Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

While I disapprove of the Israeli actions during that brief Gaza war, calling them genocidal is a bit too far. Yes, some of what happened bordered on warcrime (or just general recklessness and asshattery), but it's not like they went out of their way to kill Palestinians.

Also, it would be an incredible Irony with a capital 'i' if they did commit genocide. Which is definetly some kind of trope, turning into the very same monster that you fled/fought before.

[SirQuiamus]

It's easy to imagine all kinds of things about the Trumpster, and that's precisely the point of the populist strategy:

You were off to a really strong start here.

– Trump will not fix campaign financing (and neither will Hillary).
– Trump will not restrain Wall Street fuckery (and neither will Hillary).

This is the problematic part.  This is as close most people get to being like Trump supporters.  You pass off the whole damn system as corrupt.  People like Barney Frank, Elizabeth Warren and Steve Eisman say that important reforms have taken place.  Clinton is talking about using executive orders to further reinforce those reforms.  Campaign finance is harder to predict but the replacement for Scalia could be big effing news when it comes to campaign finance.

I'd be interested to hear more about these "important reforms" and Hillary's "further reinforcements." Considering that she has outright refused to push for anything resembling Glass-Steagall (which was originally repealed under the auspices of her husband), I find it very hard to believe that any of her reforms would deliver what it says on the package.

Also, why haven't the Democrats already replaced Scalia? Do they want Trump to appoint Dennis Rodman to SCOTUS?

EDIT:

Seriously, m8: anti-Israel =/= anti-semitic.

I believe the objection was to the word "genocide" not to expressing disapproval of Israel.

If I wanted to be a tedious bastard, I could argue that calling someone "genocidal" is not the same as claiming that they've committed genocide. I know that Bibi's regime has killed dozens or hundreds of Palestinians for every dead Israeli, but I guess it's not "genocide" if it's done in "self-defence."

This is an inauspicious topic – let's drop it.

[Dorsidwarf]

Obama named his replacement like a month ago, but the 'pubs think that his constitutional right to do so is undemocratic(Un-them-ocratic more like) and so are blocking it in the hopes they win the general election.

[smjjames]

Also, why haven't the Democrats already replaced Scalia? Do they want Trump to appoint Dennis Rodman to SCOTUS?

Not sure exactly, but if I had to guess, I'd say maybe they are holding their cards and letting the republicans self destruct and not play their hand too soon. To use a bunch of card game metaphors.

Plus, it's just as likely (actually, probably more likely than it is for Trump) that Clinton will become President.

Obama named his replacement like a month ago, but the 'pubs think that his constitutional right to do so is undemocratic(Un-them-ocratic more like) and so are blocking it in the hopes they win the general election.

That and they want someone who is a clone of Scalia. Of course though, that was back in February before things clearly went both pear shaped and bannana shaped at the same time as far as their origional plans were.

[mainiac]

I'd be interested to hear more about these "important reforms"

Dodd Frank?

Let me just throw this out there for you.  Glass Stegal is a turd that does jack shit but it looks good.

Hillary's "further reinforcements."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/how-hillary-clinton-would-regulate-the-too-big-to-fail-banks.html

This is an inauspicious topic – let's drop it.

How noble of you to make an argument and then selflessly call for everyone else not to respond to it.

[Shadowlord]

Holding their cards? It's not like Obama can just snap his fingers and make someone a Supreme Court Justice. The Republicans who control the senate are refusing to even allow hearings.

[smjjames]

Holding their cards? It's not like Obama can just snap his fingers and make someone a Supreme Court Justice. The Republicans who control the senate are refusing to even allow hearings.

I mean holding back on whatever Senate procedures that they can do to force the Republicans to do a hearing.

[Shadowlord]

Like what, filibustering critical bills, threatening to shut down the government if they don't get their way, like the tea party Republicans in the house?

[SirQuiamus]

Holding their cards? It's not like Obama can just snap his fingers and make someone a Supreme Court Justice. The Republicans who control the senate are refusing to even allow hearings.

It's kinda amazing what the senators can get away with: they could theoretically delay the hearing for all eternity because the constitution does not expressly forbid it.

And some people say the president has too much power for a leader of a constitutional democracy.

Hillary's "further reinforcements."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/how-hillary-clinton-would-regulate-the-too-big-to-fail-banks.html

"Let's make harmful activities a bit more expensive for the banks / Let's endow some corrupt officials with regulatory powers they'll never actually use."

[MetalSlimeHunt]

According to 538, Cruz was mathematically eliminated from winning the republican primary yesterday.  This made me remember that the rules had a provision for candidates staying in after they are mathematically eliminated.

Oh right, uh, anyone who doesn't drop out before the end counts as dropping out on the day that the nomination becomes a mathematical certainty (not just overwhelming probability).  Unpledged delegates dont count towards the totals for this.  Unfaithful pledged delegates are not considered a possibility.  Getting the right nominee counts as negative 31 days.

So, counting Kasich as dropping out on March 15th and Cruz dropping out yesterday the scores are:

MetalSlimeHunt 300
Redking 399
Wolock 536
Pretentious Killjoy (aka your truly) 536
smjjames 694
Strife 749

I did not give MSH and Redking credit for predicting Trump's nomination because there is still a chance that Trump will not be the nominee.

FEEL MY PSYCHIC MAJESTY

[mainiac]

"Let's make harmful activities a bit more expensive for the banks / Let's endow some corrupt officials with regulatory powers they'll never actually use."

So in other words, when you were asking for what she was proposing you didn't actually give a shit because you would just assume the whole system is corrupt no matter what.

This is the problematic part.  This is as close most people get to being like Trump supporters.  You pass off the whole damn system as corrupt.

[SirQuiamus]

So in other words, when you were asking for what she was proposing you didn't actually give a shit because you would just assume the whole system is corrupt no matter what.

Okay, you got me there. I do think that it's perfectly realistic to assume widespread corruption in any intricate bureaucratic system involving lots and lots of money, and I do think that any efficient policy in such a system would have to take that corruption as its premise. But that's just my opinion.

[Twi]

So in other words, when you were asking for what she was proposing you didn't actually give a shit because you would just assume the whole system is corrupt no matter what.

Well, we can probably test this: do regulators in the financial sector actively use the powers they have? Do they push for harsh punishments like any self-respecting government agency would do? (unless the someone is rich and powerful) Do they buddy up with the people they're supposed to be regulating? What's the historical track record on regulator corruption or lack thereof?

I'm honestly curious. _{Though too lazy to look it up myself. but shh.}

[Reelya]

You know what, Trump wants to build the wall, and he wants Mexico to pay for it. But hey, if Trump gets elected, then Mexico's building the damn wall, and they won't care who is paying for it. In fact, there will be a race between Mexico and Canada to see who can build their wall first.

[SirQuiamus]

So in other words, when you were asking for what she was proposing you didn't actually give a shit because you would just assume the whole system is corrupt no matter what.

Well, we can probably test this: do regulators in the financial sector actively use the powers they have? Do they push for harsh punishments like any self-respecting government agency would do? (unless the someone is rich and powerful) Do they buddy up with the people they're supposed to be regulating? What's the historical track record on regulator corruption or lack thereof?

I'm honestly curious. _{Though too lazy to look it up myself. but shh.}

Complaints and federal lawsuits are just a matter of course for the banks: they might win or lose, but in any case they just file the legal expenses under "normal operating costs." The money flows back and forth between bank vaults and state coffers, and absolutely nothing changes in the long run.