Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Ahtman wrote: That would make sense if this weren't a party primary but it is so it does matter somewhat. I understand the basic concept but the idea that having the party backing someone in a party-centric election having no effect seems a bit off. Now it isn't everything, because if it was then she would have been the nominee in 2008.
But how does it impact someone's vote? Seriously, if someone is on the border between Sanders and Clinton, and the party is behind Clinton... is that person going to switch to support Clinton? How does that process work?
This is a party vote with superdelegates so it is fairly easy to impact a members vote when you tell them that person A is the anointed one for the party. For the general public I imagine it doesn't have hardly any impact but these aren't general elections these are party primaries where party affiliation makes a difference. Each election is different from state to state with varying degrees of importance placed on the democratic vote with some having pretty much no impact from them and all of it coming from party members before hand as to where delegates go. I even sent a video that outlined a few states like that.
TL;DR: It won't matter much the general but it matters at this point when parties are deciding on a party candidate.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Hey, maybe we'll get lucky and *both* candidates will get slammed with felony charges. That would be a truly sobering statement at the condition of American national politics!
If you are elected President, could you pardon yourself?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
if you thought the ACA was bad, wait till you see what's in that. The idea behind ACA (get everyone health insurance) was probably noble..... there's nothing noble about this one. Basically, this thing is the most ridiculously pro-business, anti-government treaty I've ever heard of.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I don't think the actual treaty is available... Based on the articles that I have read, and having a buddy who works in the shipping industry at Port of Tacoma, what has been leaked or released or whatever, is pretty damaging overall.
Basically, international corporations would hold and be able to exercise more power than sovereign governments.
Now that Hillary has clinched the nomination, perhaps we can stop with this tiresome thing where it's reported that Bernie are Hillary and neck and neck! every time he wins a state and loses 4 others.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/08 14:30:58
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I've made my views on the candidates crystal clear on numerous occasions: Trump and Clinton are just as bad as each other, but as an outsider, if I had to make a choice, it would be Trump.
Why? Because the prospect of Trump and Putin in the same room would be comedy gold, especially if Trump throws his toupee across the room
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
There's also a weird thing going on, where people talk about Sanders as being a very good candidate, the guy who is gonna beat Trump. But then when people talk about Clinton having beaten Sanders... they say that doesn't show anything about Clinton because she only beat this nobody socialist.. Well people have to pick one.
Thats because damn near every poll or article that I've seen on the subject, has Sanders beating Trump, in some cases, handily..... But I think there's also something to be said for the story of the "rigged" election going for the reason why Sanders is apparently not beating Clinton. The combination of the two create a situation where people who support Sanders aren't entirely comfortable with how we got to the results.
I'm not a Clinton supporter by any means, and might have actually voted for Sanders over Trump. However, she beat him fair and square in the delegate count. She hit the magic number unofficially on Monday, officially on Tuesday.
She is the Democratic nominee, and the Sanders backers need to accept that.
However, they don't have to vote for her. Or Trump.
Frazzled wrote: If you are elected President, could you pardon yourself?
Yes. But a pardon specifically does not apply to impeachment so there is still that.
It would also be a breach of executive privilege. SCOTUS ruled on this during the Watergate Scandal i.e the limits of executive privilege were clearly laid out in the judges' ruling.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Really Obama should just pardon Hillary since the constant fishing expeditions for the last 20+ years have been a huge drain on national resources from the party of 'small government'.
Why would Obama want to do that? If the FBI drops a real charge on her, then thats around his neck. If I were him I'd steer clear of that wider than a hornets nest.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/08 15:30:44
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
skyth wrote: Because the Republucans have had 20+ years of constant trying to make something stick. It's just time to say enough is enough.
There's not really a down side to doing it.
Sure there is. Pardoning someone indcted on felony violations of criminal security laws would be a serious blemish. he owes nothing to her.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I don't think the actual treaty is available... Based on the articles that I have read, and having a buddy who works in the shipping industry at Port of Tacoma, what has been leaked or released or whatever, is pretty damaging overall.
Basically, international corporations would hold and be able to exercise more power than sovereign governments.
I've read about %50, but there are numerous articles are online to go into many of the details as well
Three major parts to the "trade" agreement Frazzled:
1. International corporations can sue national governments over laws passed within said government's countries that would impact said corporation's profits
2. It give international food companies the ability to sue over food regulation
This is in line with the point above, but it's something that is pretty important to point out. The TPP (and TTIP by extension) make the food safety regulations more beholden to trade than to the health of the consumer. It gives international food companies the ability to sue over decisions, such as the use of Ractopamine in pork. That drug started out as an asthma medicine, and is now used as a beta-agonist drug to promote muscle growth in pigs and cattle. It, and the animals that are given it as a feed additive, are banned in over 160 countries, including China of all places.
3. Internet privacy and user protection take a significant hit in favor of much harsher IP laws and punishments
The TPP pushes for policies that are beyond what even SOPA and ACTA tried to do, and cranks the DMCA up further.
So essentially: a foreign company could sue our government if our government passes laws that hurt their profits...even if said legislation was passed 1) legally and 2) for the benefit/protection.
That is...just....wow....I mean our lawmakers agreed to that?!? Wtf?!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/08 17:12:24
I don't think the actual treaty is available... Based on the articles that I have read, and having a buddy who works in the shipping industry at Port of Tacoma, what has been leaked or released or whatever, is pretty damaging overall.
Basically, international corporations would hold and be able to exercise more power than sovereign governments.
I've read about %50, but there are numerous articles are online to go into many of the details as well
Three major parts to the "trade" agreement Frazzled:
1. International corporations can sue national governments over laws passed within said government's countries that would impact said corporation's profits
2. It give international food companies the ability to sue over food regulation
This is in line with the point above, but it's something that is pretty important to point out. The TPP (and TTIP by extension) make the food safety regulations more beholden to trade than to the health of the consumer. It gives international food companies the ability to sue over decisions, such as the use of Ractopamine in pork. That drug started out as an asthma medicine, and is now used as a beta-agonist drug to promote muscle growth in pigs and cattle. It, and the animals that are given it as a feed additive, are banned in over 160 countries, including China of all places.
3. Internet privacy and user protection take a significant hit in favor of much harsher IP laws and punishments
The TPP pushes for policies that are beyond what even SOPA and ACTA tried to do, and cranks the DMCA up further.
So yeah, with those being only some of what is contained in the agreement, I will never support someone who has backed it.
Intersting (and not in a good way). Well both have said they are against it, which means I believe them not at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: So essentially: a foreign company could sue our government if our government passes laws that hurt their profits...even if said legislation was passed 1) legally and 2) for the benefit/protection.
That is...just....wow....I mean our lawmakers agreed to that?!? Wtf?!
I don't think the Senate passed it. EDIT: I see it has not been ratified yet.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/08 17:22:40
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
TheMeanDM wrote: So essentially: a foreign company could sue our government if our government passes laws that hurt their profits...even if said legislation was passed 1) legally and 2) for the benefit/protection.
That is...just....wow....I mean our lawmakers agreed to that?!? Wtf?!
Well, NAFTA does the same thing. But that doesn't mean I want to see that ability expanded.
John Oliver did a piece about this, specifically with how the tobacco industry is able to force their will on countries despite what the local government/populace want.
I don't think the actual treaty is available... Based on the articles that I have read, and having a buddy who works in the shipping industry at Port of Tacoma, what has been leaked or released or whatever, is pretty damaging overall.
Basically, international corporations would hold and be able to exercise more power than sovereign governments.
I've read about %50, but there are numerous articles are online to go into many of the details as well
Three major parts to the "trade" agreement Frazzled:
1. International corporations can sue national governments over laws passed within said government's countries that would impact said corporation's profits
2. It give international food companies the ability to sue over food regulation
This is in line with the point above, but it's something that is pretty important to point out. The TPP (and TTIP by extension) make the food safety regulations more beholden to trade than to the health of the consumer. It gives international food companies the ability to sue over decisions, such as the use of Ractopamine in pork. That drug started out as an asthma medicine, and is now used as a beta-agonist drug to promote muscle growth in pigs and cattle. It, and the animals that are given it as a feed additive, are banned in over 160 countries, including China of all places.
3. Internet privacy and user protection take a significant hit in favor of much harsher IP laws and punishments
The TPP pushes for policies that are beyond what even SOPA and ACTA tried to do, and cranks the DMCA up further.
So yeah, with those being only some of what is contained in the agreement, I will never support someone who has backed it.
Intersting (and not in a good way). Well both have said they are against it, which means I believe them not at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: So essentially: a foreign company could sue our government if our government passes laws that hurt their profits...even if said legislation was passed 1) legally and 2) for the benefit/protection.
That is...just....wow....I mean our lawmakers agreed to that?!? Wtf?!
Congress and the President haven't ratified it, but the fact that there is White House support and still support in Congress doesn't make me feel too warm and fuzzy
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Breotan wrote: John Oliver did a piece about this, specifically with how the tobacco industry is able to force their will on countries despite what the local government/populace want.
