would not want that person in charge of, say, a nuclear-missile submarine. (See: The Queeg saga in The Caine Mutiny, which would make ideal late-summer reading or viewing for members of the White House staff.)

Yet now such a  person is in charge not of one nuclear-missile submarine but all of them—and the bombers and ICBMs, and diplomatic military agreements, and the countless other ramifications of executive power.

If Donald Trump were in virtually any other position of responsibility, action would already be under way to remove him from that role. The board at a public company would have replaced him outright or arranged a discreet shift out of power.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 24, 2019, 08:39:45 am
Apparently you had different experiences.  Where was that and what was that?

Umm...  It's not that - it's that I'm puzzled how you can imagine that telling a Jew to "go back where they came from" is not racism.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 09:06:48 am
Alan, I get it. When I was eight, I did the same.

You're going to have to make up your mind. Either Trump is a master manipulator genius or he's a babe in the woods who is dominated by the media who is out to get him. You can't have it both ways.

He either opened up his mouth and said something stupid when he shouldn't have and didn't "mean" it as a racist slur, or he knows what to say to raise the support of a racist sub-segment of his base. Either way, it's not a good way for a President to behave. It's not as if he doesn't know by now that his choice of words matters. It may be ok in this forum's context for Slobodan to say things that will incite "lefties" to apoplexy, but it's not ok for a President to do so, especially when you have on a couple of occasions yourself complained that he was not being treated with enough respect by forum contributors.

Saying "Oops, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that" can work once or twice, maybe, but after this much time and after this many occurrences, it's not an acceptable response from him. And I haven't heard his say yet anyway.
You make a salient point.  But I can say the same thing about politicians who get into the gutter and pull the race card to smear the opposition in order to divide the populace and get votes when race is not the issue.  You can't say that a policy is wrong if it comes from the lips of a person of color.  That's just silly.  It seems that too much of society is resorting to this kind of tactic.  I think it should not happen.  After Obama;s two terms, we should be past that stuff on both sides.  I think Trump's response is often in opposition to what he gets from the other side.  Maybe everyone should grow up.  It's time to move on. 

Yesterday I was in a big shopping mall near my house in central New Jersey.  I stuffed myself on two Nathans hot dogs and their fries.  Yum.  Then when I was walking around, there were four teenage boys being escorted out of the building by security guards.  The four, three white kids and one black, were doing a choreographed hip hop routine while a fifth guy was shooting them with a video camera, well DSLR. They were  obviously all practiced and coordinated singing and rapping and jiving have a grand old time, laughing and everything. But they weren't pro dancers or singers, just kids having fun.  These kids were tight; you could see they were all friends who hung out together.  Race was not an issue with them.  I think that's great.  That's where the country has moved.  If politicians would also move on, we'd all be a lot better off. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 24, 2019, 09:13:08 am
Umm...  It's not that - it's that I'm puzzled how you can imagine that telling a Jew to "go back where they came from" is not racism.

Or an American citizen / congressperson of color ...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 09:40:57 am
Umm...  It's not that - it's that I'm puzzled how you can imagine that telling a Jew to "go back where they came from" is not racism.
When I grew up, nationality slurs were different then racism which were different than religious slurs.   It's only recently that people lump these  together.  Slurs against Jews or Catholics for example were religious slurs.  Slurs against Italians or Jews or Irish would be nationality slurs.  Slurs against people of color were racial slurs.  Today, all three areas are called racial slurs.  It's all the same because politicians find it convenient to lump them together to divide people.  Like I said, none of it is right.  We should get past these things. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 24, 2019, 10:03:53 am
Are you folks actually trying to put forward the argument that when someone says "Go back to where you came from" to people with dark skin, that it isn't racist?  Is this some kind of joke?

And since when does patriotism mean you can't criticize your own country's policies?

This is not a serious conversation. This is what I'd expect in a school yard or a bar.

That is exactly the message that's being promoted here.

Forget argument or discussion: it often leads to non sequiturs and/or total, shameless volte-faces.

As mentioned often: Alice in.

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 24, 2019, 10:08:51 am
When I grew up, nationality slurs were different then racism which were different than religious slurs.   It's only recently that people lump these  together.  Slurs against Jews or Catholics for example were religious slurs.  Slurs against Italians or Jews or Irish would be nationality slurs.  Slurs against people of color were racial slurs.  Today, all three areas are called racial slurs.  It's all the same because politicians find it convenient to lump them together to divide people.  Like I said, none of it is right.  We should get past these things.

So - Jews are a religion and not a race, right? Is that what you're saying?

What, in your head, is a race, and what makes a difference between abusing someone on account of their race and on account of the national origin of their parents or grandparents or on account of their religion. And I suppose we can add their sexual identity? Do you have in your head some kind of list of what abuse is OK and what is not? Are you so lacking in self awareness that you can't see that this is, at best, absurd?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 10:28:48 am
So - Jews are a religion and not a race, right? Is that what you're saying?
Depends.  Some feel they're an ethnic group, others a nationality, others a religious group.  Some may feel it's racial, but race is also based on color and there are black Jews as well as white Jews.  I feel that it's people of the Jewish faith whose lineage goes back to the Israelites in Israel. But then again, converts like Ivanka Trump are Jews as well.  It's all very confusing.  Maybe this Wiki article could help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews#Who_is_a_Jew?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 24, 2019, 10:38:23 am
And that even didn't require a Trade war that's currently already costing average Americans $600 or more a year. Ask the Farming community how much it has cost them, sofar. And things are only starting, because the Chines won't blink that soon. Their economy was starting to overheat with annual growth numbers in excess of 6.5%. A slowdown was welcome, and will improve their competitive position (devaluation of their currency, and buying products (like Soybeans from Brasil) in other parts of the world where they'd like to do more business anyway). By trading with Brasil, Brasil earns money with which they can buy Chinese manufactured products. Thank you USA for ending trade deals with those regions, China loves you for shooting yourself in the foot, and providing China the opportunity to pick up the pieces.

They probably tried maximizing their gains during a transition of presidencies (with Trump as the Republican nominee), and at the same time increase value of the bargaining chip, they could use again with a new administration.

Cheers,
Bart

That is not an excuse to suddenly start employing your nefarious actions again, at a much higher speed, which you agreed to stop.  This also clearly shows that you can not take China at their word and greater actions are needed in response this time around. 

The point here is that China had their chance to stop hacking foreign companies with minimal punishment.  They ultimately choose to ignore it.  Since these minimal punishments did not get them to act properly, higher levels of actions are now called for. 

You dont keep on giving repeat offenders slaps on the wrist; eventually you have to fine them or send them to jail if need be. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 24, 2019, 10:49:25 am
When I grew up, nationality slurs were different then racism which were different than religious slurs.   It's only recently that people lump these  together.  Slurs against Jews or Catholics for example were religious slurs.  Slurs against Italians or Jews or Irish would be nationality slurs.  Slurs against people of color were racial slurs.  Today, all three areas are called racial slurs.  It's all the same because politicians find it convenient to lump them together to divide people.  Like I said, none of it is right.  We should get past these things.

Alan, I do get what you're saying here.  I grew up (DC area) in a very integrated area, and my best friends were a mix of average white WASPy kids (me), three Vietnamese guys, a Filipino, a reform Jew and a another guy who was reform-ish conservative, and who over time went full Orthodox (I just went to his wedding in Brooklyn a few years ago - it was fascinating.  We threw him around on a chair...)

All of us teased each other with stupid stuff like how the Jewish guys always wanted to go to a cheap place for dinner, the Asian guys wanted to get Pho, etc. etc.  Stupid stuff, but the kind of things close friends can tease each other about, acknowledging stereotypes with a wink and an inherent acknowledgement that these things exist, but that they don't ACTUALLY define us.  Today, my wife and I will tease each other about who's whiter (It's her - I promise), and our son, who's black, loves to jump in and give us a hard time about it as well (which actually sometimes leads to some great conversations and has provided me with a lot of personal growth) 

But that's not appropriate for me to say to the general public, because they don't know my background or that these things come from a place of familiarity, and maybe that's a problem - maybe everyone shouldn't be so sensitive.  But regardless, were I to use that kind of language with my opponents of color on a national stage, can't you see how this these things - the stereotypes, the assumed default position of my whiteness as the standard to which everything else is measured, and the standard of what constitutes "real" Americas - plays on racial assumptions and tensions, even if I'm not going full on Klan and outright saying that brown people are inferior? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 10:49:56 am
That is not an excuse to suddenly start employing your nefarious actions again, at a much higher speed, which you agreed to stop.  This also clearly shows that you can not take China at their word and greater actions are needed in response this time around. 

The point here is that China had their chance to stop hacking foreign companies with minimal punishment.  They ultimately choose to ignore it.  Since these minimal punishments did not get them to act properly, higher levels of actions are now called for. 

You dont keep on giving repeat offenders slaps on the wrist; eventually you have to fine them or send them to jail if need be. 

It's pretty amazing to think that a modern society trying to get ahead is based on stealing other people's intellectual property; forcing companies to turn over their design drawings and formulas.  Apparently, they can't compete legitimately without hacking copyrighted and patented material other people have spent their lives creating.  It's like someone breaking into your house at night while you're sleeping and stealing your watch.  Don't they have any scruples? 

Maybe they're still pissed off that the Italians stole their design for spaghetti and trying to get even.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 24, 2019, 10:50:32 am
... a Trade war that's currently already costing average Americans $600 or more a year....

It is costing Americans precisely zero. What is paid in tariffs ends up in the budget, a zero-sum result.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 24, 2019, 10:51:32 am
Are you folks actually trying to put forward the argument that when someone says "Go back to where you came from" to people with dark skin, that it isn't racist?  Is this some kind of joke?

And since when does patriotism mean you can't criticize your own country's policies?

This is not a serious conversation. This is what I'd expect in a school yard or a bar.

I have to agree with Alan here.  I do not consider it to be a racial slur.  At worse it is more of statement that deals more with nationality, although I will contest, it does not make much sense since they are both Americans.  I am also not condoning it.  At best though, it was just an inner city colloquialism he used to illustrate more of a disliking of them that had nothing to do with their race. 

I too grow up in an inner city and used this figure of speech often.  We did not use it in anti-nationality way or when questioning patriotism; that is way too abstract for kids to understand.  It was more of when we dealt with kids from other neighborhoods who got on our nerves. 

"Oh, you play suicide ball with a tennis ball, not a baseball?  Then why don't you go back where you came from then if you don't like how we play."  By the way, playing Sui with a baseball is probably not the best idea.   ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 24, 2019, 10:53:11 am


The point here is that China had their chance to stop hacking foreign companies with minimal punishment.  They ultimately choose to ignore it.  Since these minimal punishments did not get them to act properly, higher levels of actions are now called for. 



Actually the point here was that someone asserted that Obama got played, and that Trump was fixing the problem.  That's unequivocally not true on the former, and the latter is still indeterminate, with etc exception that the "fix" in progress is going hard to all involved.  It's kinda like chemo - you just hope you kill the disease before you poison the body, and the long term effects are just something you know you'll have to address later.   That's not ideal.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 24, 2019, 10:55:38 am
It is costing Americans precisely zero. What is paid in tariffs ends up in the budget, a zero-sum result.

I'm pleased to know that you now believe that taxes cost Americans precisely zero, since they all go back to the collective US Government.  ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 24, 2019, 10:57:02 am
Are you folks actually trying to put forward the argument that when someone says "Go back to where you came from" to people with dark skin, that it isn't racist?  Is this some kind of joke?..l

Yes, but the joke is on you. It is not said to “people” but to a limited, specific group of individuals for specific reasons, i.e., for what they specifically said. Otherwise, what you posit means that no one can criticize anyone of a specific minority without being accused of racism (or sexism, or... pick your latest lefties’ flavor of the day)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 24, 2019, 11:00:18 am
That is not an excuse to suddenly start employing your nefarious actions again, at a much higher speed, which you agreed to stop.  This also clearly shows that you can not take China at their word and greater actions are needed in response this time around. 

The point here is that China had their chance to stop hacking foreign companies with minimal punishment.  They ultimately choose to ignore it.  Since these minimal punishments did not get them to act properly, higher levels of actions are now called for. 

You dont keep on giving repeat offenders slaps on the wrist; eventually you have to fine them or send them to jail if need be.

While I agree on taking sensible actions against intellectual property theft, I do not agree that a trade war is the best way of doing it. In fact, what motivated Trump to start raising import duties was that there was a trade deficit, which is something completely different than protecting local production against unfair competition.

The USA simply (over-)consumes goods made in China, that's what causes the trade deficit. Americans do not want to work at the wages and hours that the Chinese are willing to do, and I do not blame them. But that does mean that those Chinese produced goods need to be imported. If the USA doesn't make goods that the Chinese want to buy in return, then a trade deficit between those nations is just a fact of life.

The underlying problem, the gorilla-in-the-room is that the US overconsumes, and it overspends its available budget. Blaming those outside the room is merely a distraction.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 11:01:12 am
Alan, I do get what you're saying here.  I grew up (DC area) in a very integrated area, and my best friends were a mix of average white WASPy kids (me), three Vietnamese guys, a Filipino, a reform Jew and a another guy who was reform-ish conservative, and who over time went full Orthodox (I just went to his wedding in Brooklyn a few years ago - it was fascinating.  We threw him around on a chair...)

All of us teased each other with stupid stuff like how the Jewish guys always wanted to go to a cheap place for dinner, the Asian guys wanted to get Pho, etc. etc.  Stupid stuff, but the kind of things close friends can tease each other about, acknowledging stereotypes with a wink and an inherent acknowledgement that these things exist, but that they don't ACTUALLY define us.  Today, my wife and I will tease each other about who's whiter (It's her - I promise), and our son, who's black, loves to jump in and give us a hard time about it as well (which actually sometimes leads to some great conversations and has provided me with a lot of personal growth) 

But that's not appropriate for me to say to the general public, because they don't know my background or that these things come from a place of familiarity, and maybe that's a problem - maybe everyone shouldn't be so sensitive.  But regardless, were I to use that kind of language with my opponents of color on a national stage, can't you see how this these things - the stereotypes, the assumed default position of my whiteness as the standard to which everything else is measured, and the standard of what constitutes "real" Americas - plays on racial assumptions and tensions, even if I'm not going full on Klan and outright saying that brown people are inferior? 
Yeah I agree. Slurs are easy to use just like cursing is.  It's a way of unloading.  Sure it's easy to playfully use it among friends.  But you're right, it shouldn't be used in public and would be best if not used privately as well.  We should try to be courteous to people who are different than us.  But when the left or Democrats use the race card for political reasons, it's like a reverse trope, and antagonizes people who feel they are unfairly being accused of stuff they aren't engaging in.  Then they respond and it really becomes racial, or ethnic, or religious, etc.   But like the story about the teens in the mall and your own family shows.  America is getting pst these stereotypes and becoming more one.  If the politicians would stop trying to divide us, we'd all be a lot better off.  Maybe we just have to wait another generation as the remnants of racial divide becomes more of a memory. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 24, 2019, 11:01:14 am
...It may be ok in this forum's context for Slobodan to say things that will incite "lefties" to apoplexy...

I do!?

Mission accomplished  ;D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 24, 2019, 11:01:46 am
Actually the point here was that someone asserted that Obama got played, and that Trump was fixing the problem.  That's unequivocally not true on the former, and the latter is still indeterminate, with etc exception that the "fix" in progress is going hard to all involved.  It's kinda like chemo - you just hope you kill the disease before you poison the body, and the long term effects are just something you know you'll have to address later.   That's not ideal.

I would say he got played, if you look at the overall picture. 

China stopped the hacking for a year, waited just long enough for it to blow over, and then, when Obama became a lame duck, started it up full force again.  I am not going to say Trump has fixed the problem, yet, but to suggest Obama got anything done is foolish.  What Obama did was not a solution, he just merely held it off for a bit. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 24, 2019, 11:03:15 am
Otherwise, what you posit means that no one can criticize anyone of a specific minority without being accused of racism (or sexism, or... pick your latest lefties’ flavor of the day)

Umm. no, it doesn't. It means you can't abuse people on specific grounds, such as their race (however defined).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 24, 2019, 11:06:22 am
While I agree on taking sensible actions against intellectual property theft, I do not agree that a trade war is the best way of doing it. In fact, what motivated Trump to start raising import duties was that there was a trade deficit, which is something completely different than protecting local production against unfair competition.

The USA simply (over-)consumes goods made in China, that's what causes the trade deficit. Americans do not want to work at the wages and hours that the Chinese are willing to do, and I do not blame them. But that does mean that those Chinese produced goods need to be imported. If the USA doesn't make goods that the Chinese want to buy in return, then a trade deficit between those nations is just a fact of life.

The underlying problem, the gorilla-in-the-room is that the US overconsumes, and it overspends its available budget. Blaming those outside the room is merely a distraction.

Cheers,
Bart

Alright, I will agree that my fellow Americans over consume and consumerism in this country is a major problem.  I also dont understand why people buy stuff that was made in China; it rarely last that long.  I'd rather pay a little more for something that will last 10 times longer. 

For instance my chef knife is a hand forged Japanese knife that cost $425 when I bought it 18 years ago.  It's about 3/16 of inch thinner now, from sharpening it every 3 or 4 months, but I think I'll still get another 18 years out of it at least. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 24, 2019, 11:06:52 am
Yes, but the joke is on you. It is not said to “people” but to a limited, specific group of individuals for specific reasons, i.e., for what they specifically said. Otherwise, what you posit means that no one can criticize anyone of a specific minority without being accused of racism (or sexism, or... pick your latest lefties’ flavor of the day)

I've already acknowledged that there's an element of this out there, but the other side of this is NOT, "..and therefore every attack on a person of color or a women has NO basis in racism or sexism."

If you say Hillary Clinton is corrupt, it's not necessarily rooted in sexism.  If you saw she's a corrupt old nag, and ugly as sin to boot, THEN there's a good case to be made that by concentrating on appearance - a commodity that men have traditionally judged as valuable in women - you're firmly in sexist territory.

Likewise, if you tell Obama to go back to Hawaii, you're probably not being racist.  If you tell Obama to go back to Africa, well, you're probably being racist.   And if you actually have no idea whether Obama is from Hawaii or Africa, and tell him to go back to the country he came from, assuming it can't be the USA, you might be racist AND stupid, or just stupid.   This isn't hard stuff.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 24, 2019, 11:07:58 am
I also dont understand why people buy stuff that was made in China; it rarely last that long. 

Like an iPhone, you mean?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 24, 2019, 11:09:09 am
I have to agree with Alan here.  I do not consider it to be a racial slur.  At worse it is more of statement that deals more with nationality, although I will contest, it does not make much sense since they are both Americans.  At best though, it was just an inner city colloquialism he used to illustrate more of a disliking of them that had nothing to do with their race. 
What about using the term 'sh*thole countries?'

Quote
I too grow up in an inner city and used this figure of speech often.  We did not use it in anti-nationality way or when questioning patriotism; that is way too abstract for kids to understand.  It was more of when we dealt with kids from other neighborhoods who got on our nerves. 

"Oh, you play suicide ball with a tennis ball, not a baseball?  Then why don't you go back where you came from then if you don't like how we play."  By the way, playing Sui with a baseball is probably not the best idea.   ;)
I suspect that we all used such language when were were young and impulsive.  I suspect that most of us outgrew this and do not use such language in public.  The President is 'supposed' to be an example for all of us (it would be interesting to know whether anyone disagrees with that).  Such language as this and much of what the President says in Tweets is not only unbecoming but can be dangerous as well.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 11:09:46 am
Actually the point here was that someone asserted that Obama got played, and that Trump was fixing the problem.  That's unequivocally not true on the former, and the latter is still indeterminate, with etc exception that the "fix" in progress is going hard to all involved.  It's kinda like chemo - you just hope you kill the disease before you poison the body, and the long term effects are just something you know you'll have to address later.   That's not ideal.
In war, there are casualties.  It's unfortunate.  But how do you stop them from stealing your stuff?  When a crook steals something, it costs a lot of money to pay policemen and jailers to catch them and keep them in jail when they are caught.  We don't say, well, let them just steal, it's cheaper. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 24, 2019, 11:13:02 am
I would say he got played, if you look at the overall picture. 

China stopped the hacking for a year, waited just long enough for it to blow over, and then, when Obama became a lame duck, started it up full force again.  I am not going to say Trump has fixed the problem, yet, but to suggest Obama got anything done is foolish.  What Obama did was not a solution, he just merely held it off for a bit.

So we acknowledge that Bush got nothing done, Clinton got nothing done, Obama secured a temporary 90% reduction in one aspect of IP theft and when he lost power through the normal cycle of American politics it went back to the previous levels, and it's foolish to suggest he got anything done?  That's nonsensical.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 11:13:06 am
I'm pleased to know that you now believe that taxes cost Americans precisely zero, since they all go back to the collective US Government.  ;)
Slobo, I think Jim's got you there. :)

On the other hand, in order to keep their products competitive even though tariffs were added, the Chinese are devaluing their currency and lowering the prices they charge for their products.  Both make their products cheaper for us to buy.  It's nice the Chinese work so hard for us to live better. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 24, 2019, 11:14:09 am
No, James, just no. You et al keep generalizing, as if it was said to the whole group of people solely based on their skin color (btw, three of the squad are Caucasian), instead of the specific group for the specific things they advocate.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 24, 2019, 11:14:16 am
I would say he got played, if you look at the overall picture. 

China stopped the hacking for a year, waited just long enough for it to blow over, and then, when Obama became a lame duck, started it up full force again.  I am not going to say Trump has fixed the problem, yet, but to suggest Obama got anything done is foolish.  What Obama did was not a solution, he just merely held it off for a bit.
to think that the President can stop malicious hacking is a joke of the highest order.  Hacking goes on all the time by nation states (including the US which has launched malware on other nation states) and individuals.  There was a story about 20 or so cities whose computer systems got infected by ransomware.  Hostpital systems have been shut down, etc. etc.  What do you expect the President to do about all this??
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 24, 2019, 11:14:42 am
What about using the term 'sh*thole countries?'

I suspect that we all used such language when we were young and impulsive.  I suspect that most of us outgrew this and do not use such language in public.  The President is 'supposed' to be an example for all of us (it would be interesting to know whether anyone disagrees with that).  Such language as this and much of what the President says in Tweets is not only unbecoming but can be dangerous as well.

It's worse, the language is deliberate, to stoke divides between his electoral base and the rest. It also is easy for him, because he seems to believe what he says (and has a long history of saying). It's racially motivated opportunism.

The question is, how is the American constitution going to protect the USA against itself?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 11:14:58 am
While I agree on taking sensible actions against intellectual property theft, I do not agree that a trade war is the best way of doing it. In fact, what motivated Trump to start raising import duties was that there was a trade deficit, which is something completely different than protecting local production against unfair competition.

The USA simply (over-)consumes goods made in China, that's what causes the trade deficit. Americans do not want to work at the wages and hours that the Chinese are willing to do, and I do not blame them. But that does mean that those Chinese produced goods need to be imported. If the USA doesn't make goods that the Chinese want to buy in return, then a trade deficit between those nations is just a fact of life.

The underlying problem, the gorilla-in-the-room is that the US overconsumes, and it overspends its available budget. Blaming those outside the room is merely a distraction.

Cheers,
Bart
How would you stop the CHinese from stealing?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 24, 2019, 11:17:22 am
How would you stop the CHinese from stealing?

How did Obama reducing hacking by 90%?  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 24, 2019, 11:17:26 am
Like an iPhone, you mean?

Well, you got me there. 

But then again, I usually get 4 years out of my iPhones and never buy the newest generation. 

My point was that I'd rather buy something that is quality made then purchasing a lower quality product repeatably, ultimately spending more money over time.  Although there are exceptions, much of what comes out of China is not that great. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 11:19:25 am
I've already acknowledged that there's an element of this out there, but the other side of this is NOT, "..and therefore every attack on a person of color or a women has NO basis in racism or sexism."

If you say Hillary Clinton is corrupt, it's not necessarily rooted in sexism.  If you saw she's a corrupt old nag, and ugly as sin to boot, THEN there's a good case to be made that by concentrating on appearance - a commodity that men have traditionally judged as valuable in women - you're firmly in sexist territory.

Likewise, if you tell Obama to go back to Hawaii, you're probably not being racist.  If you tell Obama to go back to Africa, well, you're probably being racist.   And if you actually have no idea whether Obama is from Hawaii or Africa, and tell him to go back to the country he came from, assuming it can't be the USA, you might be racist AND stupid, or just stupid.   This isn't hard stuff.
But she is an old nag and ugly.  :) Why is that sexist?  If it's OK to call Trump an orange clown, and my look at his orange yellow hair, and not consider that sexist, I think it's OK to comment on a woman's ugliness.  Let's be fair about it. :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 11:22:34 am
What about using the term 'sh*thole countries?'
I suspect that we all used such language when were were young and impulsive.  I suspect that most of us outgrew this and do not use such language in public.  The President is 'supposed' to be an example for all of us (it would be interesting to know whether anyone disagrees with that).  Such language as this and much of what the President says in Tweets is not only unbecoming but can be dangerous as well.

I agree that presidents should be more careful what they said.  But Obama played the race card for political reasons and the left said nothing about it.   It stirred up more racial animosity that wasn't necessary.  It's all wrong. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 24, 2019, 11:22:44 am
I'm pleased to know that you now believe that taxes cost Americans precisely zero, since they all go back to the collective US Government.  ;)

If you define “Americans” as consumers+government, yes. Mine “zero” comment stays, and implies nothing about how is that zero achieved. Plus 10 against minus 10 is still zero, just as plus 70 vs. minus 70 is. The debate about tax burden is about 10 vs. 70, not whether the cost is zero or not.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 24, 2019, 11:25:16 am
But she is an old nag and ugly.  :) Why is that sexist?  If it's OK to call Trump an orange clown, and my look at his orange yellow hair, and not consider that sexist, I think it's OK to comment on a woman's ugliness.  Let's be fair about it. :)

For the same reason it's racist to comment on a Jew's big nose - even if he HAS got a big nose.  It's what you choose to comment on that's the point.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 24, 2019, 11:25:39 am
What about using the term 'sh*thole countries?'..l

A beautifully descriptive, matter-of-fact term. Were they not, there would be no refugees.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 11:25:57 am
How did Obama reducing hacking by 90%?  :)
The Chinese promised to stop again just weeks ago in negotiation with the Trump administration.  We thought there was a deal.  Then they reneged and cancelled all things they agreed to in negotiations.  They're up to their usual stalling practices trying to wait out TRump.  It's a game they play.  Trump knows that game and won;t play along.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 11:27:23 am
to think that the President can stop malicious hacking is a joke of the highest order.  Hacking goes on all the time by nation states (including the US which has launched malware on other nation states) and individuals.  There was a story about 20 or so cities whose computer systems got infected by ransomware.  Hostpital systems have been shut down, etc. etc.  What do you expect the President to do about all this??
So we should let them steal our stuff?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 24, 2019, 11:27:38 am
What about using the term 'sh*thole countries?'
I suspect that we all used such language when were were young and impulsive.  I suspect that most of us outgrew this and do not use such language in public.  The President is 'supposed' to be an example for all of us (it would be interesting to know whether anyone disagrees with that).  Such language as this and much of what the President says in Tweets is not only unbecoming but can be dangerous as well.

Although certainly not a good thing to say, I don't consider that racist either.  It was a very rude critique of other countries that, I admit, is below the office of the presidency. 

Most countries, other then the USA, Canada, and a few others, are partly based upon an overall majority ethnicity.  Germany is made up of Germans, Japan is made up of Japanese, etc.  If we were to consider this critique racist just because it was directed towards a country with an overall ethnic majority that the person critiquing does not share, then any critique of any country by anyone who does not share that country's ethnicity would also have to be racist by this argument.  This is of course non-sense. 

Now, as I noted before, I don't feel this was an appropriate way to critique these countries by the president and I do not condone it.  It was certainly rude and makes foreign interactions more difficult. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 24, 2019, 11:28:54 am
For the same reason it's racist to comment on a Jew's big nose - even if he HAS got a big nose.  It's what you choose to comment on that's the point.

Just because for the lefties, everything is racist. I simply refuse to accept you (collectively) as the judge, jury, and executioner, that is, someone who determines the definition, accuses me on the basis of that, and punishes me.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 24, 2019, 11:30:06 am
So we acknowledge that Bush got nothing done, Clinton got nothing done, Obama secured a temporary 90% reduction in one aspect of IP theft and when he lost power through the normal cycle of American politics it went back to the previous levels, and it's foolish to suggest he got anything done?  That's nonsensical.

Okay, he did get something.  But what he did certainly did not solve the issue.  It merely stemmed the tide. 

It's like some repeat offenders on parole.  They act nice up until they are off parole.  Only when they get caught again, the punishment becomes more severe, as it should. 

Talk is cheap.  Eventually you have to do something if the actions dont stop. 

It is beyond apparent that what Obama did had no lasting effects.  Now we can argue what the next level of response should be, but to suggest that we just continue along with what failed in the past, as if it will suddenly work now, is foolish. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 24, 2019, 11:40:12 am
Just because for the lefties, everything is racist. I simply refuse to accept you (collectively) as the judge, jury, and executioner, that is, someone who determines the definition, accuses me on the basis of that, and punishes me.

Nothing to do with "lefties" - that's your personal obsession. That and your hard-on for AOC.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 24, 2019, 11:45:42 am
Nothing to do with "lefties" ...

Of course it has everything to do with lefties. They are the ones who constantly strive to expand the meaning of words, accuse everyone, even within themselves, of racism, etc.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 24, 2019, 11:53:06 am
... I don't feel this was an appropriate way to critique these countries by the president and I do not condone it.  It was certainly rude and makes foreign interactions more difficult. 

As is calling the proposal of the mightiest country in the world "absurd." Which was done publicly. Wasn't the shithole comment made behind closed doors, not publicly, and then leaked to damage Trump?

Calling a spade a spade has its benefits.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 24, 2019, 11:58:34 am
Of course it has everything to do with lefties. They are the ones who constantly strive to expand the meaning of words, accuse everyone, even within themselves, of racism, etc.

If you have followed British politics (and I don't recommend that you should) you will know that the press have been whining about Labour's "institutional racism" for the last 2 years. Not a peep about Conservative racism, even when they elect a man who talks about "picaninnies" as their leader.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 24, 2019, 11:59:26 am
Of course it has everything to do with lefties. They are the ones who constantly strive to expand the meaning of words, accuse everyone, even within themselves, of racism, etc.

Rash generalizations demean your rhetorical reputation.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 24, 2019, 12:02:30 pm
Rash generalizations demean your rhetorical reputation.

I have one?

Positive, I assume, as only such can be demeaned ;)

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 02:19:34 pm
If you have followed British politics (and I don't recommend that you should) you will know that the press have been whining about Labour's "institutional racism" for the last 2 years. Not a peep about Conservative racism, even when they elect a man who talks about "picaninnies" as their leader.
I don't follow British politics; it seems so opaque.  On the other hand, everyone has such an educated English accent.  Are they really bigoted? :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 24, 2019, 02:41:26 pm
For the same reason it's racist to comment on a Jew's big nose - even if he HAS got a big nose.  It's what you choose to comment on that's the point.

My daughter has dual citizenship (US and Serbian). However, she spent only about 2-3 weeks of her life in Serbia, when she was 11. During the visit, she asked me: "Dad, do all Serbs have big noses?" I guess you would say that "racism" runs in the family  ;D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 24, 2019, 03:35:11 pm
Well, you got me there. 

But then again, I usually get 4 years out of my iPhones and never buy the newest generation. 

My point was that I'd rather buy something that is quality made then purchasing a lower quality product repeatably, ultimately spending more money over time.  Although there are exceptions, much of what comes out of China is not that great.
One can say the same things about a lot of things manufactured in the US.  A log of computer and computer component manufacturing moved to China over the past 20 years.  IBM sold their PC business to Lenovo who manufacture high quality notebooks, printers and other stuff.  One may not like the Chinese economic system but most of the electronics are excellent products.  I always try to find US manufacturers when making purchase decisions and have owned some US manufacturing company stock from time to time.  It's now very difficult to find US products that meet my quality standards. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 24, 2019, 03:56:10 pm
As is calling the proposal of the mightiest country in the world "absurd." Which was done publicly. Wasn't the shithole comment made behind closed doors, not publicly, and then leaked to damage Trump?

Calling a spade a spade has its benefits.

Although true, I cant use this as an excuse.  If I did, I would have to excuse HRC use of "deplorables," which was also used in private. 

Like I said, I do not consider it a racist remark, although it was certainly below the office of the presidency. 

And to call the Greenland idea absurd was non-sense too.  Buying Greenland would be a great accomplishment; Chris Cillizza at CNN had a great write up on why this would be the case.  However, the Danes, rightly so, dont want to sell it for the same reasons we want to acquire it. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 04:00:15 pm
One can say the same things about a lot of things manufactured in the US.  A log of computer and computer component manufacturing moved to China over the past 20 years.  IBM sold their PC business to Lenovo who manufacture high quality notebooks, printers and other stuff.  One may not like the Chinese economic system but most of the electronics are excellent products.  I always try to find US manufacturers when making purchase decisions and have owned some US manufacturing company stock from time to time.  It's now very difficult to find US products that meet my quality standards. 
They need good electronics so they can crack into our systems and steal our secrets.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 24, 2019, 04:01:22 pm
One can say the same things about a lot of things manufactured in the US.  A log of computer and computer component manufacturing moved to China over the past 20 years.  IBM sold their PC business to Lenovo who manufacture high quality notebooks, printers and other stuff.  One may not like the Chinese economic system but most of the electronics are excellent products.  I always try to find US manufacturers when making purchase decisions and have owned some US manufacturing company stock from time to time.  It's now very difficult to find US products that meet my quality standards.

Alright alright alright, many current products are of below standards as far as I am concerned. 

To be honest, I don't like buying things.  So I tend to spend more the first time around so I don't ever have to buy it again.  I think consumerism is over rated, and my wife and I both hate having stuff.  I think too many people buy too many things for a shallow reason of getting a slight high over the purchase.  Of course to feed this, you need cheap goods, and China does a pretty job at making very cheap goods.  But yes, their are plenty of companies in other countries that make cheap goods a well. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 04:03:55 pm
Alright alright alright, many current products are of below standards as far as I am concerned. 

To be honest, I don't like buying things.  So I tend to spend more the first time around so I don't ever have to buy it again.  I think consumerism is over rated, and my wife and I both hate having stuff.  I think too many people buy too many things for a shallow reason of getting a slight high over the purchase.  Of course to feed this, you need cheap goods, and China does a pretty job at making very cheap goods.  But yes, their are plenty of companies in other countries that make cheap goods a well. 

I've been getting GAS lately and aching to buy something I don't need.  You get the itch hanging around these forums. :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 24, 2019, 05:24:27 pm
Re middle class tax cuts, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458676-trump-says-gop-will-approve-major-middle-income-tax-cut-if (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458676-trump-says-gop-will-approve-major-middle-income-tax-cut-if).

If he thinks that these tax cuts are a good idea, shouldn't he implement them regardless of which party wins the house(s)?  Won't voters get their backs up at being bullied in this way?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 24, 2019, 05:26:59 pm
Why does Trump care if France implements new taxes, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/458665-eu-says-it-will-respond-in-kind-if-us-slaps-tariffs-on-france (https://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/458665-eu-says-it-will-respond-in-kind-if-us-slaps-tariffs-on-france)?

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 24, 2019, 06:12:31 pm
My daughter has dual citizenship (US and Serbian). However, she spent only about 2-3 weeks of her life in Serbia, when she was 11. During the visit, she asked me: "Dad, do all Serbs have big noses?" I guess you would say that "racism" runs in the family  ;D

Do I really have to explain why "big-nosed Jew" is not the same as "big-nosed Serb"?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 24, 2019, 06:14:35 pm
If you have followed British politics (and I don't recommend that you should) you will know that the press have been whining about Labour's "institutional racism" for the last 2 years. Not a peep about Conservative racism, even when they elect a man who talks about "picaninnies" as their leader.

The Labour party's institutional antisemitism, and the quite extraordinary bad luck of its leader in finding himself repeatedly associated with, and supporting, overt antisemites while never actually realising that's what he is doing, are beyond dispute.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 24, 2019, 06:19:40 pm
The Labour party's institutional antisemitism, and the quite extraordinary bad luck of its leader in finding himself repeatedly associated with, and supporting, overt antisemites while never actually realising that's what he is doing, are beyond dispute.

Jeremy

Simply not true.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 24, 2019, 07:47:38 pm
Do I really have to explain why "big-nosed Jew" is not the same as "big-nosed Serb"?

No, because I will never accept your made-up definition. To me, they are the same and should be the same. Are you saying Jews are "chosen people," therefore not the same as other people? Or are you saying they are superior and thus should be exempt from stereotyping and jokes? Now, that is racist.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 24, 2019, 08:17:53 pm
Before forums are closed for the next 24 hours (to cool off hot heads and overwhelmed servers), an important notification:

Trump was right, this is why we need Space Force:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nasa-astronaut-identity-theft-bank-account-divorce-wife (a real-life drama queens, literally)  ;D

"NASA astronaut accused of stealing identity, accessing bank account of estranged wife while in space"
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 08:42:45 pm
Re middle class tax cuts, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458676-trump-says-gop-will-approve-major-middle-income-tax-cut-if (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458676-trump-says-gop-will-approve-major-middle-income-tax-cut-if).

If he thinks that these tax cuts are a good idea, shouldn't he implement them regardless of which party wins the house(s)?  Won't voters get their backs up at being bullied in this way?
He needs the Republicans to win the House to pass new tax legislation.  If the Democrats continue to hold it, they won;t vote a new tax law. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 08:45:05 pm
Why does Trump care if France implements new taxes, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/458665-eu-says-it-will-respond-in-kind-if-us-slaps-tariffs-on-france (https://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/458665-eu-says-it-will-respond-in-kind-if-us-slaps-tariffs-on-france)?


France wants to place a 3% tax on American tech companies.  That will make our firms less competitive and reduce their profits.  So Trump tells France they shouldn't do it or he will retaliate by taxing French wines exported to America. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 08:50:30 pm
No, because I will never accept your made-up definition. To me, they are the same and should be the same. Are you saying Jews are "chosen people," therefore not the same as other people? Or are you saying they are superior and thus should be exempt from stereotyping and jokes? Now, that is racist.
Big nose Jew is considered a slur.  I don't what big nose Serb is considered as I never heard it before now. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 24, 2019, 08:53:32 pm
Big nose Jew is considered a slur.  I don't what big nose Serb is considered as I never heard it before now. 

Big nose is a big nose. I don’t care if Jew or anyone else. There are plenty of nations in the Middle East with similar facial features.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 24, 2019, 09:14:04 pm
Big nose is a big nose. I don’t care if Jew or anyone else. There are plenty of nations in the Middle East with similar facial features.
The expression regarding Jews was a stereotype that was a slur of Jews in particular even though others have similar facial features. There are other physical features for other nationalities, races, and ethnic groups that similarly would be considered slurs to them.  I'll pass on giving examples as it's not polite to mention them here.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 24, 2019, 09:36:54 pm
Alan, I am an equal opportunity offender.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 26, 2019, 11:13:40 am
France wants to place a 3% tax on American tech companies.  That will make our firms less competitive and reduce their profits.  So Trump tells France they shouldn't do it or he will retaliate by taxing French wines exported to America.

Not quite - he wants to tax companies in the place (France) they are making sales. If they are American or not is irrelevant.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 26, 2019, 12:38:07 pm
Not quite - he wants to tax companies in the place (France) they are making sales. If they are American or not is irrelevant.
It is relevant.   They're specifically picking on American companies profits to tax extra Who cares where the sales come from? So America will do the same to their companies.  Why is Macron being a bully.?  😉
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 26, 2019, 12:53:37 pm
Simply not true.

Tell that to Luciana Berger MP, hounded out of the party by antisemites while pregnant.

Tell it to Dame Louise Ellman MP or Dame Margaret Hodge MP.

Tell it to Tom Watson MP, deputy leader of the party.

Tell it to Lord Triesman, Lord Darzi and Lord Turnberg.

The only part of my comment that even might be "simply not true" is the suggestion that the leader finds himself in association with unsavoury antisemites by bad luck.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 26, 2019, 01:17:16 pm
Tell that to Luciana Berger MP, hounded out of the party by antisemites while pregnant.

Tell it to Dame Louise Ellman MP or Dame Margaret Hodge MP.

Tell it to Tom Watson MP, deputy leader of the party.

Tell it to Lord Triesman, Lord Darzi and Lord Turnberg.

The only part of my comment that even might be "simply not true" is the suggestion that the leader finds himself in association with unsavoury antisemites by bad luck.

Jeremy

More rubbish. None of those anecdotes - even if they were true - add up to  "institutional anti-semitism".  The most surprising is Lord Darzi, who is Armenian, and yet Corbyn was the author of the Commons motion which recognised the Armenian genocide.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 26, 2019, 01:25:47 pm
It is relevant.   They're specifically picking on American companies profits to tax extra Who cares where the sales come from? So America will do the same to their companies.  Why is Macron being a bully.?  😉


Macron a bully because he wants to impose sales taxes in his own country? You mean the way Trump imposes import duties?

And how is he specifically targeting American companies?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 26, 2019, 01:28:57 pm
Robert, you are using two much online real estate for two sentences. Save the planet, please.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 26, 2019, 01:50:39 pm
Robert, you are using two much online real estate for two sentences. Save the planet, please.

Oops, that was careless, fixed now.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 26, 2019, 02:54:30 pm
More rubbish. None of those anecdotes - even if they were true - add up to  "institutional anti-semitism".  The most surprising is Lord Darzi, who is Armenian, and yet Corbyn was the author of the Commons motion which recognised the Armenian genocide.

Your comment reveals much. Lord Darzi is British.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 26, 2019, 03:01:43 pm
Your comment reveals much. Lord Darzi is British.

Jeremy

Still doing that "mind reading" correspondence course, then?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 26, 2019, 03:29:56 pm
Choice quote of the day from President Trump, "“I also say that, by the way, with respect to North Korea, Kim Jong Un — who I’ve gotten to know extremely well; the first lady had gotten to know Kim Jong Un, and I think she’d agree with me — he is a man with a country that has tremendous potential,”

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham issued a statement soon after noting that the first lady has never met Kim.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on August 26, 2019, 04:39:40 pm
I conclude this section is really not worth trying to stick with anymore.

It seems to rotate around the pronouncements of the most unstable personality in the political world. In essence, one side laps it all up, whereas the other side wastes its time trying to point out the flaws. How can anything positive come out of such conversations? It can't.

:-(
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 26, 2019, 05:09:57 pm

Macron a bully because he wants to impose sales taxes in his own country? You mean the way Trump imposes import duties?

And how is he specifically targeting American companies?
Well, if you can call Trump a bully for imposing tariffs in our own country, then I can call Macron a bully for imposing taxes in his country.  I was being ironic.  I guess it didn't get through.  :) 

In any case, since American companies are the largest tech companies there, most of the tax would be paid by American companies.  That's how they were targeted.  In any case,  Trump and Macron apparently worked out a deal about the tax.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/26/us-and-france-reach-a-compromise-on-frances-tax-on-tech-giants/

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 26, 2019, 05:39:54 pm
Get ready for the purge and pogrom:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-republican-party-2020-burn-down

Quote
Rubin appeared on MSNBC's "AM Joy" Sunday and said that not only does Trump have to lose in 2020, but there must be a purging of "survivors" who still support the commander-in-chief.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 26, 2019, 06:39:09 pm
Get ready for the purge and pogrom:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-republican-party-2020-burn-down

What do you expect from MSNBC, The Washington Post and the rest of the liberal press. They talk "kindness" and "care" but would cut your throat out in a New York minute to get their way.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 26, 2019, 06:47:29 pm
What do you expect from MSNBC, The Washington Post and the rest of the liberal press. They talk "kindness" and "care" but would cut your throat out in a New York minute to get their way.

Jen Rubin is no liberal, even iff she is kind of a lightweight.  She just knows Trump is a disaster.  You should check out some of Tom Nichols stuff sometime.  Also not liberal.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 26, 2019, 06:57:37 pm
Jen Rubin is no liberal...

And that justifies the talk of purge how? What exactly is the point of your defense?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 26, 2019, 06:57:52 pm
Jen Rubin is no liberal, even iff she is kind of a lightweight.  She just knows Trump is a disaster.  You should check out some of Tom Nichols stuff sometime.  Also not liberal.
I've watched Rubin a few times.  Her vile and bile against Trump are over the top.  Her anti Trump and liberal leanings are the reasons she's continuously on liberal cable stations.  She's their champion.  Whatever was before is no longer true about her. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 26, 2019, 07:06:04 pm
I think part of the problem is that since Trump and the explosion of cable news, personalities have figured out they can make a lot of money being a "talking head" on TV.  They were unknown before.  Now they are famous,  and rich.  So they sell their souls for the almighty dollar and talk the company line of the station who's paying them.  The more hysterical their comments, the more famous and rich they become.  It also bleeds over to their regular job - The Washington Post in her case.   This bleeding affects the skepticism of readers of the paper.  The NY Times has become so concerned about this, they've asked their columnists to restrain themselves when they appear on cable news and don;t appear too often.

Maybe this post belongs in the "media skeptic" thread.  It fits there better. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 26, 2019, 10:56:34 pm
... Trump is a disaster...

Yes, muy bad hombre!

https://www.foxnews.com/media/duke-professor-compares-destructive-trump-to-hitler-stalin-and-mao-during-cnn-interview

Quote
Trump is as destructive a person in this century, as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were in the last century," he said. "He may be responsible for many more million deaths than they were.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 27, 2019, 03:21:16 am
Still doing that "mind reading" correspondence course, then?

No need, old chap. Your posts here make your mind an open book.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on August 27, 2019, 07:12:11 am
No need, old chap. Your posts here make your mind an open book.

Jeremy

Delusions of adequacy again.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 27, 2019, 07:25:27 am
Jen Rubin is no liberal, even iff she is kind of a lightweight.  She just knows Trump is a disaster.  You should check out some of Tom Nichols stuff sometime.  Also not liberal.
Also Post writers, Max Boot and Michael Gerson who have strong conservative bona fides and worked for prominent Republican politicians in the past.  Even the 'news' reporters on FOX (not the evening show people who are just opinion presenters as are the Fox & Friend group in the morning) voice criticism of Trump these days (of course they are on during the mid-morning and not prime time).
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 27, 2019, 08:08:34 am
Okay, Alan. Name me a president who didn't attract criticism. Here are two things about Trump that are going to give him another four years in office if he wants them -- and who knows, he may not: (1) His policies have recovered the economy from the doldrums Obama's policies put it into, and (2) the people running against the man are all obviously insane. The main reason he won his last election was because Hillary was such a loser. What goes around, comes around, and the Dem lineup is coming around again.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 27, 2019, 08:38:29 am
Also Post writers, Max Boot and Michael Gerson who have strong conservative bona fides and worked for prominent Republican politicians in the past.  Even the 'news' reporters on FOX (not the evening show people who are just opinion presenters as are the Fox & Friend group in the morning) voice criticism of Trump these days (of course they are on during the mid-morning and not prime time).
Traditional Republican supporters like the two you mentioned hate Trump, always have. They supported traditional Republican candidates like Bush. So the fact that they are against Trump now means absolutely nothing. Also Trump is not a conservative.  He spends like a drunken Democrat.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 27, 2019, 08:42:59 am
Traditional Republican supporters like the two you mentioned hate Trump, always have. They supported traditional Republican candidates like Bush. So the fact that they are against Trump now means absolutely nothing. Also Trump is not a conservative.  He spends like a drunken Democrat.

Too bad that Republican administrations spend money like drunken Democrats too.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 27, 2019, 08:58:40 am
Too bad that Republican administrations spend money like drunken Democrats too.

I'll shake on that one, Robert.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 27, 2019, 09:54:32 am
Too bad that Republican administrations spend money like drunken Democrats too.
I agree.  When it comes to buying votes, both parties are just as guilty.  The Tea Party wing of the Republican party has very little power. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 27, 2019, 11:13:30 am
  The Tea Party wing of the Republican party has very little power.
They all voted for the budget busting tax cut bill that has done nothing to improve the economy.  They are just as big hypocrites as everyone else.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 27, 2019, 11:17:28 am
They are just as big hypocrites as everyone else.

Translation: Democrats.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 27, 2019, 11:27:53 am
I'm glad we all agree politicians are all full of it.  All the more reason to keep power away from them.  With socialism comes greedy politicians who all want power at our expense.  In the end, it's the people who suffer.   :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 27, 2019, 11:33:59 am
Now if we can only figure out how to take the vote away from the people who demand all this free stuff. :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 27, 2019, 12:35:36 pm
Also Post writers, Max Boot and Michael Gerson who have strong conservative bona fides and worked for prominent Republican politicians in the past...

How quickly we managed to sidetrack the debate from the open threat of political violence (purge) to ad hominem (their political leanings). Bravo!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: stamper on August 27, 2019, 12:41:08 pm
 I think this thread should be renamed The American Constipation. Jeremy do the decent thing and bring it to speedy end. :'(
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 27, 2019, 12:41:33 pm
Delusions of adequacy again.

If you persist in making posts which consist only of personal insults, whether to me or any other member of the forum, I shall ban you again.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 27, 2019, 12:42:46 pm
I think this thread should be renamed The American Constipation. Jeremy do the decent thing and bring it to speedy end. :'(

I sympathise. You could always not read it. I wish I had that option.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 27, 2019, 12:57:00 pm
How quickly we managed to sidetrack the debate from the open threat of political violence (purge) to ad hominem (their political leanings). Bravo!

My apologies - I didn't think you were seriously concerned about the supposed threat of political purges or violence from Jen Rubin :). If you want to have that discussion, by all means, let's do. It's just that liberals are painted as overreactive to stuff like Charlottesville, where, you know, actual white supremacists killed actual people, so I assumed that you couldn't possibly be worried about a couple of fellow-conservatives talking about how Trumpism is a hazard to the morality of their party.  What gives?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: stamper on August 27, 2019, 01:01:52 pm
I sympathise. You could always not read it. I wish I had that option.

Jeremy

I this is correct then there would be no need for moderation. Everyone should just ignore the trolls?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 27, 2019, 01:17:04 pm
My apologies - I didn't think you were seriously concerned about the supposed threat of political purges or violence from Jen Rubin :). If you want to have that discussion, by all means, let's do. It's just that liberals are painted as overreactive to stuff like Charlottesville, where, you know, actual white supremacists killed actual people, so I assumed that you couldn't possibly be worried about a couple of fellow-conservatives talking about how Trumpism is a hazard to the morality of their party.  What gives?

What gives is the incredible difference in significance and reach. One is a columnist for a well respected (until-recently) national newspaper appearing on a national television and calling for a purge of half of the US voters. The other is an obscure, yet legal gathering by a fringe group that would have stayed obscure and peaceful had it not been amplified by media and attacked by a liberal mob.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 27, 2019, 01:41:42 pm
What gives is the incredible difference in significance and reach. One is a columnist for a well respected (until-recently) national newspaper appearing on a national television and calling for a purge of half of the US voters.

Nah - at worst she's just suggesting that we send the remaining Trumpers out there "back to where they came from" or whatever.  Probably just means vote against 'em, get them out of government, whatever.  That's normal these days, and totally no cause for alarm, or so I've heard. Why would you assume anything worse??
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 27, 2019, 01:51:38 pm
You two Jeremies, either get a room or I'll report you to the moderator for exchange of personal insults ;)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 27, 2019, 02:00:45 pm
You two Jeremies, either get a room or I'll report you to the moderator for exchange of personal insults ;)

 ;D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 27, 2019, 02:23:13 pm
You two Jeremies, either get a room or I'll report you to the moderator for exchange of personal insults ;)

I'll be suspending myself for ten days or so next month. I could serve a ban then, I suppose.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 27, 2019, 02:27:42 pm
I this is correct then there would be no need for moderation. Everyone should just ignore the trolls?

That's not quite what I meant. I read it to police behaviour, which means putting up with the stunningly boring rubbish that so many people write. I don't ignore the trolls.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 27, 2019, 02:47:16 pm
That's not quite what I meant. I read it to police behaviour, which means putting up with the stunningly boring rubbish that so many people write. I don't ignore the trolls.

Jeremy

As a contributor who always posts nothing but scintillating insights, award winning photography, and indisputable but concise truths, I for one, applaud your fortitude :D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 27, 2019, 02:54:47 pm
As another contributor who does all the things James mentioned, I too applaud your fortitude.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 27, 2019, 04:20:48 pm
Okay, Alan. Name me a president who didn't attract criticism. Here are two things about Trump that are going to give him another four years in office if he wants them -- and who knows, he may not: (1) His policies have recovered the economy from the doldrums Obama's policies put it into, and (2) the people running against the man are all obviously insane. The main reason he won his last election was because Hillary was such a loser. What goes around, comes around, and the Dem lineup is coming around again.
I'm really surprised with the lineup of Democrats.  They all seem to be weak and making it easy for Trump.  Plugs Biden is senile; can't remember what he ate for lunch or what state he's in.  Blue-eyed and blonde Indian Princess Pocahontas Warren has to turn-off minorities after she spent her life faking being a minority herself.  Bernie is a Commie who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union.  The Dems might be better off bringing back Email Hillary.  Maybe Obama hasn't come out for anyone yet because he's thinking of running again.  Could he?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on August 27, 2019, 05:14:11 pm
Biden is senile; can't remember what he ate for lunch or what state he's in.

:/

Does he ramble like this incoherent guy?   

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546796/donald-trump-sentence
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 27, 2019, 05:15:21 pm
...  Could he?

I this era of 63 genders, it will be “she” who runs. Mrs. Obama.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 27, 2019, 05:22:29 pm
:/

Does he ramble like this incoherent guy?   

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546796/donald-trump-sentence (https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546796/donald-trump-sentence)
I've always noticed he repeats himself often.  Not a good speaker.  Well. He's not a politician.  Hey, they're both septuagenarians.  Together, they're nearing 150 years old.  Add the two other leaders Warren and Sanders, also two more septuagenarians, and they're nearing 300 years.  Only Methuselah and Dracula are older.   ???
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 28, 2019, 05:36:20 pm
More fake news about Trump this time from liberal anti-Trump MSNBC where Lawrence O'Donnell accused him of getting Russian sign offs on bank loans by oligarchs close to Putin.  O'Donnell had to retract his claim embarrassing himself, the station and NBC.  Well, if Collusion and Obstruction and Bank Loans won't work, they'll continue looking for something, anything.  Something is going on in Russia, and they intend to find it. 
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/28/media/msnbc-lawrence-odonnell-deutsche-bank/index.html
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 29, 2019, 11:07:31 am
"Comey violated FBI policy in handling of memos detailing interactions with Trump, inspector general finds"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/comey-violated-fbi-policy-in-handling-of-memos-detailing-interactions-with-trump-inspector-general-finds/2019/08/29/1bf04af4-ca68-11e9-be05-f76ac4ec618c_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/comey-violated-fbi-policy-in-handling-of-memos-detailing-interactions-with-trump-inspector-general-finds/2019/08/29/1bf04af4-ca68-11e9-be05-f76ac4ec618c_story.html)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 30, 2019, 05:10:09 pm
I'm surprised sedate and personal Canada said this. She ought to join this forum.  Fit right in.  Well, Jeremy would make her stand in the corner.   :)

"Former Canadian prime minister roots for Dorian to hit Trump’s Mar-a-Lago"
https://nypost.com/2019/08/30/former-canadian-prime-minister-roots-for-dorian-to-hit-trumps-mar-a-lago/ (https://nypost.com/2019/08/30/former-canadian-prime-minister-roots-for-dorian-to-hit-trumps-mar-a-lago/)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 30, 2019, 05:59:20 pm
I'm surprised sedate and personal Canada said this. She ought to join this forum.  Fit right in.  Well, Jeremy would make her stand in the corner.   :)

"Former Canadian prime minister roots for Dorian to hit Trump’s Mar-a-Lago"
https://nypost.com/2019/08/30/former-canadian-prime-minister-roots-for-dorian-to-hit-trumps-mar-a-lago/ (https://nypost.com/2019/08/30/former-canadian-prime-minister-roots-for-dorian-to-hit-trumps-mar-a-lago/)

If it did hit his resort, maybe some Puerto Ricans could lend him some paper towels (3-ply of course).

Tee hee.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on August 30, 2019, 06:09:08 pm
I'm surprised sedate and personal Canada said this.

"Former Canadian prime minister roots for Dorian to hit Trump’s Mar-a-Lago"


How dare she!  What effrontery!  What possible complaint could any Canadian have with the policies of the Trump Administration?  And to express such antagonism when we are facing a terrible storm!  Who does she think we are: Puerto Rico?

No doubt she is having second thoughts already, and feeling guilty.  If she wants to make amends for her scandalous conduct, she needs to come down here after the storm has subsided and throw Trump some paper towels.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Chris Kern on August 30, 2019, 06:11:08 pm
maybe some Puerto Ricans could lend him some paper towels . . .

Sigh: you got there ahead of me.  I need to learn to pull the trigger faster.  (We pull the trigger a lot in this neck of the woods.)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 30, 2019, 08:40:30 pm
How dare she!  What effrontery!  What possible complaint could any Canadian have with the policies of the Trump Administration?  And to express such antagonism when we are facing a terrible storm!  Who does she think we are: Puerto Rico?

No doubt she is having second thoughts already, and feeling guilty.  If she wants to make amends for her scandalous conduct, she needs to come down here after the storm has subsided and throw Trump some paper towels.

It's not funny wishing death and destruction on someone and his property.  Maybe next time she should encourage someone to bomb the place?  You know there are going to be a lot of people killed and injured in this storm in Florida.   Her words and your support of them are wrong. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on August 30, 2019, 09:46:37 pm
I'm surprised sedate and personal Canada said this. She ought to join this forum.  Fit right in.  Well, Jeremy would make her stand in the corner.   :)

"Former Canadian prime minister roots for Dorian to hit Trump’s Mar-a-Lago"
https://nypost.com/2019/08/30/former-canadian-prime-minister-roots-for-dorian-to-hit-trumps-mar-a-lago/ (https://nypost.com/2019/08/30/former-canadian-prime-minister-roots-for-dorian-to-hit-trumps-mar-a-lago/)

You gotta love yellow rag journalism...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 30, 2019, 09:55:46 pm
It's not funny wishing death and destruction on someone and his property.  Maybe next time she should encourage someone to bomb the place?  You know there are going to be a lot of people killed and injured in this storm in Florida.   Her words and your support of them are wrong.

And she realized how dumb it was to say that and deleted the tweet. Another golden opportunity for a politician (ex-politician in her case) to have kept their mouth tightly shut. You think they would have learned by now. Must be an occupational hazard to think that because you're in the job then you must have something important to say, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I was kind of amazed that this episode drew any attention at all considering that in the political celebrity circuit, she's C-list at best. I mean, who cares what she says about anything.

I see that the story du jour is that your President may have fired an assistant because of what she said that he had said about his daughter not being slim enough to be in pictures with him. Is this really the kind of issue that POTUS should be in the news about? I'm not sure which is worse, the fact that it may have actually happened the way it was reported or the fact that this kind of lame crap has become normal.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on August 30, 2019, 10:09:41 pm
Nothing new about that type of reporting. It’s being going on since the beginning of newspapers. It is the same thing on social media - just 1000x more “publishers” .
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 30, 2019, 11:24:40 pm
She is a disgrace to Canada. However, what she has in common with Trump, that although they both were very improbable candidates for heads of state, they were elected as such.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on August 30, 2019, 11:33:38 pm
Donald Trump has reportedly contacted Justin Trudeau with an offer to buy Alberta, asking the Prime Minister to name his price for the Canadian province.

Quote
“If Justin declines this amazing offer, I will never speak to him again.”

https://www.burrardstreetjournal.com/trump-asks-trudeau-to-name-his-price-for-alberta/
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 31, 2019, 11:20:48 am
Donald Trump has reportedly contacted Justin Trudeau with an offer to buy Alberta, asking the Prime Minister to name his price for the Canadian province.

https://www.burrardstreetjournal.com/trump-asks-trudeau-to-name-his-price-for-alberta/
Trudeau told Trump he would sell it to him only if Trump would give him a free lifetime pass to his golf courses. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on August 31, 2019, 11:33:59 am
I see that the story du jour is that your President may have fired an assistant because of what she said that he had said about his daughter not being slim enough to be in pictures with him. Is this really the kind of issue that POTUS should be in the news about? I'm not sure which is worse, the fact that it may have actually happened the way it was reported or the fact that this kind of lame crap has become normal.

Robert, from your profile I suspect you're too young to remember what Truman said when a critic criticized his daughter's singing. He sent the critic this letter:

""I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an 'eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay.' It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work. Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below! Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry."

But, of course, Truman was a Democrat.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 31, 2019, 11:37:19 am
Donald Trump has reportedly contacted Justin Trudeau with an offer to buy Alberta, asking the Prime Minister to name his price for the Canadian province.

We would still have to press 1 to speak English, 2 for Spanish, and now 3 for French.

https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2019/08/31/air-canada-french-lawsuit/
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on August 31, 2019, 11:53:53 am
And she realized how dumb it was to say that and deleted the tweet. Another golden opportunity for a politician (ex-politician in her case) to have kept their mouth tightly shut. You think they would have learned by now. Must be an occupational hazard to think that because you're in the job then you must have something important to say, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I was kind of amazed that this episode drew any attention at all considering that in the political celebrity circuit, she's C-list at best. I mean, who cares what she says about anything.

I see that the story du jour is that your President may have fired an assistant because of what she said that he had said about his daughter not being slim enough to be in pictures with him. Is this really the kind of issue that POTUS should be in the news about? I'm not sure which is worse, the fact that it may have actually happened the way it was reported or the fact that this kind of lame crap has become normal.
Anything that could be printed that would demeanize Trump to look bad is fair game for the new political hobby of "getting Trump".   All the sniping might backfire come election time as people have to actually make a choice between Trump and another septuagenarian: one who can't remember yesterday, another a commie and the third a minority wannabe.  But who knows?  People are fooled by this stuff and often believe it. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 31, 2019, 05:49:29 pm
But who knows?  People are fooled by this stuff and often believe it.

Ain't that the truth.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on September 02, 2019, 08:37:34 am
Trump is an idiot:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/01/politics/donald-trump-category-5-hurricane-dorian/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/01/politics/donald-trump-category-5-hurricane-dorian/index.html)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on September 02, 2019, 10:14:23 am
Look who's calling the kettle black.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on September 02, 2019, 10:29:59 am
More evidence:

https://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-dorian-nws-corrects-trump-after-claim-will-hit-alabama-2019-9 (https://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-dorian-nws-corrects-trump-after-claim-will-hit-alabama-2019-9)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 02, 2019, 02:27:58 pm
Fact checking, Democrats style:

Quote
U.S.—Joe Biden recently made a strange claim: that 2+2=5. He was ridiculed for his gaffe after making the statement while speaking at an elementary school. The kids all said, "Hey, dummy! The answer is 4, not 5!"

But the crack squad of fact-checkers at Snopes quickly got to work on Biden's incredulous claim. Their findings? Biden's statement was actually "mostly true."

"Sure, Biden got some key details wrong," said Bob Snopes, founder of Snopes. "But the central concept of what he was saying, that two numbers put together make another number, was completely accurate. Sometimes two and two make four. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. It is not easy to become sane."

The website's 6,000-word defense/fact-check of Biden's claim further pointed out that 80% of the answer was correct, and it's only the one additional number that was a mixture of truth and falsehood.

As the event neared its conclusion, Biden claimed there were five spotlights lighting up the stage even though there were clearly four. One bald man in the back shouted, "There are four lights!" but was dragged from the room for reeducation.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on September 02, 2019, 02:36:10 pm
Fact checking, Democrats style:

Source?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 02, 2019, 02:50:02 pm
Of course the media protects Biden. He's a Democrat. They only go after Trump. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 02, 2019, 02:52:18 pm
Source?

It was a satyrical piece by the Babylon Bee.

Of course.

By the very fact that you took it seriously is telling.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on September 02, 2019, 03:58:00 pm
Of course the media protects Biden. He's a Democrat. They only go after Trump.

You fell for Slobodan's fake news quote.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 02, 2019, 05:08:20 pm
You fell for Slobodan's fake news quote.
Good satire reflects reality.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on September 02, 2019, 06:48:04 pm
Good satire reflects reality.

Which makes it bad satire.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 02, 2019, 07:12:09 pm
Well, in case you didn’t get what the satire was about:

The satire:

Quote
But the central concept of what he was saying, that two numbers put together make another number, was completely accurate.

Biden:

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 02, 2019, 08:28:12 pm
Which makes it bad satire.
Understanding Different Types of Satire
https://thanetwriters.com/essay/technicalities/understanding-different-types-of-satire/
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on September 04, 2019, 12:06:53 am
Another shooting tragedy in Texas barely averted. Apparently, in some states it's easier to buy a gun than food. It could get worse when they run out of the Beyond Meat burgers.

Quote
Popeyes customer pulls a gun after being told there were no more chicken sandwiches.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/03/us/popeyes-chicken-houston-trnd/index.html
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 04, 2019, 12:20:01 am
Obviously not a vegan.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on September 04, 2019, 12:50:46 am
Obviously not a vegan.
Yeah, the bad guy must have been a carnivore. Beside, vegan's ammo of choice are black beans.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 05, 2019, 11:33:48 am
Well, in case you didn’t get what the satire was about:

The satire:

Biden:

Got to love The Onion!

‘Help! Help! Who Am I? Where Am I? Who Are You People?’ Says Biden In Embarrassing Campaign Gaffe (https://politics.theonion.com/help-help-who-am-i-where-am-i-who-are-you-people-1837845373)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 05, 2019, 11:42:58 am
Got to love The Onion!

‘Help! Help! Who Am I? Where Am I? Who Are You People?’ Says Biden In Embarrassing Campaign Gaffe (https://politics.theonion.com/help-help-who-am-i-where-am-i-who-are-you-people-1837845373)
The Democrats and the progressive liberal press really don;t want Biden.  They want someone who will turn America into a socialist haven.

Biden's a lot like Trump.  He a "normal" guy who let's things hang out.  He's not scripted so often his words get messed up.  Add to that a media who want to take him down, so they amplify every misspeak. He's probably wondering why they treat him like Trump.  Frankly I think Biden is Trump's biggest adversary.  The press will help Trump if they take down Biden and give us, let's see, Pocahontas Warren or Comrade Sanders. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 05, 2019, 11:53:08 am
The Democrats and the progressive liberal press really don;t want Biden.  They want someone who will turn America into a socialist haven.

Biden's a lot like Trump.  He a "normal" guy who let's things hang out.  He's not scripted so often his words get messed up.  Add to that a media who want to take him down, so they amplify every misspeak. He's probably wondering why they treat him like Trump.  Frankly I think Biden is Trump's biggest adversary.  The press will help Trump if they take down Biden and give us, let's see, Pocahontas Warren or Comrade Sanders.

Maybe, but it still makes for great comedy!

Jill Biden Urges Democratic Voters To Ignore Which Candidates Are Mentally Sharp Enough To Finish Complete Sentences For Good Of Party (https://politics.theonion.com/jill-biden-urges-democratic-voters-to-ignore-which-cand-1837412595)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 05, 2019, 12:02:23 pm
That's funny Joe.  She suffers from the same disease her husband suffers from. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 05, 2019, 12:44:09 pm
That's funny Joe.  She suffers from the same disease her husband suffers from.

WATCH JOE BIDEN'S GAFFES & GREATEST HITS | BIDEN 2020? | famos productions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2w2JpBTHVc)

Not going to lie, it get's pretty uncomfortably around 4:28.  I only have ever seen pictures of Biden's touchy feeliness and did not think too much about it, but seeing video footage makes me cringe. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 05, 2019, 01:14:57 pm
WATCH JOE BIDEN'S GAFFES & GREATEST HITS | BIDEN 2020? | famos productions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2w2JpBTHVc)

Not going to lie, it get's pretty uncomfortably around 4:28.  I only have ever seen pictures of Biden's touchy feeliness and did not think too much about it, but seeing video footage makes me cringe. 
If he wins the nomination, the press will protect him as they did before.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 11, 2019, 07:53:41 am
I am by no means an expert in English accents, so maybe I am wrong, but I just stumbled upon a clip of Sarah Sanders,where she pronounced the word Democratic that sounded like “demoncratic”  ;D

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2PpMl6nJsk/?igshid=10qrh1dq95y5
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on September 11, 2019, 09:07:35 am
I am by no means an expert in English accents, so maybe I am wrong, but I just stumbled upon a clip of Sarah Sanders,where she pronounced the word Democratic that sounded like demoncratic”  ;D

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2PpMl6nJsk/?igshid=10qrh1dq95y5

Those straws are ever thinner.

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 11, 2019, 09:26:23 am
Those straws are ever thinner.

Huh!?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on September 11, 2019, 09:32:31 am
Huh!?

Think about it...

;-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 11, 2019, 09:40:48 am
Think about it...

Well... was that a reference to the straw man concept? If so, I still don’t get it.

However, I can clarify my own post. I didn’t intend to imply anything political, other than an unusual way (for me) to pronounce “Democratic.” Never heard it pronounced like that before. I also do not think she did it deliberately, in the sense of creating a pejorative twist on the word, like the words Republicons, Repugnicans, or Libtards.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on September 11, 2019, 12:59:20 pm
Well... was that a reference to the straw man concept? If so, I still don’t get it.

However, I can clarify my own post. I didn’t intend to imply anything political, other than an unusual way (for me) to pronounce “Democratic.” Never heard it pronounced like that before. I also do not think she did it deliberately, in the sense of creating a pejorative twist on the word, like the words Republicons, Repugnicans, or Libtards.


Clearly, you understood!

:-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 11, 2019, 05:55:32 pm
"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg shuts down talk on eliminating Electoral College"
https://www.theblaze.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-shuts-down-talk-on-eliminating-electoral-college (https://www.theblaze.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-shuts-down-talk-on-eliminating-electoral-college)

I guess will just have to put up with a lack of democracy so says the most liberal Supreme Court Judge.  Well, her words won't count when the Democrats pack the court. 

[Edit:spelling mistake corrected by moderator]
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 11, 2019, 11:34:29 pm
Supreme Court in 9-2 ruling affirms Trump administration right to enforce strict asylum rules overriding the 9th Federal Court again.  They're actually following the Constitution. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-asylum.html
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on September 12, 2019, 09:07:07 am
9-2?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 12, 2019, 09:32:59 am
9-2?
7-2 is right. 

Well, it might become 9-2 after the Dems pack the court. :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 14, 2019, 08:36:40 pm
“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47".

The fascist left wants to take your guns away in spite of the 2nd Amendment.  This is the very thing people on the right, and gun owners, have feared that's been desired by the left the whole time.  All the anti-gun arguments against guns because of violence is just a phoney fig leaf to cover their real desire to get rid of guns totally.  O'Rourke just put it out there once and for all.   This is why the freedom loving Americans are opposed to gun registrations and registry and bans of any type.  Because when a government wants to take away your guns such as in Venezuela, the have a list of everyone's guns and know where to go to confiscate it.  AR15's are a start.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/yes-they-are-coming-for-your-guns/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/yes-they-are-coming-for-your-guns/)
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/beto-orourke-take-ar-15s/597958/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/beto-orourke-take-ar-15s/597958/)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on September 15, 2019, 07:25:10 am
Why would one need AR-15 or AK-47?
You can't hunt moose or grouse with it.
 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on September 15, 2019, 07:47:31 am
Why would one need AR-15 or AK-47?
You can't hunt moose or grouse with it.


Yeah, but think what an impression you could make with one in a bar, nightclub, school or shopping mall! There is nobody with the right to remove the freedom of enacting a public fantasy: it's enshrined in the Blessed Constitution, though the exact page or volume number/reference escapes me right now, but I'm sure our resident zealot will have no trouble finding the docket. Sadly, I ignore him now.

:-)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 15, 2019, 10:07:24 am
Why would one need AR-15 or AK-47?
You can't hunt moose or grouse with it.
 
Les, The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.  That's a straw man from those opposed to guns.  The 2nd Amendment is to there to keep an armed citizenry to take down an oppressive government should the need ever arise.  It's also there for personal protection.

The 2nd amendment does not allow you to hunt.  There are no natural or constitutional rights to hunt. Hunting is a privilege issued by each of the 50 states just like driving a car.  The right can be taken away at any time.  Hunting laws like fishing and trapping regulations are issued by each of the 50 states.  Regulations vary by each state.  Regulations change from year to year.  They indicate what animals you can hunt, how many or none at all, even what type of weapons you can use and not use, how many cartridges in the gun, etc.  For example, where I live in New Jersey, there's a park that's open for deer hunting 5 days a year.  However, you have to use a shotgun with a slug.  AR15's, ifn fact rifles of any kind, are forbidden.  The long range of a rifle slug would endanger nearby residents who live just outside the park.  A shotgun slug's range is very short.  In addition, most states require training to get a hunting license just like driving a car.  The NRA gives these classes as do other organizations. 

I'm not a hunter but have fired both the M16 automatic machine gun military version in the service and an AR15 non-automatic non-machine gun version at a civilian range.  The AR15 is a great rifle for small people and women as it's very light and easy to carry.  In fact, that's one of the reasons the military went to the M16 because of it's lightness.  Troops could carry it easier.   It's 22 caliber cartridges are a lot smaller than normal hunting rifles the latter which go further and are more damaging due to the larger size of the slug.  You wouldn't use an AR15 or any rifle for that matter for birding.  A shotgun is better.  However, shooting varmints, squirrels, coyotes, etc would be very effective with an AR15.   

If the government became tyrannical, it would be the kind of weapon i would like to have to take back my country.   
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 15, 2019, 10:12:54 am

Yeah, but think what an impression you could make with one in a bar, nightclub, school or shopping mall! There is nobody with the right to remove the freedom of enacting a public fantasy: it's enshrined in the Blessed Constitution, though the exact page or volume number/reference escapes me right now, but I'm sure our resident zealot will have no trouble finding the docket. Sadly, I ignore him now.

:-)
That's funny.  I read everything you have to say.  While I don't agree with it all, I like knowing what you feel and how you think.  In any case, how could two people who grew up and live in different countries with different cultural and legal experiences think the same?  I figure I could learn something from you.  You might learn something from me. :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on September 15, 2019, 12:26:36 pm
[...] If the government became tyrannical, it would be the kind of weapon i would like to have to take back my country.

You wouldn't stand a chance, unless you're saying that the US military suck at their expertise.

Meanwhile, in the last 7 days: 200 people killed by gun violence, 32 injured. You don't need a tyrannical army to kill you, you're doing fine yourselves ...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 15, 2019, 08:08:41 pm
You wouldn't stand a chance, unless you're saying that the US military suck at their expertise.

Meanwhile, in the last 7 days: 200 people killed by gun violence, 32 injured. You don't need a tyrannical army to kill you, you're doing fine yourselves ...

Many argued that in 1776.  The rag tag militia of farmers, smiths, merchants, etc. would not be able to take down the more powerful military in the world, Great Britain. 

FYI, I don't own any of these guns but I support gun ownership for this very reason.  There is a cost, but so is there with allowing cars on the road. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on September 15, 2019, 08:21:45 pm
In 1776, the guns of the farmers and smiths were not less lethal than the guns of British military.
Today, the rag tag militia equipped with semi-automatic rifles wouldn't be a match for laser guided rockets, drones, and blockbuster bombs.     
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 15, 2019, 08:42:08 pm
Exactly what I was thinking Joe.  But actually, the circumstances would be different. The British army and navy were not American as would be the situation in America now should a tyrant ignore our constitution.  The American army and airforce would be facing other Americans. Would they drop bombs from B52's onto American cities?  Americans in the services as do the president and all government officials swear an oath to defend the constitution, not a leader.  We're not the Wehrmacht pledging allegiance to Der Fuhrer.  Or to a king.    Many military  generals and admirals who command their own armies and divisions would fight against the tyrant.  They would be supported by an armed citizenry with AR15's and other weapons who would join them in much the same way as occurred during our Civil War.  Remember, each state is sovereign.  Each state has its own forces, guards and reserves,  that are made up of residents of each state.  That too was the reason for the 2nd Amendment.  While state reserve and guards are used by the president during war against foreigners, they actually report to the governor of each state.  If a president became a tyrant, many states led by the governors of those state supported by their own armed guards and reserves would fight the US federal army that reports to the president that haven't deserted the president which many would do. 

As an aside, the Vietnamese beat us, the North Koreans fought us to a standstill, and we're still in  Afghanistan.  So having superior arms does not guarantee a win as Joe reminded us about our our citizen war against King George III.    Additionally, as in 1776, outside forces from France especially aided our effort.  They might support our citizens again.  So might the Brits. :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 15, 2019, 08:54:01 pm
In 1776, the guns of the farmers and smiths were not less lethal than the guns of British military.
Today, the rag tag militia equipped with semi-automatic rifles wouldn't be a match for laser guided rockets, drones, and blockbuster bombs.     
Les read my last post.  It wouldn't just be a citizen army.

Additionally, you're proposing giving up instead of fighting for freedom.  That's not the America I know.  You see that's why the left wants to disarm the citizenry.  Because they know they couldn't ignore our constitution without facing a fight.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to defend the 1st amendment giving us all our freedoms.   All tyrants like we have on the left ("I've come to take you AR15's" - Beto O'Rourke) want to do exactly that.  Discerning Americans understand that.  That's why they are so emphatic about not accepting any laws the would confiscate or limit their right to bear arms.  The rest of the people are just sheep who buy into the fig leaf red herring reason that weapons kill people.    They will be the first people supporting the tyrant and then the first people complaining when that tyrant puts them in jail and takes away their freedoms.  Just like Cuba and Venezuela.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 15, 2019, 09:07:07 pm
Les, Even the Canadians might support the American citizens.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on September 15, 2019, 09:20:05 pm
Les, Even the Canadians might support the American citizens.  :)

I don't know about it. In the recent years, there were several cases of peace-loving Canadians shot in USA.

Quote
You’re more likely to be shot to death in the United States than you are to die in a car accident in Canada.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2378037/gun-violence-by-the-numbers-how-america-canada-and-the-world-compare/
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 15, 2019, 09:26:29 pm
I don't know about it. In the recent years, there were several cases of peace-loving Canadians shot in USA.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2378037/gun-violence-by-the-numbers-how-america-canada-and-the-world-compare/

A lot of people get shot during a road rage argument if they didn't get killed from the accident in the first place. Freedom is dangerous.  I never said it wasn't.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 15, 2019, 10:08:09 pm
Here's a shot of a New York Air National Guard (ANG)  F16 fighter jet.  The wing is switching over to killer drones.  Note the Syracuse and NY on the tail.  (174 FW is the 174th Fighter Wing out of Syracuse, New York.) ANG's report to the Governor or can be federalized depending.  In a constitutional crisis, there's no counting on what might happen in any one state or ANG wing.  So figuring the tyrant-president will control them is not necessarily in the cards.  They could just as well be supporting an armed citizenry. Ditto with the Army National Guards in each State.  Of course, the anti-gun people will push the red herring that citizens having guns is a waste of time against a tyrant with the army behind him.  Of course, most ignorant Americans don't know any better they are so brainwashed by the left media and left politicians.  I don't expect foreigners to understand these points.  But American citizens should. 
(https://dmna.ny.gov/home/storyimages/100306-F-5508F-183.jpg)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on September 16, 2019, 08:37:40 am
Maybe if you had a better class of politicians you wouldn't have to worry about tyranny so much. Just sayin'.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 16, 2019, 08:57:01 am
Maybe if you had a better class of politicians...

Who does?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 16, 2019, 09:30:57 am
Ladies (if any) and gentlemen, the state of (left) journalism in America today:  :'(

https://apple.news/AT9ktYmCUTey0Ys_-nEmhNg
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 16, 2019, 09:44:26 am
Maybe if you had a better class of politicians you wouldn't have to worry about tyranny so much. Just sayin'.  :)
The founders of America knew people are the problem. That's why the Constitution limits power of so much of the government and splits it up into different branches where one has to approve the other before things get done. That lessens the chance that some tyrant can take over. Also they put the Second Amendment in there because that's the final protection in case everything else fails in the Constitution. It's been over 200 years of orderly presidential transition.   So far so good. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 16, 2019, 09:49:14 am
Ladies (if any) and gentlemen, the state of (left) journalism in America today:  :'(

https://apple.news/AT9ktYmCUTey0Ys_-nEmhNg
The Democrat Judiciary Committee should add this pancake theft to their list of Investigations regarding impeaching President Trump.  Now he's gone over the line.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: RSL on September 16, 2019, 09:51:24 am
Maybe if you had a better class of politicians you wouldn't have to worry about tyranny so much. Just sayin'.  :)

 ;D ;D ;D 8) 8) ::) :-\ :-\ :-\ This from a guy with a prime minister named Justin Trudeau!!!???  ;D 8) ::)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 16, 2019, 09:55:29 am
... a prime minister named Justin Trudeau!!!???  ;D 8) ::)

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 16, 2019, 10:34:21 am
Even the left calls "fake news" about the NY Times smear article against Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh.  The "newspaper of record" biases the news again.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/joe-scarborough-cant-believe-the-ny-times-ran-salacious-brett-kavanaugh-essay-with-glaring-omission/
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on September 16, 2019, 10:48:09 am
I don't know what half of these posts mean anymore and have in fact stop reading most of them, but do you guys realize how crazy it sounds to justify the private ownership of AR-15s so you can be ready for the fight against your tyrannical government?

The loonie left lost its mind a long time ago, but replacing it with that bizarre version of insanity is not a step in the right direction, imo. In any case, I don't actually believe most of it, it's probably mostly just online hyperbole because people don't seem to have enough to do.

If you want to hunt or target shoot or keep a varmint rifle if you live in the country, no problem, everyone understands that. But if you resort to quasi-religious gun-worship rantings, I just shake my head and turn off the computer. What is keeping your families safe is the rule of law and the fact that the vast majority of people are decent. The rest of this foam at the mouth nonsense come from watching way too many Hollywood movies.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on September 16, 2019, 10:49:26 am
;D ;D ;D 8) 8) ::) :-\ :-\ :-\ This from a guy with a prime minister named Justin Trudeau!!!???  ;D 8) ::)

This one went over my head. It's just a name. But don't bother to try and explain it, I don't really care.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 16, 2019, 11:11:30 am
... do you guys realize how crazy it sounds to justify the private ownership of AR-15s...

We question the need to justify it.

Quote
...What is keeping your families safe is the rule of law and the fact that the vast majority of people are decent...

Are you in the contest for the silliest post of the year?

How decent people knock on your door in the morning:

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 16, 2019, 11:17:33 am
I don't know what half of these posts mean anymore and have in fact stop reading most of them, but do you guys realize how crazy it sounds to justify the private ownership of AR-15s so you can be ready for the fight against your tyrannical government?

The loonie left lost its mind a long time ago, but replacing it with that bizarre version of insanity is not a step in the right direction, imo. In any case, I don't actually believe most of it, it's probably mostly just online hyperbole because people don't seem to have enough to do.

If you want to hunt or target shoot or keep a varmint rifle if you live in the country, no problem, everyone understands that. But if you resort to quasi-religious gun-worship rantings, I just shake my head and turn off the computer. What is keeping your families safe is the rule of law and the fact that the vast majority of people are decent. The rest of this foam at the mouth nonsense come from watching way too many Hollywood movies.


The left wants to get rid of all private guns.  Ask the Venezuelans if that's a good idea. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on September 16, 2019, 01:28:41 pm

The left wants to get rid of all private guns.  Ask the Venezuelans if that's a good idea.

Venezuela? Really?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on September 16, 2019, 01:41:50 pm
Venezuela? Really?

Comparing banana republics? Dunno.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on September 16, 2019, 01:58:45 pm

The left wants to get rid of all private guns.  Ask the Venezuelans if that's a good idea.

Citizens of a country which voted for Chavez and Maduro should not be trusted with guns.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 16, 2019, 03:09:06 pm
It's safer taking away their vote then their guns.  People vote for more government control thinking they'll get more free stuff.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 16, 2019, 03:34:15 pm
Nation's Murderous Psychopaths Undecided On Whether They’ll Follow New Gun Laws

https://babylonbee.com/news/murderous-psychopaths-undecided-on-whether-theyll-follow-new-gun-laws

Quote
The background check sounds concerning,” explained deranged murderer Steve Mason, known as “Murdering Steve” to his friends. “I would definitely fail it since I’m a well-known psychopath. But I’ve never actually purchased a gun through a gun-dealer; I just steal all my murder weapons. And so far no one has proposed a background check on theft, so I think I’m good.”

Jake FoOne law murderous psychopaths did seem excited about was the AR-15 buyback. “If they offer a lot of money for my AR-15, it could be pretty worthwhile,” said nutjob Craig McGee. “Then I can use that money to buy more guns just as lethal... but through the black market, of course. Gotta avoid those background checks.”ster, who is planning a shooting spree, expressed similar concerns about the ban on “high-capacity” magazines. “Having to do a shooting spree and reloading after every tenth shot does sound irritating,” said Foster. “Despite the law, I might just use a high-capacity magazine anyway. I guess the question is whether I’m willing to deal with a possible fine on top of the multiple counts of murder.”

One law murderous psychopaths did seem excited about was the AR-15 buyback. “If they offer a lot of money for my AR-15, it could be pretty worthwhile,” said nutjob Craig McGee. “Then I can use that money to buy more guns just as lethal... but through the black market, of course. Gotta avoid those background checks.”
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on September 16, 2019, 04:07:37 pm
It's safer taking away their vote then their guns.  People vote for more government control thinking they'll get more free stuff.
Maybe that also works in the USA- everybody already has a gun, so just take away the vote...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 16, 2019, 04:10:44 pm
Maybe that also works in the USA- everybody already has a gun, so just take away the vote...
That's who I was thinking about when I posted it.  Let's take away the vote from everyone who wants free stuff.  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 16, 2019, 04:23:07 pm
Venezuela? Really?

Here's what happened in Venezuela.
"Venezuelans regret gun ban, 'a declaration of war against an unarmed population'"
https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuelans-regret-gun-prohibition-we-could-have-defended-ourselves (https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuelans-regret-gun-prohibition-we-could-have-defended-ourselves)


If fascist Venezuela is too small a country, how about fascist China?
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/china.php (https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/china.php)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 16, 2019, 09:21:33 pm
So the debate started.  Should America do anything about the apparent Iranian drones that attacked Saudi oil installation or not?  Should the President just do something or should congress have to give the OK per the Constitution?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 16, 2019, 09:24:29 pm
Or should the Europeans handle it since it's mainly their oil needed to warm their homes in the soon approaching winter?  AS it is, it will probably cost another EU1,000 per home for oil as the price has shot up. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on September 16, 2019, 09:33:27 pm
All I know is, the last people I want figuring out what to do are a guy that can't be bothered to read intelligence briefs because he already knows everything, and a guy that thinks the Book of Revelation is a document pertinent to the Middle East political process.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on September 17, 2019, 11:06:10 am
So the debate started.  Should America do anything about the apparent Iranian drones that attacked Saudi oil installation or not?  Should the President just do something or should congress have to give the OK per the Constitution?

The US has already done something. It has decided to be Saudi Arabia's bitch and pulled out of the Iranian nuclear entente. What is the long-term strategy here? Is there one?

Iran and Saudi Arabia hate each other for reasons of their own. Why would anyone think that the US has any useful part to play in this conflict? In what ways are things better because of past US involvement? What useful strategy has emerged from this administration? I'm not asking for solutions, just one indication of one step in the right direction.

Do you think that Iran would have backed such a drone attack if it had any respect or fear of the current US administration? Trump threatens all kind of things on Twitter every day, is anyone is still paying any attention to that drivel anymore?

The drone attacks probably happened in part because of perceived US weakness and incompetence at the top.

This is Saudi Arabia's problem, let them sort it out.

Saudi lobbiests regularly book dozens of rooms at Trump's DC hotel, maybe Iran should do the same.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 18, 2019, 10:56:22 am
I agree we should let the Saudi's fight their own battles.  On the other hand, what will Europe do?  After all, you need their oil to heat your homes.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 18, 2019, 10:57:53 am
This is why America will win the trade war with China.  They're losing business to Vietnam and their other competitors because of it.  Once supply chains start moving out of CHina, it will be hard to get them to return.
https://www.dbs.com/aics/templatedata/article/generic/data/en/CIO/092019/190918asia.xml
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on September 18, 2019, 11:20:16 am
I agree we should let the Saudi's fight their own battles.

Should they use American weapons or Russian weapons to kill the population of Yemen?

Quote
On the other hand, what will Europe do?  After all, you need their oil to heat your homes.

Only a small amount of the energy (some 11% in 2017) used for residential heating is coming from oil derivatives.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Energy_consumption_in_households
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 18, 2019, 04:07:33 pm
Should they use American weapons or Russian weapons to kill the population of Yemen?

Only a small amount of the energy (some 11% in 2017) used for residential heating is coming from oil derivatives.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Energy_consumption_in_households
A plague on all their houses.  Shia vs. Sunni, Iran vs. Saudi, etc. vs. etc.   Not our fight.  In fact, why are we still in Europe? The Communist Soviet Union collapsed 30 years ago. Today, the EU is more Marxist and Socialist than Russia.    Russia isn't going to attack Europe.   In any case, Europe is strong and rich enough to defend itself.  American troops there should return home.  China will be our problem in the future.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 18, 2019, 04:22:45 pm
In the meantime, in the wonderful Kingdom of Netherlands, facing the shape of things to come:

"Dutch gangster case: Shock at murder of lawyer Derk Wiersum"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49740366

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on September 18, 2019, 05:04:50 pm
A plague on all their houses.  Shia vs. Sunni, Iran vs. Saudi, etc. vs. etc.   Not our fight.  In fact, why are we still in Europe?

To secure a market for selling stuff to, and as an advanced front, to take the first blows?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 18, 2019, 05:07:02 pm
To secure a market for selling stuff to, and as an advanced front, to take the first blows.

First blows from who?  You protect your own land.  What are you women? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on September 18, 2019, 05:10:03 pm
First blows from who?  You protect your own land.  What are you women?

You mean we get your permission to have our own Nuclear warheads?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 18, 2019, 05:12:47 pm
You mean we get your permission to have our own Nuclear warheads?
France and Great Britain have nukes.  Why not have a EU NATO without America?  You don't need us. Be proud.  Br strong?  Be independent?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 19, 2019, 12:28:50 am
How is this possible in the wonderful world of socialized medicine?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on September 19, 2019, 09:57:11 am
How is this possible in the wonderful world of socialized medicine?

Easy.  Politicians of all stripes have a knack for effing up everything for their own personal gain.

I’ll say it again here because Slobodan brought it up and because it’s true. 

1) America is alone in western democracies to not offer “socialized” (ie universal) medical care to her citizens.
2) Americans pay substantially more money for substantially worse medical outcomes than any of those western democracies.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 19, 2019, 10:26:18 am
Easy.  Politicians of all stripes have a knack for effing up everything for their own personal gain.

I’ll say it again here because Slobodan brought it up and because it’s true. 

1) America is alone in western democracies to not offer “socialized” (ie universal) medical care to her citizens.
2) Americans pay substantially more money for substantially worse medical outcomes than any of those western democracies.

1.  About half the costs are paid by the government -Federal and States.  There are 150 million Americans on private health insurance.  Most of them want to keep their private health plans

2.  What are the metrics used to compare?  Many rich foreigners come to America if they need important surgery.  Comparing mortality rates is erroneous as we have higher death due to guns and drugs.  It doesn;t mean health care is worse.  We also have a larger underclasses that don't  follow up with proper care or take care of themselves.  We tend to eat fast foods and are overweight.  That brings down how long we live and increases sicknesses and successful outcomes.  AGain, that has nothing to do with health care.  You're making a causal effect and it isn't there because the left wants to convince Americans to go with nationalized care.  Most smaller countries are more homogenous in genes and culture unlike America with 200 cultures and ancestors spread across a continent and a half.  If you take out the underclasses, most Americans do better than others.   But again, people mix health care with longevity and they';re not the only statistic that should count.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 19, 2019, 11:05:19 am
Easy.  Politicians of all stripes have a knack for effing up everything for their own personal gain...

Exactly. And somehow, magically, that would NOT happen if the US goes for socialized medicine?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on September 19, 2019, 11:20:19 am
Exactly. And somehow, magically, that would NOT happen if the US goes for socialized medicine?


I think that it’s antisocial and immoral for people to seek profit from others’ misfortune.  Nobody should suffer financial ruin because they get sick.

The fact remains, despite Alan’s attempts to distract, in all other western democracies, universal healthcare is working better than the American system.

If Americans want to continue to spend more for less, fine.  Their decision.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 19, 2019, 11:52:46 am
... in all other western democracies, universal healthcare is working better than the American system...

I see:
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on September 19, 2019, 12:17:24 pm
Common sense advice would be not to get drunk. More common sense advice in the US would be not to go to the emergency room for a hangover:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/09/19/749039963/the-real-bachelor-party-hangover-a-12-460-er-bill

Russ, you need to alert your Canadian snowbird friends.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 19, 2019, 12:21:49 pm

I think that it’s antisocial and immoral for people to seek profit from others’ misfortune.  Nobody should suffer financial ruin because they get sick.

The fact remains, despite Alan’s attempts to distract, in all other western democracies, universal healthcare is working better than the American system.

If Americans want to continue to spend more for less, fine.  Their decision.

Why should everyone have to do things the same way? Should we all shoot a Canon?  Maybe we can learn something from you and you can learn something fron us.  Maybe both systems have good and bad situations.   Maybe there's an approach that works best in the middle. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 19, 2019, 12:28:57 pm
Common sense advice would be not to get drunk. More common sense advice in the US would be not to go to the emergency room for a hangover:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/09/19/749039963/the-real-bachelor-party-hangover-a-12-460-er-bill

Russ, you need to alert your Canadian snowbird friends.
the headline of that article is fake news. You have to dig down into the article see what the real costs were

"For Fischer, the negotiated rates under his health plan knocked the $12,460 bill down to $4,694. The plan paid $2,102. That left Fischer with a bill of $2,593, an amount he says he cannot afford to pay."
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on September 19, 2019, 12:47:17 pm
the headline of that article is fake news. You have to dig down into the article see what the real costs were

"For Fischer, the negotiated rates under his health plan knocked the $12,460 bill down to $4,694. The plan paid $2,102. That left Fischer with a bill of $2,593, an amount he says he cannot afford to pay."
For Russ’s snowbirds and anyone else without insurance, the bill would have been $12,460. I’m having a hard time with $2593 as a reasonable co-pay for someone with insurance, but maybe for you that sounds about right.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on September 19, 2019, 01:10:24 pm
Why should everyone have to do things the same way? Should we all shoot a Canon?

Sigh.

Yes, we can all learn from each other.  The rest of the western democracies can learn from America how not to do health care.

I posted this link elsewhere and you ignored it, Alan.  Perhaps you'd like to comment here?

https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2019/us-health-care-spending-highest-among-developed-countries.html

Found from this search term: "american health care compared to other countries"
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 19, 2019, 04:55:45 pm
Sigh.

Yes, we can all learn from each other.  The rest of the western democracies can learn from America how not to do health care.

I posted this link elsewhere and you ignored it, Alan.  Perhaps you'd like to comment here?

https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2019/us-health-care-spending-highest-among-developed-countries.html

Found from this search term: "american health care compared to other countries"
I don't want government in my business. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 19, 2019, 05:18:18 pm
I don't want government in my business.  I'd rather pay more and be able to pick the doctors I want.  RIght now, because I'm a senior, I have to be on Medicare, government provided health care. There are doctors I want to use.  But they opted out of Medicare so I can;t afford to pay them out of pocket.  SO my medical care is not as good with government provided health care.  That wouldn't happen if I was still younger on private health care. 

This is what happens when government takes over.  Government wants to control everything.  Your health care. Your retirement account (Social Security). What cars you can buy.  What doctors you can use.  What light bulbs you have to use.  What fuels?  What you can say (free speech like hijabs).  Where in public you can shoot your camera. There's a constant erosion of your liberty. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on September 19, 2019, 05:46:54 pm
I don't want government in my business.

Right.  As in the oft-repeated-here and favourite right-wing epithet: I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/xLyoqwyq1GMcRS4kNBKEIS4pD6puVX7b6BCXFw5cSHFMtmGwu2HvNcl4o18xiH6Bk7MkrN8hYCBKM_jJLTWSWIYKPbaKgkwjJGWJrfQKKby3aJ4Gr-SQO0V2I4_7lDMIBrGl6WzpOw=w2400)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on September 19, 2019, 05:57:43 pm
I don't want government in my business.  I'd rather pay more and be able to pick the doctors I want.  RIght now, because I'm a senior, I have to be on Medicare, government provided health care. There are doctors I want to use.  But they opted out of Medicare so I can;t afford to pay them out of pocket.  SO my medical care is not as good with government provided health care.  That wouldn't happen if I was still younger on private health care. 

This is what happens when government takes over.  Government wants to control everything.  Your health care. Your retirement account (Social Security). What cars you can buy.  What doctors you can use.  What light bulbs you have to use.  What fuels?  What you can say (free speech like hijabs).  Where in public you can shoot your camera. There's a constant erosion of your liberty.
Why don't you just number your complaints.  That way you could just post a number instead of posting your complaint over and over again. It would save you from having to retype them and we wouldn't have to read them ad nauseam.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Peter McLennan on September 19, 2019, 06:15:44 pm
I'd rather pay more and be able to pick the doctors I want.  SO my medical care is not as good with government provided health care.  That wouldn't happen if I was still younger on private health care. 

I can pick precisely the doctors I want to use.  Our doctors don't "opt out".  That's why its called "universal" health care.

If you get sick, I help to pay your expenses.  Willingly.  Cheerfully.

As we've repeated over and over: nobody should suffer financial ruin because they get sick".

Get it?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 19, 2019, 09:06:45 pm
I can pick precisely the doctors I want to use.  Our doctors don't "opt out".  That's why its called "universal" health care.

If you get sick, I help to pay your expenses.  Willingly.  Cheerfully.

As we've repeated over and over: nobody should suffer financial ruin because they get sick".

Get it?

No one is suggesting that people don;t get medical care.  But we don;t have to blow up the entire private health insurance system that 85% or more of the people had, most happy with it.  Just provide help to those who really need it.  We have a food program that the government provides free food to the poor.  But we don;t nationalize the whole food industry because of people need to eat. 

This is just about socialism and making the government in charge of our lives.  We all lose freedom to live our lives as we choose to.  This idea of being secure if the government is in charge was sold by the Marxists to the Russians and lately to the Venezuelans.  Don't people ever learn what happens when you give government that kind of power?   In the end, you'll lose your health as well as your freedom. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on September 19, 2019, 10:38:25 pm
This is just about socialism and making the government in charge of our lives.  We all lose freedom to live our lives as we choose to.  This idea of being secure if the government is in charge was sold by the Marxists to the Russians and lately to the Venezuelans.  Don't people ever learn what happens when you give government that kind of power?   In the end, you'll lose your health as well as your freedom.

None of this is true.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 19, 2019, 11:00:57 pm
None of this is true.
It's absolutely the truth.  You'll realize it after it's too late to do anything about it. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 19, 2019, 11:12:02 pm
None of this is true.

Well, ain’t that a winning argument!
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 19, 2019, 11:12:54 pm
It's absolutely the truth.  You'll realize it after it's too late to do anything about it

Indeed. Take it from me.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 19, 2019, 11:50:54 pm
Well, Slobo, let's hope people realize before it's too late to change or we get screwed too. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 20, 2019, 08:17:54 am
As I predicted, California violated US Constitution requiring Trump to show his tax return.
https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEGyMANLlTZG5Ty2InanQpvwqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowocv1CjCSptoCMPrTpgU?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 20, 2019, 10:12:11 am
As I predicted, California violated US Constitution requiring Trump to show his tax return.
https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEGyMANLlTZG5Ty2InanQpvwqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowocv1CjCSptoCMPrTpgU?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Why is it that some of us, non-lawyers, can realize in a nanosecond after hearing it, just how idiotic that leftie attempt was?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 20, 2019, 10:18:49 am
Because emotion isn't logical.  Common sense isn't so common.  People hate Trump so much they can't see straight.   :o


In any case, they're going to lose in NYC as well where they're trying something similar. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on September 20, 2019, 10:25:18 am
People hate Trump so much they can't see straight.
People love Trump so much that can't see straight too.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 20, 2019, 10:32:54 am
People love Trump so much that can't see straight too.
Mrs. Trump?  :)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on September 20, 2019, 03:13:10 pm
Well, ain’t that a winning argument!

How odd. I thought you liked one-liners.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on September 21, 2019, 04:07:28 am
This has degenerated into nonsense.

We have people who claim they can't afford the docs of their choice (informed choices; how are they to know what's what - are they medics too?) supporting a system that puts them where they are; we have people who can't afford the system and are ready to walk away from it still supporting it. If that's not blind political allegiance over common, personal experience, than pray tell me what is or can ever be.

Political choices can be very irrational ones, often based on the assumption that the person holding the allegiances actually belongs to the group that benefits from them when, in truth, that's an ideologically wish-projected choice and not one that's practical or even vaguely applicable, representative of, or helpful to them in their actual station in life. It is turkeys voting for Christmas.

Were these same people within the top 5% of earners, then yes, they'd have a logical reason for their political choice; for their personal realities, gobble gobble gobble...

But I'm not blaming the American population alone: we have our own half-nation that's as blind and politically manipulated as you do over on your shores. They believe politicians who have great personal wealth, are in positions of power where they can protect that wealth if they can manipulate the laws to their purposes, actually to be working hard to represent them, the proles, and their proletarian better-interests. How friggin' naïve can one be?

It took until last century for many of us to get a basic set of human rights of political representation, and now we have become slothful in our attention to the machinations of politicians to the extent that we think it safe to stop worrying and just vote on the basis of handed-down family loyalties. Europe seems, in some cases, to have woken up to that fact, which accounts to some degree for the emergence of many different power centres rather than as blind loyalty to the previously rigid split into two, left and right. Get ready America, your people will wake up too.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on September 21, 2019, 05:43:32 am
And the story continues ...

Trump pressured Ukraine president to investigate Biden: reports
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower/trump-pressured-ukraine-president-to-investigate-biden-reports-idUSKBN1W51R0

WSJ: Trump repeatedly asked Ukraine president to probe Biden's son
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LYMlVp0TNQ
and for those with a subscription to the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-defends-conversation-with-ukraine-leader-11568993176
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 21, 2019, 08:33:56 am
This has degenerated into nonsense.

We have people who claim they can't afford the docs of their choice (informed choices; how are they to know what's what - are they medics too?) supporting a system that puts them where they are; we have people who can't afford the system and are ready to walk away from it still supporting it. If that's not blind political allegiance over common, personal experience, than pray tell me what is or can ever be.

Political choices can be very irrational ones, often based on the assumption that the person holding the allegiances actually belongs to the group that benefits from them when, in truth, that's an ideologically wish-projected choice and not one that's practical or even vaguely applicable, representative of, or helpful to them in their actual station in life. It is turkeys voting for Christmas.

Were these same people within the top 5% of earners, then yes, they'd have a logical reason for their political choice; for their personal realities, gobble gobble gobble...

But I'm not blaming the American population alone: we have our own half-nation that's as blind and politically manipulated as you do over on your shores. They believe politicians who have great personal wealth, are in positions of power where they can protect that wealth if they can manipulate the laws to their purposes, actually to be working hard to represent them, the proles, and their proletarian better-interests. How friggin' naïve can one be?

It took until last century for many of us to get a basic set of human rights of political representation, and now we have become slothful in our attention to the machinations of politicians to the extent that we think it safe to stop worrying and just vote on the basis of handed-down family loyalties. Europe seems, in some cases, to have woken up to that fact, which accounts to some degree for the emergence of many different power centres rather than as blind loyalty to the previously rigid split into two, left and right. Get ready America, your people will wake up too.
I agree that people trust politicians too much.    They're self-centered jerks.  That's why I support less power and control in Washington.  Why give them more power over your life and money and health?  The founders of our Constitution understood that.  They knew who they were.  Who they really were.  That's why the attempt to limit central power, and create divisions of power among different branches of the government and the sovereign States.  Too weaken their power that would interfere with the common man's liberty.  It's not only us who didn't want the power of your king. 


It may be worse today.  representative government means higher taxes and more regulation.  More people at the trough suckin gup the hard work of people.  And all this just takes away the individual's freedoms to act on his own.  That money goes to special interests.  In the end, who's going to care more about your family?  You or some government bureaucrat?  I watch some of these people on TV.  I wouldn't trust them to babysit a child.  They're morons.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 21, 2019, 08:42:11 am
And the story continues ...

Trump pressured Ukraine president to investigate Biden: reports
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower/trump-pressured-ukraine-president-to-investigate-biden-reports-idUSKBN1W51R0

WSJ: Trump repeatedly asked Ukraine president to probe Biden's son
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LYMlVp0TNQ
and for those with a subscription to the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-defends-conversation-with-ukraine-leader-11568993176


This could come back to haunt Joe Biden.  He's the current Democrat leader for nomination to be president. It was he and his son that were finagling in Ukraine to make money for Biden's son.  Joe Biden, who was Vice President at the time, apparently promised the Ukraine president American largesse if he was nice to his son.  A quid-quo-pro which is illegal to do.  This could sink his candidacy and put in someone else who's less likely to defeat Trump in the general election in 2020.  So Democrats might shoot themselves in the foot if they go after Trump on this issue. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 21, 2019, 12:52:17 pm
Another one bites the dust:

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 21, 2019, 09:12:02 pm
Another one bites the dust:


As a former New Yorker and visitor still, NYC would be better off if the Mayor was in Iowa campaigning rather than back at home. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 24, 2019, 03:59:29 pm
It looks like these countries are joining America in pressuring Iran.  I suppose they're thinking about interruptions to the oil flow right before needed heating requirements before winter sets in.

"France, Britain and Germany said on Monday it is clear Iran was responsible for an attack on Saudi oil facilities on Sept. 14 and called on Tehran to agree to negotiations on its nuclear and missile programs as well as regional security issues."
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-iran-europe/britain-france-germany-blame-iran-for-saudi-attack-statement-idUKKBN1W82FX (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-iran-europe/britain-france-germany-blame-iran-for-saudi-attack-statement-idUKKBN1W82FX)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 28, 2019, 06:36:11 pm
Fascism on the rise in the left-controlled states. In CA, you can go to jail for calling a tranny a wrong pronoun. Now in NY, you can be fined $250,000 for calling someone “illegal alien,” in itself a legal term, or calling ICE, otherwise a civic duty. Criminalizing free speech is unconstitutional, but when has that stopped the loonie left?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-city-250g-illegal-alien-immigration
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 28, 2019, 07:15:26 pm
Liberals are the fascists they call others and complain about.  Once they take over, everyone goes to jail who don't spout the party line.  You've been there and know how it all turns out. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on September 29, 2019, 03:01:48 pm
Caught up again in Magnum, thanks to Russ, I came across this item; interesting numbers, and who is to blame, if blame can be attributed, that is:

https://shop.magnumphotos.com/products/geography-of-poverty-newspaper-matt-black-signed?variant=32182582606
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on September 29, 2019, 03:20:56 pm
Liberals are the fascists they call others and complain about.
Fascists are by definition right wing. You need to find a different label for liberals.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 04:30:59 pm
Fascists are by definition right wing...

Like National-Socialist? Or that is just Nazis, not fascists? Nomen est omen.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on September 29, 2019, 04:51:23 pm
Like National-Socialist? Or that is just Nazis, not fascists? Nomen est omen.

According to my dictionary, it's the preserve of right-wing politics.

"When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

Rob
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 05:22:47 pm
According to my dictionary, it's the preserve of right-wing politics...

Call it right or left, it was a Socialist Workers Party. If it makes people feel better, I can replace "fascist" in the OP with "Soviet" or "Communist." Better? Attack on the freedom of speech and fierce penalties for going against the party line is common to both.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on September 29, 2019, 06:02:11 pm
Fascists are by definition right wing. You need to find a different label for liberals.

Hmm. Merriam Webster definition:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Seems to fit those rabidly right-wing regimes in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China pretty damn well.

Jeremy
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: kers on September 29, 2019, 07:14:21 pm
Hmm. Merriam Webster definition:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Seems to fit those rabidly right-wing regimes in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China pretty damn well.

Jeremy
It misses most of the important 'Race' ingredient that defined the übermensch in the case of Germany - the Ariër type of human as the type that  was looked at as the supreme human race. In Russia especially and Mao's China the oppression was mostly about (maintaining) power, not so much about race. Oppression was aimed at the native Russian cq Chinese people.
Looking at present China we see the oppression of other races and cultures as the Tibetian, the re-education camps for Uighurs, Kazach and other Islamic minorities. ( and Hong Kong?)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 07:34:55 pm
Hmm. Merriam Webster definition...

The current wikipedia definition incorporates much of the MW definition, but adds words "right-wing" to it. Given how wikipedia entries are created, one can easily guess the political orientation of the author.

I see fascism as a rather historic term, limited to a handful of examples in a short historic period of time. From that perspective, I probably should not have used the term in my OP. However, as you rightly noted, Jeremy, it does share a number of characteristics with Soviet and Mao socialism/communism.

The current ideological spectrum has rather evolved, to the point that old, historic definitions are quite blurred and not easily applicable. One of the textbook criteria to distinguish, historically, fascism from communism was the ownership of the means of production. In the Soviet/Mao systems, they are state-owned, not private. Fascism, historically, was based on private ownership, often referred to as corporatism. Another common (to both systems) criterion is one-party system or dictatorship.

Fast forward. China has a one-party, communist dictatorship, but, as of recently, a purely capitalist economy. Which would make it a modern version of fascism, I suppose. NY and CA have nominally multi-party systems and capitalist economies, but with such a majority of one party that makes one wonder if it is, in effect, a single-party dictatorship. Which would make them a modern version of fascism. Or Chinese-style communism.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on September 29, 2019, 07:54:24 pm
Left wing fascism.
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/philip-cross-the-anti-fascist-left-were-the-real-fascists-all-along
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on September 30, 2019, 05:08:43 am
The current wikipedia definition incorporates much of the MW definition, but adds words "right-wing" to it. Given how wikipedia entries are created, one can easily guess the political orientation of the author.

I see fascism as a rather historic term, limited to a handful of examples in a short historic period of time. From that perspective, I probably should not have used the term in my OP. However, as you rightly noted, Jeremy, it does share a number of characteristics with Soviet and Mao socialism/communism.

The current ideological spectrum has rather evolved, to the point that old, historic definitions are quite blurred and not easily applicable. One of the textbook criteria to distinguish, historically, fascism from communism was the ownership of the means of production. In the Soviet/Mao systems, they are state-owned, not private. Fascism, historically, was based on private ownership, often referred to as corporatism. Another common (to both systems) criterion is one-party system or dictatorship.

Fast forward. China has a one-party, communist dictatorship, but, as of recently, a purely capitalist economy. Which would make it a modern version of fascism, I suppose. NY and CA have nominally multi-party systems and capitalist economies, but with such a majority of one party that makes one wonder if it is, in effect, a single-party dictatorship. Which would make them a modern version of fascism. Or Chinese-style communism.

Mine, in the computer is the COED.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on September 30, 2019, 08:04:37 am
NY and CA have nominally multi-party systems and capitalist economies, but with such a majority of one party that makes one wonder if it is, in effect, a single-party dictatorship. Which would make them a modern version of fascism. Or Chinese-style communism.

I'd say that a taxonomy that can't distinguish between California, China and Nazi Germany is not particularly useful.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: faberryman on September 30, 2019, 08:11:24 am
I'd say that a taxonomy that can't distinguish between California, China and Nazi Germany is not particularly useful.
Or perhaps those applying the taxonomy are misusing it.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 07:50:35 pm
The current wikipedia definition incorporates much of the MW definition, but adds words "right-wing" to it. Given how wikipedia entries are created, one can easily guess the political orientation of the author.

I see fascism as a rather historic term, limited to a handful of examples in a short historic period of time. From that perspective, I probably should not have used the term in my OP. However, as you rightly noted, Jeremy, it does share a number of characteristics with Soviet and Mao socialism/communism.

The current ideological spectrum has rather evolved, to the point that old, historic definitions are quite blurred and not easily applicable. One of the textbook criteria to distinguish, historically, fascism from communism was the ownership of the means of production. In the Soviet/Mao systems, they are state-owned, not private. Fascism, historically, was based on private ownership, often referred to as corporatism. Another common (to both systems) criterion is one-party system or dictatorship.

Fast forward. China has a one-party, communist dictatorship, but, as of recently, a purely capitalist economy. Which would make it a modern version of fascism, I suppose. NY and CA have nominally multi-party systems and capitalist economies, but with such a majority of one party that makes one wonder if it is, in effect, a single-party dictatorship. Which would make them a modern version of fascism. Or Chinese-style communism.
NYC wants to send you to jail if you say things they don't like.  Why do we need free speech in the media capital of America anyway?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/01/us/nyc-illegal-alien-discrimination-guidance/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/01/us/nyc-illegal-alien-discrimination-guidance/index.html)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 01, 2019, 10:07:53 pm
Well, Trump wants to shoot people in the legs to slow them down https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/463928-trump-suggested-shooting-migrants-in-the-legs-nyt (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/463928-trump-suggested-shooting-migrants-in-the-legs-nyt). I sincerely hope this turns out to be fabrication.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 01, 2019, 10:24:11 pm
Well, Trump wants to shoot people in the legs to slow them down https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/463928-trump-suggested-shooting-migrants-in-the-legs-nyt (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/463928-trump-suggested-shooting-migrants-in-the-legs-nyt). I sincerely hope this turns out to be fabrication.

Certainly interesting and not something I would put below Trump. 

However, with all of the stories the NYT has botched recently (like the recent Kavanaugh debacle), I no longer have the confidence in them as I once did. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 10:29:37 pm
Well, Trump wants to shoot people in the legs to slow them down https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/463928-trump-suggested-shooting-migrants-in-the-legs-nyt (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/463928-trump-suggested-shooting-migrants-in-the-legs-nyt). I sincerely hope this turns out to be fabrication.
Well, Democrats have called for Trump to be jailed in solitary confinement and hung for treason.  So shooting a couple of Democrats, ah, I mean illegals in the legs seems reasonable. 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 10:35:27 pm
If Warren wins nomination, Facebook will become a "friend" of Trump.  Now that's a surprise.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/zuckerberg-says-if-warren-becomes-president-facebook-would-sue-us-govt-you-go-to-the-mat-and-fight/ar-AAI7c2J
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on October 02, 2019, 06:20:33 pm
It seems China isn't the only ones screwing the US.  And no one can blame Trump for this one.

"WTO Says U.S. Can Hit EU With $7.5 Billion In Tariffs Over Airbus Subsidies"
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766404561/wto-says-u-s-can-hit-eu-with-7-5-billion-in-tariffs-over-airbus-subsidies (https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766404561/wto-says-u-s-can-hit-eu-with-7-5-billion-in-tariffs-over-airbus-subsidies)
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on October 02, 2019, 06:27:31 pm
Bernie Sanders had emergency heart surgery today- two stents were added to his coronary arteries.  This makes it more likely Warren will have more people in her corner than Biden as Sanders and Warren are both on the far left of their party.

The Ukraine impeachment issue is going to hurt Biden as well as people learn of his involvement with his son.   I think Trump has an easier path to victory in 2020 against Warren.  So getting rid of Biden seems logical.  I wonder if Trump didn't file the whistleblower report himself?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 02, 2019, 06:46:44 pm
It seems China isn't the only ones screwing the US.  And no one can blame Trump for this one.

"WTO Says U.S. Can Hit EU With $7.5 Billion In Tariffs Over Airbus Subsidies"
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766404561/wto-says-u-s-can-hit-eu-with-7-5-billion-in-tariffs-over-airbus-subsidies (https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766404561/wto-says-u-s-can-hit-eu-with-7-5-billion-in-tariffs-over-airbus-subsidies)

And Europe will hit the USA in Tarifs over Boeing subsidies ..., nothing solved.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 02, 2019, 06:49:04 pm
Well, Democrats have called for Trump to be jailed in solitary confinement and hung for treason.

Have they?
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on October 02, 2019, 07:08:59 pm
Bernie Sanders had  emergency heart surgery today- two stents were added to his coronary arteries.  This makes it more likely Warren will have more people in her corner than Biden as Sanders and Warren are both on the far left of their party.


Could be a result of his choice of food. Apparently, he likes grilled meat.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on October 02, 2019, 07:23:42 pm
It seems China isn't the only ones screwing the US.  And no one can blame Trump for this one.

"WTO Says U.S. Can Hit EU With $7.5 Billion In Tariffs Over Airbus Subsidies"
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766404561/wto-says-u-s-can-hit-eu-with-7-5-billion-in-tariffs-over-airbus-subsidies (https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766404561/wto-says-u-s-can-hit-eu-with-7-5-billion-in-tariffs-over-airbus-subsidies)

What's on the list of goods to be hit with tariffs are not only European airplanes and helicopters, but also spanish olives, italian cheese, french champagne and Vienna wieners. One more reason to take that European trip now.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: degrub on October 02, 2019, 07:37:15 pm
It seems China isn't the only ones screwing the US.  And no one can blame Trump for this one.

"WTO Says U.S. Can Hit EU With $7.5 Billion In Tariffs Over Airbus Subsidies"
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766404561/wto-says-u-s-can-hit-eu-with-7-5-billion-in-tariffs-over-airbus-subsidies (https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766404561/wto-says-u-s-can-hit-eu-with-7-5-billion-in-tariffs-over-airbus-subsidies)

That has been going on for 40 years at least.

Time for some drawing and quartering.

Sorry, i meant Brexiting.....
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 09, 2019, 09:41:45 am
And another ally gets betrayed. One can just wait for the resurgence of ISIS ...

Nothing in this world is certain except death, taxes, and America betraying the Kurds
https://theintercept.com/2019/10/07/kurds-syria-turkey-trump-betrayal/

Turkish army, Syria rebels to push into Syria 'shortly': Erdogan aide
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-security-turkey-usa/turkish-army-syria-rebels-to-push-into-syria-shortly-erdogan-aide-idUSKBN1WO05Z

Breaking news: According to sources, Erdogan just announced that the invasion of North East Syria has begun.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on October 09, 2019, 07:07:33 pm
And another ally gets betrayed. One can just wait for the resurgence of ISIS ...

Nothing in this world is certain except death, taxes, and America betraying the Kurds
https://theintercept.com/2019/10/07/kurds-syria-turkey-trump-betrayal/

Turkish army, Syria rebels to push into Syria 'shortly': Erdogan aide
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-security-turkey-usa/turkish-army-syria-rebels-to-push-into-syria-shortly-erdogan-aide-idUSKBN1WO05Z

Breaking news: According to sources, Erdogan just announced that the invasion of North East Syria has begun.

Let's say you're Donald Trump.  The opposition party hates you, and you've just been busted doing something really, really questionable - so questionable that even your friends are looking away.  Luckily you're still being protected by a bunch of cowards who inexplicably keep pretending not to notice what a slimeball you are.

So what do you do?  Find what's maybe the one, single area of policy where your opponents and your protectors agree wholeheartedly, and blow it all to hell.

Donald Trump is truly one of the stupidest men to walk the earth.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 09, 2019, 10:12:29 pm
It turns out that the Kurds didn't help out in Normandy: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/465098-trump-defends-syria-move-the-kurds-didnt-help-us-in-normandy (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/465098-trump-defends-syria-move-the-kurds-didnt-help-us-in-normandy).

Every day, a new kind of crazy. You can't make this sh*t up.

Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 10:49:36 pm
It turns out that the Kurds didn't help out in Normandy: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/465098-trump-defends-syria-move-the-kurds-didnt-help-us-in-normandy (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/465098-trump-defends-syria-move-the-kurds-didnt-help-us-in-normandy).

Every day, a new kind of crazy. You can't make this sh*t up.


The article you linked too did not have the video.  It was a quote taken out of context.  So I looked for it.  Here it is. 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/oct/10/donald-trump-says-kurds-didnt-help-us-with-normandy-video (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/oct/10/donald-trump-says-kurds-didnt-help-us-with-normandy-video)

The point Trump was making in his usual lack of articulation and clarity, was that the Kurds were fighting for their land against ISIS.  They didn;t send troops to a different battle let's say in Normandy to help us where they had no interest like let's say British troops were sent to the ME to assist the US.  We joined the Kurds and they joined us against ISIS who were trying to take their Kurdish territory. 

I do agree though that I'm queasy about what's going to happen next.  If Turkey just sets aside a buffer of land between the Kurds and their land to prevent Kurdish terror attacks on Turkey, it won't be so bad.  After all, Turkey is in NATO and our ally and has been attacked by Kurdish nationalists.  How do we and the rest of NATO countries including the Netherlands Britain, etc  justify NATO if the members don;t defend each other? 
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: James Clark on October 09, 2019, 10:57:32 pm
It turns out that the Kurds didn't help out in Normandy: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/465098-trump-defends-syria-move-the-kurds-didnt-help-us-in-normandy (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/465098-trump-defends-syria-move-the-kurds-didnt-help-us-in-normandy).

Every day, a new kind of crazy. You can't make this sh*t up.

They may not have helped us in Normandy, but I have it on good authority that it was the Kurds who helped capture the airports (https://time.com/5620936/donald-trump-revolutionary-war-airports/) during the American Revolution.   ;D
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: jeremyrh on October 10, 2019, 03:42:20 am
And another ally gets betrayed. One can just wait for the resurgence of ISIS ...


To be fair to Trump, this is nothing new. Last time it was the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq who were encouraged to rebel against Saddam Hussein and got wiped out when the US forgot about them. With friends like this ...
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Rob C on October 10, 2019, 04:57:15 am
The trouble is, the world's economy is a fragile beast, and confidence is what is keeping the balls up in the air.

Think of those big economies of South Korea and Japan: they both rely on American presence to keep them in a state of equilibrium with the giant China. If America suddenly turns out to be unreliable as an ally, how long does anyone imagine it's going to take before those nuclear weapons become far more widely spead across the planet? If anything, it gives North Korea ever more jutification for staying nuke: when you become alone and surrounded by foes, you better have some muscle to flex. NK and China may have some things in common, but I don't believe for a moment NK wants to be part of China; if it did, it could have done that without a shot years ago.

Should South Korea suddenly find itself without an American umbrella, how long do you reckon it would take for the north to walk right in, sit right down and make itself at home? An unreliable, isolationist US could be exactly what NK is patiently waiting to happen. That southern waltz would make them immensely rich and with the military might, as a reunited land, to remain safe.

Turning yourself into an unreliable person or country has never done anyone any good. Kurds may be living and fighting in some - to the US - shithole, but don't forget that news spreads fast, and other, more prosperous allies also think about relationships and their relative values in the light of present revelations of perfidious close friends...

Iran learned that lesson decades ago. Does anyone, apart from Israel itself, believe Israel has some divine right to nukes? Really? Gobbling land as it already does?

Isolationism may strike Trump as a clever move, but were it not for the fact that using lower-wage economies to produce US company products has made those products marketable throughout the world, the US would be a far smaller economy than it currently is. If you insist on paying yourselves more than others do, don't be surprised when others can't afford your goods, and you eventually discover that neither can you.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 08:00:35 am
If Trump supported the Kurds who have been attacking Turkey in their quest for a national state,  he would have been accused of stabbing a NATO ally in the back who we swore to defend and who has been a security ally since the end of WWII.  How could the Netherlands,  Britain,  and all the other NATO nations depend on America in the future?

You see,  this has to do with the 2020 presidential election.   Nothing else.  The Republicans who attack him are fools who got caught up by the anti Trump press bias.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on October 10, 2019, 08:18:07 am
If Trump supported the Kurds who have been attacking Turkey in their quest for a national state,  he would have been accused of stabbing a NATO ally in the back who we swore to defend and who has been a security ally since the end of WWII. 

With a friend like Turkey, you don't need enemies.  They are anything but an ally. Cozying up to Putin and buying Russian S-400 missiles.

Quote
The deal, worth about $2 billion and consummated this week, has consequences far beyond the cost to Ankara's defense budget.
It calls into question the decades-long strategic relationship between Turkey and the US, and even Turkey's credentials as a NATO member.

The US also threatened new sanctions should Turkey complete the S-400 contract, prompting Erdogan to claim on the sidelines of the G-20 summit: "It is out of question between two strategic partners. I think it should not happen."
NATO is also concerned that the S-400 deal will affect Turkey's ability to cooperate with other alliance members.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/europe/turkey-russia-missiles-nato-analysis-intl/index.html
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 10, 2019, 08:39:58 am
If Trump supported the Kurds who have been attacking Turkey in their quest for a national state,  he would have been accused of stabbing a NATO ally in the back who we swore to defend and who has been a security ally since the end of WWII.  How could the Netherlands,  Britain,  and all the other NATO nations depend on America in the future?

You see,  this has to do with the 2020 presidential election.   Nothing else.  The Republicans who attack him are fools who got caught up by the anti Trump press bias.

I don't understand your point. By extolling protectionism Trump is telling the world not to rely on the US. What else could it mean? This may be good or bad in the long run, I couldn't pretend to predict, but one thing it means is that some countries (like Turkey) will find alliances elsewhere (like Russia). It's hard to tell what Trump's long-term foreign policy objectives really are, assuming he has any, but it's pretty clear that by taking these impulsive actions without consulting the foreign and military affairs adults in the room, he is not making the US look reliable. Maybe this method works in commercial real-estate deals but why would anyone think it works in international relations. Now you may say, who cares, but that's kind of short-sighted. It's 2019, there's no such thing as isolationism anymore. And given that the US has military bases all over the planet, declaring yourselves isolationist is a bit hard to believe in the first place.

Your last US-centric point that this is only about the 2020 election needs some re-thinking, imo. Do you really believe that the other 7 billion people on earth give a crap who wins the next US election? If Trump wins again, not unlikely, it's just a signal to the rest of the planet that the US cannot be taken seriously as a world player. The guy threatens wars on Twitter, then changes the subject during the next news cycle. You don't seem to have a problem with that, but you know North Korea still has nukes, Trump did not accomplish a thing there, he just says he did. Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) calls Trump a master persuader. Who is he persuading, I'd like to know. OTOH, people still fall for those online Nigerian financial scams, don't they.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: LesPalenik on October 10, 2019, 08:43:09 am
The guy threatens wars on Twitter, then changes the subject during the next news cycle.

Poor guy. According to his Twitter timestamps, he didn't get any sleep last night.
Title: Re: The American Constitution
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 10:17:35 am
Look I have no love of Erdogan but Turkey is still a NATO ally.  We have a security agreement with them.  Sure they bought Russia missiles which I don;t like.  But that;s because our relationship has soured, a dangerous situation for allies.  We've have had Incirlik Air Base there for decades providing our air forces to be used against Al Qaeda and other enemies.   When the Soviet Union was around, we used Incirlik for U2 and Black Bird spy missions over the USSR and Red China.  We probably still do spy missions out of there.

The American press hates Trump.  They spin everything to make him look bad like their misinterpretation of the Normandy comment.  The papers could just as easily have said "Trump Stands By NATO Ally Turkey in their conflict with Kurdish Nationalists".  Then you would be seeing it in a different light.  Turkey has a legitimate complaints that the Kurds are taking Turkey territory for their homeland and killing Turks.  While I support a Kurdistan homeland for Kurds, we can't get in the middle.  We didn't have troops there before, so why now?  Somehow things worked without us being their then.  So these two peoples will just have to work it out on their own.  Are we suppose to go to war with Turkey to force a Kurdish homeland?  You guys always complain America sticks its nose in where it doesn;t belong.  So now you flipped it and want us to remain stirring up things some more.  Frankly, this is all about the election in 2020.