Print

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

[misko27]

I'm reasonably certain at least some people already thought Trump was all about that. I'm also reasonably certain that at least some people are idiots.

There is some precedent for a billionaire executive office holder: Micheal Bloomberg, owner of Bloomberg Financial and 12-year mayor of New York City. But since Trump's powers and scope are so much greater, the potential (and difficulty of avoiding conflict of interest) is pretty substantial. Which leads me to believe that it isn't impossible for a billionaire to be a strong independent voice in elected office, but that Trump, personally, could not; there is too much there.

[smjjames]

For Mayor, yeah, for President, not before Trump. Though the Kennedys were themselves pretty wealthy.

And Bloomberg is so much more competent than Trump by the mere fact that he's actually held some sort of political office.

I'm reasonably certain at least some people already thought Trump was all about that. I'm also reasonably certain that at least some people are idiots.

Breaking up the banks is definetly Sander's schtick though.

[Descan]

12-year-old mayor of New York City

i read this wrong

[misko27]

I admit I put that poorly.

I mentioned it as an example of how a billionaire President could look (although there are obvious limits to a comparison between leading the largest city in the country, and leading the country itself). But consider: Bloomberg was running the financial capital of the country while owning a several-billion-dollar company called "Bloomberg Financial", yet he managed to avoid conflicts of interest (he also, incidentally, did literally everything Trump claimed he would do as a billionaire, like taking a $1 salary or pay his own living expenses). It's not impossible for a billionaire to avoid those sort of problems, then.

[Neonivek]

I admit I put that poorly.

I mentioned it as an example of how a billionaire President could look (although there are obvious limits to a comparison between leading the largest city in the country, and leading the country itself). But consider: Bloomberg was running the financial capital of the country while owning a several-billion-dollar company called "Bloomberg Financial", yet he managed to avoid conflicts of interest (he also, incidentally, did literally everything Trump claimed he would do as a billionaire, like taking a $1 salary or pay his own living expenses). It's not impossible for a billionaire to avoid those sort of problems, then.

Plus with being a business man being considered more and more important to the American people it isn't unusual for Presidents to have businesses.

George Bush Jr and George Bush Sr. Were both Oil Tycoons.

I know it is silly but we might even get to the point where one of the unstated requirements to be President is to own a business.

[Sheb]

Of course, you have to wonder how effective US public healthcare would be given the amount of lobbying going on in Congress. When you look at Medicare not able to refuse any treatment (even if super expensive and of dubious benefits) or to negotiate drug price down, and compare that to NICE in England...

[misko27]

Well all the lobbying in the world is going against this bill (patients and doctors, that is; insurers are mostly silent, although one or two have expressed concern and/or alarm), so we'll see how much worth is in lobbying.

Also, other websites probably did this better, but this headline is so absolutely wonderful I have to share: Top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell warns of possible bipartisanship on health care

[EnigmaticHat]

I thought the headline was a mistaken wording or at least clickbait.  But then video itself contained so many thinly veiled snubs in the editing and wording.

We could have a big surprise with a great healthcare package.

At this point, victory would be a big surprise.

Also refering to Trump as a cheerleader which is glorious.

[Neonivek]

Apparently there is a large court case about a Baker who won't bake cakes for gay weddings.

Surprisingly the general consensus so far seems to be "He has every right not to make cakes for gay people, they are only going to make him because they are insane"

[ChairmanPoo]

just read in the press that the creator of the game "Commandos" has been arrested by the FBI as part of a Russian bribe network

[Max™]

Good lord, setting aside that I don't have insurance, have never been to a dentist though I definitely need to do so, and as long as I can remember have avoided injuries for a handful of primary reasons: initial pain, possible impairment, and dreaded costs.

A 10 year old who just got hit by a car at a crosswalk and has a mild concussion shouldn't be fighting with the folks in the back of the ambulance because they don't want to incur the costs of a trip to the ER, but I sure the fuck did, and this was back in 1990 so no "good old days" to look back on fondly, healthcare was as expensive and fucked up back then as it takes for the mutant zombie romneycare-resurrected-into-obamacare beast to be an improvement.

That shit has all been discussed though, what's got my eye twitching is the "my tax dollars" nonsense going on.

If you're looking at a local tax, then yes, that revenue actually gets used for operations and so forth.

A federal tax is what would be compared against a federally funded healthcare system, yes?

Well, the government doesn't need you to give the money back, they issued it in the first place, they don't sweep up a big pile of tax receipts and push them over to the local jets-n-tanks-r-us store, they mark the tax revenue down as a decrease on the circulating money supply and respond accordingly.

Your federal taxes don't pay for shit, that is an absurd idea. government accounting bears no resemblance to household finances, how can we kill this misinformation? People see taxes coming out of their paycheck and like to connect it with a little counter over in D.C. or something that increases by that amount. If there is any counter it would just be the cash in circulation and it would tick down. People hear "deficit" and think about being short when trying to buy something or pay a bill, but all it means is that the circulating money supply ticker is positive, i.e. less money has been deleted from circulation than was added to it, so it's probably sitting somewhere, mostly the pockets of a few rich fuckbags, but hey.

[Egan_BW]

If it's sitting in the pockets of rich fuckbags, can you really say it's in circulation?

[Frumple]

The Democrats would love to impeach him over it due to the emoluments thing, but mainly it's that you can't charge the President directly like that.

Daily reminder we don't actually know that (and yes, I know it was from yesterday or something, just noticed, don't care). At the absolute least there's almost certainly directly criminal things involved in his emolument clause violations, and the courts to-the-extent-they've-commented-on-it have been pretty clear that a criminal case that came before them against the POTUS would have no protection against going forward. If the clause itself is a criminal instead of civil violation (not actually sure without checking, and it's entirely too early for that), then it's as fair game as anything.

Presidents haven't been charged with much in office, but the only thing we know we can't hit them with is civil charges, and that only and specifically ones they accrue in the process of pursuing discretionary presidential concerns. That leaves a whole hell of a lot of litigious possibilities unaddressed.

[Rolan7]

Apparently there is a large court case about a Baker who won't bake cakes for gay weddings.

Surprisingly the general consensus so far seems to be "He has every right not to make cakes for gay people, they are only going to make him because they are insane"

My first reaction was "Again?" but apparently it's the same case...  from 2012!  It finally reached the Supreme Court, apparently!  I keep forgetting how long the appeals process takes.

A couple of my libertarian family members argued around the time that companies should have the right to deny anyone service for any reason - including based on race, which is basically the same.  They were confident that any such business would quickly go out of business, thanks to decent people voting with their wallets.

I respectfully disagree.  I think they overestimate how informed consumers are, or how much they care about corporate ethics compared to convenience and price.  Honestly, people really do have more important things to do than personally investigate every business they interact with.  That's why we have government inspection and conveniently standardized nutrition labels.  It's also why it's at least theoretically illegal to discriminate on various factors during hiring, and I think it's reasonable to extend that to selling.  Which is currently the law, thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (for race).

So since it's already illegal to refuse service based on race, I'll be very concerned if the Court decides homosexuality doesn't deserve that protection.  I respect and disagree with Libertarians trying to give private businesses this particular freedom.  I can't respect an argument that refusing LGBT should be legal, when refusing races isn't.

(Not sure where you got that "general consensus", but I'd try not to worry *too* much.  Don't let recent Youtube drama get you down, most people do support LGBT rights.)

[Neonivek]

If the bakery was a PRIVATE business and not a public one they don't need to justify their clientele at all.

The fact that it is a public business changes things quite a bit. Businesses can require that they have exclusive clientele, however courts can put into question the justification for that exclusivity.

So a female only beauty salon could justify it based on having workers specialized in aiding female customers, products that would appeal almost exclusively to women, as well as providing a space for women free from other men.

In fact I've heard of homosexual only spa. HECK I could imagine a straight only couples spa.

Yet how would a heterosexual only bakery justify itself? Homosexuals do not look or act differently than anyone else, nor do they require any special treatment, procurements, or techniques.

Not to mention I have very dubious doubts on his religion defense... and I know people say "I hate when people use their religion as a shield" except if only... I hate when people use things they made up about their religion as a shield.