Print

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

[feelotraveller]

Yes it is hard to talk in the abstract about this.  But we do the best we can. 

For truly bewildering/unagreeable issues, there has always been the option to 'instruct' the delegates to only truly decide once they have heard (or asked) further details at their point of voting, exactly as it now clearly intended to do for it all. And it definitely was done to decide localised discussions had had the wrong end of the wrong stick and indeed flip their mandated intentions (as a delegation, or maybe as some individuals within that) once a different spin was raised in the floor-discussion just before the vote to overturn the previously considered decisions.

(My bolding.)
At this point as a delegate I would want to reconsult the group my vote was for (given todays electronica it may even be somewhat possible with a short adjournment).  In general though this demonstrates a lack of proper procedure, and probably insufficient discussion (quite possibly deliberately so).  The local/regional groups should have documented and circulated their discussions before the issue moved to a vote and so been aware of the arguments/points of view of others, and having moved to a vote the floor should have been closed to further discussion.  If unavoidable - say a new development of an ongoing issue - it seems sufficient to call for another round of discussion/consideration before being brought back for a vote. (If urgent -> electronica.)

Spoiler: "Footer(s) - tangents" (click to show/hide)

[1] In reality, ask if anybody (starting with last year's reps) is bothered, and very rarely get competing claims above the number places to fill. Trying to get 'new blood' into the system is difficult. The last time I saw our regional level get competitive was when a 'putsch' over a localised issue of policy and for one year there were a lot of 'the New Guard' and remnants of the old.

[2] Again, apathy happens. Mostly with local groups considering it beneath them/irrelevent to send their guys’n’gals to the regional level.

Yeah, you've got to wonder what it is about the mainstream political limelight that makes it so attractive when the general experience at the grassroots level is so often finding someone, anyone, to fulfill the role.  Sheesh, who needs a vote when there are one or none candidates. 

Separately I hope they weren't this New Guard since that would pretty much prove the involvement of a necromancer. (Though there was a more recent reuse of the name - far less colourful and interesting if you ask me.)

[Starver]

At this point as a delegate I would want to reconsult the group my vote was for (given todays electronica it may even be somewhat possible with a short adjournment).

Not really possible. And I doubt we could get enough interest for people 'back home' to be sitting awaiting a Zoom/Teams or an other meeting 'on the off-chance' we'd stall the procedings enough to have a quick teleconference over some minutae.

In general though this demonstrates a lack of proper procedure, and probably insufficient discussion (quite possibly deliberately so).

In a couple of instances, I can think of how it arose via a 'garden path' misunderstanding of the original explanation. The reasoning was followed (and eventually either agreed or disagreed with, if not both) but when the original proposers said their customary bit of "...and this is why..." it was sufficiently different in scope. What's more, there was enough wide ranging discussion done to be confident of the revised (or not!) position to faithfully adopt. I certainly don't perceive deliberate obfuscation. Incompetance at best (sometimes in the sense of "an incompetant proposition", i.e. badly worded to not do what it thinks it doesl.

BYHTBT.


(We now return you to your regularly scheduled program(me)s?)

[da_nang]

Oh boy, it's coming.

Four days ago, the Federal Reserve released the names of the banks that had received $4.5 trillion in cumulative loans in the last quarter of 2019 under its emergency repo loan operations for a liquidity crisis that has yet to be credibly explained. Among the largest borrowers were JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, three of the Wall Street banks that were at the center of the subprime and derivatives crisis in 2008 that brought down the U.S. economy. That’s blockbuster news. But as of 7 a.m. this morning, not one major business media outlet has reported the details of the Fed’s big reveal.

[...]

The most puzzling part of this news blackout is that the majority of the reporters who covered this Fed story at the time it was happening in 2019, are still employed at the same news outlets. We emailed a number of them and asked why they were not covering this important story. Silence prevailed. We then emailed the media relations contacts for the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Financial Times and the Washington Post, inquiring as to why there was a news blackout on this story. Again, silence.
Next, we emailed a number of reporters who had covered this story in 2019 but were no longer employed at a major news outlet. We asked their opinion on what could explain this bizarre news blackout on such a major financial story. We received emails praising our reporting but advising that they “can’t comment.”
The phrase “can’t comment” as opposed to “don’t wish to comment” raised a major alarm bell. Wall Street megabanks are notorious for demanding that their staff sign non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement agreements in order to get severance pay and other benefits when they are terminated. Are the newsrooms covering Wall Street megabanks now demanding similar gag orders from journalists? If they are, we’re looking at a form of corporate tyranny previously unseen in America.

[...]

Theories abound as to why this current story is off limits to the media. One theory goes like this: the Fed has made headlines around the world in recent months over its own trading scandal – the worst in its history. Granular details of just how deep this Fed trading scandal goes have also been withheld from the public as well as members of Congress. If the media were now to focus on yet another scandal at the Fed – such as it bailing out the banks in 2019 because of their own hubris once again – there might be legislation introduced in Congress to strip the Fed of its supervisory role over the megabanks and a restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act to separate the federally-insured commercial banks from the trading casinos on Wall Street.
Why might such an outcome be a problem for media outlets in New York City? Three of the serially charged banks (JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup) are actually owners of the New York Fed – the regional Fed bank that played the major role in doling out the bailout money in 2008, and again in 2019. The New York Fed and its unlimited ability to electronically print money, are a boon to the New York City economy, which is a boon to advertising revenue at the big New York City-based media outlets.

High factual reporting, according to Media Bias/Fact Check.

Trillions doled out and no mainstream news outlet bats an eye.

[JoshuaFH]

-

[Loud Whispers]

That's vomit inducing

What can be done?

Four days ago, the Federal Reserve released the names of the banks that had received $4.5 trillion in cumulative loans in the last quarter of 2019 under its emergency repo loan operations for a liquidity crisis that has yet to be credibly explained.

lol
We need 4.5 trillion dollars... For uh... Reasons... Yeah

[None]

I'm not usually one to jump at stories about "why isn't the media talking about this?" but that being said, it's ominous that the same megabanks that dumpstered the economy last time around are guzzling magnitudes of funds without oversight.

I can't say I'm altogether surprised, given that so much of the covid relief money that got handed out got redistributed out to safe, successful companies instead of the ones that needed it to continue operating/keep staff on during the lockdowns, and the oversight committee bit got struck out of the relief bill. Bbbrgh.

[McTraveller]

Why is it that the tendency to assume that absolutely every action taken by any organization is for nefarious reasons?

I mean what would it be about those massive loans that is so different from any other stupendously huge financial action between the government and the Fed and the mega-banks?

I'm not sure I understand the "without oversight" assertion - is it that if the media hides something, then the general populace isn't going to be stirred into enough of a frenzy? Do we really want the only thing to effect change to be the frenzy of the general population?

[MrRoboto75]

it's ominous that the same megabanks that dumpstered the economy last time around are guzzling magnitudes of funds without oversight.

Almost like there was no consequences.

[hector13]

it's ominous that the same megabanks that dumpstered the economy last time around are guzzling magnitudes of funds without oversight.

Almost like there was no consequences.

Pfft, one banker in Britain lost his knighthood. Er… 4 years later.

[LordBaal]

Oh lord! He is now forced to roam the earth without lands appointed to him by his feudal lord, no serfs and the worst thing of all... he will not have a squire anymore.... if only... like millions of stollen dollars could replace any of such things...

[Loud Whispers]

Pfft, one banker in Britain lost his knighthood. Er… 4 years later.

What will his children do now that they'll only inherit billions of pounds instead of billions and a title

[nenjin]

Maybe this has already been mentioned....

But they've found forged electoral documents from five states that were sent in during the election claiming Trump won.

The forgeries are absolutely laughable in quality. 4 of the 5 are essentially just a word document template that doesn't even come close to matching the actual electoral documents of each state. No seal, no decorative border, the language is even different in places.

Whoever signed and notarized those belongs in jail, right fucking now. Doesn't matter if the forgeries were so bad they were easy to spot. This is ACTUAL election fraud, not the fake fantasy shit Trump and Co. has spent millions trying to make real.

https://fxtwitter.com/ReportsDaNews/status/1481135444104470534

[None]

Nah, that's news to me- most recent news I have scrolled past is that the orange one stormed out on an NPR interview, one of the GOP's she-goons is calling for second amendment action against democrats, anti-vax leaders are instructing people to drink pee, conservative talking heads are trying to establish if viagra or testosterone blockers are effective protections for covid instead of the vaccine, and maybe someone's actually going to do something about the filibuster.

Some week, huh?

I'll believe it when I see it on the filibuster stuff, given we still have an obstructionist majority in the senate. The rest of it's just your usual insanely wacky hijinks and promotion of stochastic terrorism/tyranny.

[Dostoevsky]

Unless something drastic happens inside the heads of Sens. Sinema & Manchin, the filibuster isn't changing. But the theory is that having an actual vote on it may make a difference politically (personally I'm doubtful).

There was some coverage of attempted fake electoral documents back in December 2020 to early 2021, but this may be a fresh crop of them. (Also they're now officially in the 1/6 commission records, looks like.)

[martinuzz]

US Court ruled that the criminal charges will not be dropped. Prince Andrew will be prosecuted for sexual abuse of a minor.