Switch Theme:

US Politics  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




On a surly Warboar, leading the Waaagh!

So this is the third party POTUS option, huh? Did Johnson hang around the nuclear testing sites too much when he was governor of New Mexico? Just ask him what his favorite color is next time and leave it at that. I mean really...


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gary-johnson-has-%e2%80%98aleppo-moment%e2%80%99-when-asked-to-name-favorite-foreign-leader/ar-BBwLjbF?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/29 06:35:01


 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

 LordofHats wrote:
I feel like Donalds solution to national debt is to tell everyone that suing America for their money is going to cost more than they'd get.

So basically the "feth off" strategy.


More than half the US national debt is owed to American citizens. Telling them to feth off isn't going to work. Not to mention now that US citizens are allowed to sue foreign governments, it's likely that foreign citizens will start suing the US government.

Basically Trump is an ignoramus, and his team of "the best people" seem to be just as bad as him.

The election campaign is running on the basis of everyone hates politics so let's have a clown car party instead.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Kilkrazy wrote:
Basically Trump is an ignoramus, and his team of "the best people" seem to be just as bad as him.


I just found out that gibberish he spouted out in the debate about VAT as a trade barrier wasn't Trump just making up stuff by himself. That actually came from the briefing document given to him by his economic panel, most of whom are long time Republican advisers.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Kilkrazy wrote:


More than half the US national debt is owed to American citizens. Telling them to feth off isn't going to work. Not to mention now that US citizens are allowed to sue foreign governments, it's likely that foreign citizens will start suing the US government.


But. But Donald said it was all the Chinese!

   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 sebster wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Basically Trump is an ignoramus, and his team of "the best people" seem to be just as bad as him.


I just found out that gibberish he spouted out in the debate about VAT as a trade barrier wasn't Trump just making up stuff by himself. That actually came from the briefing document given to him by his economic panel, most of whom are long time Republican advisers.
That bit at the end is the worst part, honestly.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 LordofHats wrote:
But. But Donald said it was all the Chinese!


Trump also complained the Chinese have been manipulating their currency to gain a trade advantage over the US. They possibly were, about 6 years ago. But in the last 6 years China has been manipulating their currency up, to avoid capital flight out of China. Trump is 6 years behind on internation trade events... and this is 'strong suit' of his campaign.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 WrentheFaceless wrote:
I had just read that

I suppose his plan for the debt is to also not pay it then?


Well technically no country will really ever pay debts fully anyway so not that far off plan anyway...

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





tneva82 wrote:
Well technically no country will really ever pay debts fully anyway so not that far off plan anyway...


Governments pay off debts. When a bond is due the government pays the face value in full. This is something the US has never failed to do (well, there was a technical glitch in the 70s so some bonds got missed for a week or so, but that's the only time). It's something that only a few nations have ever failed to do, and when they have it's been part of a tremendous national collapse.

I think you are maybe thinking of countries never actually paying off every single bond they have issued, and not issuing any more. That is, moving to a state of having no governmental debt at all. Well it's true that that won't happen. But this isn't a problem, it's a perfectly ordinary thing. Any organisation which has debt funding for any reason will see debt grow over time. For nations, debt can continue to grow each year, and as long as it remains a fairly consistent portion of GDP there is no issue.

Trump is talking about actually defaulting on debt. Well, maybe, he kind of suggested that, then backpedaled and instead started talking about refinancing, which is less crazy, but something you can't actually do with the bond markets the US operates in.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/29 09:36:17


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in gb
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols






Did congress overturn Obama's veto on the families of 911 victims suing Saudi Arabia for its part in the attack?
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 sebster wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Well technically no country will really ever pay debts fully anyway so not that far off plan anyway...


Governments pay off debts. When a bond is due the government pays the face value in full. This is something the US has never failed to do (well, there was a technical glitch in the 70s so some bonds got missed for a week or so, but that's the only time). It's something that only a few nations have ever failed to do, and when they have it's been part of a tremendous national collapse.


Yes but they pay it off with new debts. Take loan to pay out existing loan. No goverment will really aim for 0 debts because that would basically take them into misery and because economics works on the assumption countries are eternal they don't NEED ever get that debt to zero.

Well until one goverment actually ceases to exists and that myth burst...

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




 Future War Cultist wrote:
Did congress overturn Obama's veto on the families of 911 victims suing Saudi Arabia for its part in the attack?


Yes, both the Senate and then the House voted to override Obama's veto.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





North Carolina

 jasper76 wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
Did congress overturn Obama's veto on the families of 911 victims suing Saudi Arabia for its part in the attack?


Yes, both the Senate and then the House voted to override Obama's veto.




Not that it matters. It's mostly a symbolic gesture. Hell, the bill itself was a symbolic gesture played for politics. The survivors and victims can sue, but that doesn't mean the Saudis are going to pay one red cent. In fact, I would bank on it that they wouldn't.

The Saudis are scum. The only reason we kiss their asses right on is because of the petrodollar and their influence in OPEC.

Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k 
   
Made in gb
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols






Well a symbolic gesture, even if it doesn't yield any real compensation, is far better than letting the scumbags get clean away with it. At least they'll be exposed for the bastards that they are. Yes, I too absolutely despise Saudi Arabia and everything about it.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




On a surly Warboar, leading the Waaagh!

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
Did congress overturn Obama's veto on the families of 911 victims suing Saudi Arabia for its part in the attack?


Yes, both the Senate and then the House voted to override Obama's veto.




Not that it matters. It's mostly a symbolic gesture. Hell, the bill itself was a symbolic gesture played for politics. The survivors and victims can sue, but that doesn't mean the Saudis are going to pay one red cent. In fact, I would bank on it that they wouldn't.

The Saudis are scum. The only reason we kiss their asses right on is because of the petrodollar and their influence in OPEC.



Both reasons becoming less significant and influential by the day... Frak'em!
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Just wait until someone from Ireland or England sues the US for supporting the IRA. Or someone from Russia sues the US for supporting and arming the Taliban/Bin Laden.

Allowing US citizens to sue other countries for 'supporting' terrorists is short sighted with all the terrorists the US has supported.
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

Never know, Cubans might sue the US for its role in the Bay of Pigs and for allowing the terrorist attack on flight 455.

The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Never know, Cubans might sue the US for its role in the Bay of Pigs and for allowing the terrorist attack on flight 455.


Castro himself could probably bankrupt us over all the attempts we made on his life.

But Obama really spoke truth when he said the vote on this bill was purely political. Who would dare, in the months before an election, to vote against anything regarding 9/11 survivors and families?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/29 12:57:02


"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

It's... iffy. On the one hand, I think it's a bad door to open and Obama was right to veto it. On the other hand, I think Saudi Arabia sponsors an awful lot of terrorism, and they're pretty gakky allies, right up there with Pakistan. So, I understand the emotional pull of the thing as well.


 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
 
   
Made in us
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




 skyth wrote:
Just wait until someone from Ireland or England sues the US for supporting the IRA. Or someone from Russia sues the US for supporting and arming the Taliban/Bin Laden.

Allowing US citizens to sue other countries for 'supporting' terrorists is short sighted with all the terrorists the US has supported.


why go so far back, all the people last week who lost loved ones due to collateral damage from random drone strikes. I think doctors without borders should be the first to sue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BigWaaagh wrote:
So this is the third party POTUS option, huh? Did Johnson hang around the nuclear testing sites too much when he was governor of New Mexico? Just ask him what his favorite color is next time and leave it at that. I mean really...


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gary-johnson-has-%e2%80%98aleppo-moment%e2%80%99-when-asked-to-name-favorite-foreign-leader/ar-BBwLjbF?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP




still better than trump or hillary

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/29 13:31:48


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




On a surly Warboar, leading the Waaagh!

sirlynchmob wrote:
 skyth wrote:
Just wait until someone from Ireland or England sues the US for supporting the IRA. Or someone from Russia sues the US for supporting and arming the Taliban/Bin Laden.

Allowing US citizens to sue other countries for 'supporting' terrorists is short sighted with all the terrorists the US has supported.


why go so far back, all the people last week who lost loved ones due to collateral damage from random drone strikes. I think doctors without borders should be the first to sue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BigWaaagh wrote:
So this is the third party POTUS option, huh? Did Johnson hang around the nuclear testing sites too much when he was governor of New Mexico? Just ask him what his favorite color is next time and leave it at that. I mean really...


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gary-johnson-has-%e2%80%98aleppo-moment%e2%80%99-when-asked-to-name-favorite-foreign-leader/ar-BBwLjbF?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP




still better than trump or hillary



In somebody's dazed and confused mind, perhaps. Let's just Gary a nice rocking chair and shawl and point him towards the sunset...no more questions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:
It's... iffy. On the one hand, I think it's a bad door to open and Obama was right to veto it. On the other hand, I think Saudi Arabia sponsors an awful lot of terrorism, and they're pretty gakky allies, right up there with Pakistan. So, I understand the emotional pull of the thing as well.



"...gakky allies..." to say the least. The problem is that the emotional side of the debate is opening a can of worms that will do nothing towards international peace and stability. Then there's that whole throwing stones and living in glass houses thing...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/29 14:07:21


 
   
Made in us
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




 BigWaaagh wrote:

In somebody's dazed and confused mind, perhaps. Let's just Gary a nice rocking chair and shawl and point him towards the sunset...no more questions.


so he'd be as great as Regan then

I highly doubt he'd get anywhere near the vote to win any county, let alone state. The point of voting for him is to rattle the other two parties, the more votes that go to third party candidates the more they'll worry about losing control. Once we can get to that point they'll have to listen to the people, then we can finally get some change and our issues addressed, instead of catering to their donors.

 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 BigWaaagh wrote:
So this is the third party POTUS option, huh? Did Johnson hang around the nuclear testing sites too much when he was governor of New Mexico? Just ask him what his favorite color is next time and leave it at that. I mean really...


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gary-johnson-has-%e2%80%98aleppo-moment%e2%80%99-when-asked-to-name-favorite-foreign-leader/ar-BBwLjbF?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP



Probably.

But, hey... he's a useful protest vote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
Did congress overturn Obama's veto on the families of 911 victims suing Saudi Arabia for its part in the attack?

Yup. It's in effect now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 oldravenman3025 wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
Did congress overturn Obama's veto on the families of 911 victims suing Saudi Arabia for its part in the attack?


Yes, both the Senate and then the House voted to override Obama's veto.




Not that it matters. It's mostly a symbolic gesture. Hell, the bill itself was a symbolic gesture played for politics. The survivors and victims can sue, but that doesn't mean the Saudis are going to pay one red cent. In fact, I would bank on it that they wouldn't.

The Saudis are scum. The only reason we kiss their asses right on is because of the petrodollar and their influence in OPEC.

If the Saudis have any assets here in the US (which I'm sure they do), they could be confiscated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skyth wrote:
Just wait until someone from Ireland or England sues the US for supporting the IRA. Or someone from Russia sues the US for supporting and arming the Taliban/Bin Laden.

Allowing US citizens to sue other countries for 'supporting' terrorists is short sighted with all the terrorists the US has supported.

Actually... it opens the door to any countries found to have supported terrorisms... so, it may not be so shortsighted.

I still think it's a dumb policy.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/29 14:12:59


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




On a surly Warboar, leading the Waaagh!

sirlynchmob wrote:
 BigWaaagh wrote:

In somebody's dazed and confused mind, perhaps. Let's just Gary a nice rocking chair and shawl and point him towards the sunset...no more questions.


so he'd be as great as Regan then

I highly doubt he'd get anywhere near the vote to win any county, let alone state. The point of voting for him is to rattle the other two parties, the more votes that go to third party candidates the more they'll worry about losing control. Once we can get to that point they'll have to listen to the people, then we can finally get some change and our issues addressed, instead of catering to their donors.



I wonder if he knows who Reagan is? I mean, his VPOTUS pick at least knew Peres...also dead.
I'm all for the splintering of the two parties, but it's years away from being actualized and I just don't see GJ as the one. As for wasting, yes wasting, a vote on Johnson this election to "rattle" the Dems/GOP, how can anyone not think the Trump/Sanders phenomenon has already rattled the two major parties? Now it's time to make your vote count. I keep having Nader flashbacks on this and the hairpiece winning. Trump has to be stopped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Question for the lawyer types out there.

For 'Citizens United' to be overturned, which means would apply?
Constitutional Amendment
SCOTUS overturning previous decision
Congressional legislative action

I think these are the three types of ways a SCOTUS decision can be overturned. As it was a decision based upon an existing law to my understanding...which may be very wrong...I'm guessing it's Congressional legislative action, no? Anyways, just looking for an answer on how this could be done as someone out there with the legal chops could answer this faster and more succinctly than my trolling around the interweb.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/09/29 14:45:48


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Johnson is making his case:
Gary Johnson: Take a deep breath, voters. There's a third way.
Spoiler:
The America I know wasn’t on the television screen on Monday night. My America is about the freedom to make choices, pursue your dreams and use your skills as entrepreneurs. It is about having more choices than just red versus blue.

Americans want to be able to choose a president who is capable of reason, of learning from failures, and of telling them the truth, even when it hurts. Most of all, they want to choose a president who will adhere to the Constitution and will make government live within its means.

I’m offering that choice. I wasn’t part of the presidential debate on Monday, but as Americans listened in dismay to the so-called major parties’ candidates, Google searches for “Gary Johnson” skyrocketed.

I’m the third candidate — the leader of the Libertarian Party. My name will be on every ballot alongside that of my running mate, Bill Weld, who like me was a twice-elected Republican governor of a strongly Democratic state. Contrary to the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, Bill and I don’t believe the United States is a polarized nation.

We don’t deny that there are very real tensions on the fringes, and we can’t simply ignore those tensions. But when it comes down to the basics, most Americans really aren’t that far apart.





Our kids are better educated than ever before. Our technology enables entrepreneurship and transparency. Our military is second to none, as it should be. But our two-party political system is an entirely different story. Hyper-partisanship may be entertaining, but it’s a terrible way to try to run a country. We’re the alternative — and we’re the only ticket that offers Americans a chance to find common ground.

People might call us fiscal conservatives. Like most Americans, I believe that government does too much and costs too much. As governor of New Mexico, I vetoed more than 750 bills and reduced government involvement in business, better known as “crony capitalism.”

Some would call us social liberals. I’ve been vocal in criticizing the disparity in the treatment of black Americans by the police. I want reform in our criminal justice and sentencing systems. “Three strikes” laws and mandatory minimums have put the United States among the world leaders in incarceration. Treating drug use and abuse as crimes, rather than health issues, has put far too many Americans behind bars.

What would government be like in a Johnson administration? First, we would begin the conversation about the size of government by submitting a real balanced budget. Every government program would have to justify its expenditures, every year. Cuts of up to 20 percent or more would be on the table for all programs, including military spending. Changes to Social Security and Medicare must also be considered.

As governors, we balanced our budgets and reduced taxes: I cut taxes 14 times; Bill Weld did so 21 times in his six years leading Massachusetts. It just requires commitment and certainty.

Hillary Clinton’s and Donald J. Trump’s proposals call for much more spending. Both parties are responsible for our unsustainable fiscal problems: President George W. Bush nearly doubled our national debt, to $10 trillion from $5.7 trillion. President Obama is on track to double it again.

Second, we would protect the Constitution and civil liberties and stop treating immigration as a bad thing. In the difficult case of abortion, I support a woman’s right to choose. I’ve long supported civil liberties, including marriage equality and freedom from mass surveillance.

Given the way it has served as both a launching pad and a crash-landing site for Republican presidential prospects, immigration was strangely absent from Monday’s debate. Neither the Republican-controlled Congress nor President Obama has done anything to fix the dysfunctional immigration system. Deporting millions of noncriminal undocumented immigrants and building a wall, as Mr. Trump proposes, are ludicrous ideas.

A majority of Americans can actually agree on a solution. We would allow those immigrants who are here without documents, but with otherwise clean records, to come forward, pay taxes, undergo a background check and legally reside in the United States. We’d eliminate categories and quotas on immigration, and border enforcement would be devoted to keeping out real criminals and would-be terrorists.

Third, we would offer free trade to all nations, but limit military intervention to when our nation is attacked. We would honor all treaty obligations and pursue strategic alliances that made our country safer.

Mrs. Clinton wants to continue a muddled mix of intervention, regime change and bombing campaigns. That approach brought us Syria, Iraq, Libya and failed nation-building in Afghanistan. Our troops and the American people deserve clear objectives, with a well-drawn distinction between defense and futile interventions. And our troops deserve authorization from Congress for their activities overseas, an important detail that has fallen by the wayside.

The same common-sense attitude applies to trade and diplomacy. Our ticket is the only one to support free trade. The goal is to enhance prosperity and peace without sending our young people to war.

Less than six weeks before Election Day, independents and, particularly, young voters are increasingly turning to Bill Weld and me as reasonable, rational and experienced candidates. We are the party that can break the partisan gridlock which for too long has kept real solutions out of reach.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BigWaaagh wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Question for the lawyer types out there.

For 'Citizens United' to be overturned, which means would apply?
Constitutional Amendment
SCOTUS overturning previous decision
Congressional legislative action

I think these are the three types of ways a SCOTUS decision can be overturned. As it was a decision based upon an existing law to my understanding...which may be very wrong...I'm guessing it's Congressional legislative action, no? Anyways, just looking for an answer on how this could be done as someone out there with the legal chops could answer this faster and more succinctly than my trolling around the interweb.


What's the intent here?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/29 14:44:36


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




On a surly Warboar, leading the Waaagh!

 whembly wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BigWaaagh wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Question for the lawyer types out there.

For 'Citizens United' to be overturned, which means would apply?
Constitutional Amendment
SCOTUS overturning previous decision
Congressional legislative action

I think these are the three types of ways a SCOTUS decision can be overturned. As it was a decision based upon an existing law to my understanding...which may be very wrong...I'm guessing it's Congressional legislative action, no? Anyways, just looking for an answer on how this could be done as someone out there with the legal chops could answer this faster and more succinctly than my trolling around the interweb.


What's the intent here?



Simply put, I just want to know what it would take to overturn the 'Citizens United' ruling. What would be the appropriate and relevant means and mechanisms required?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/29 14:50:00


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Well... just repeal the 1st Amendment.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




On a surly Warboar, leading the Waaagh!

 whembly wrote:
Well... just repeal the 1st Amendment.



There must be a more surgical way, no?
   
Made in us
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




 BigWaaagh wrote:
 whembly wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BigWaaagh wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Question for the lawyer types out there.

For 'Citizens United' to be overturned, which means would apply?
Constitutional Amendment
SCOTUS overturning previous decision
Congressional legislative action

I think these are the three types of ways a SCOTUS decision can be overturned. As it was a decision based upon an existing law to my understanding...which may be very wrong...I'm guessing it's Congressional legislative action, no? Anyways, just looking for an answer on how this could be done as someone out there with the legal chops could answer this faster and more succinctly than my trolling around the interweb.


What's the intent here?



Simply put, I just want to know what it would take to overturn the 'Citizens United' ruling. What would be the appropriate and relevant means and mechanisms required?


it would look like this:
http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan

Once we have found those states that are the most receptive to joining this battle with us we will focus our time, effort, and money on them until we get that vital and historic first state to call for an Article V. Convention for the purpose of limiting the influence that money has over our political process. According to Article V of our Constitution, Congress must call for an amendment-proposing convention, “on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States”, and therefore 34 state legislatures would have to submit applications.


it has nothing to do with the first amendment whembly.


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 BigWaaagh wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Well... just repeal the 1st Amendment.



There must be a more surgical way, no?

At best, another SCoTUS ruling to overturn it.

Keep in mind that Citizens United, in which corporations can spend without limit on independent political advocacy, flows directly from the 1st Amendment that guarantees free speech and association... and here's the important part: " will not be abrogated by the government".

A corporation is a legal entity that represents an association of people.

People who associate in the form of a corporation do not lose their 1st Amendment right to free speech, which obviously includes spending money to make a commercial, for instance, about the upcoming election. Or spending money about a movie about a politician - as this case was about Hillary Clinton in 2008.

It's not a bad ruling.

But, consider this: Hypothetically, let's say the SCoTUS overturns Citizens United. That hurts who?
-small political advocacy groups incorporated.
-large corporations, such as GE, FORD, GOOGLE, etc...
-UNIONS!

You know what/who does't hurt if Citizen United is overturned?
Rich million/billionaries will still be able to contribute as they have today, since they're individuals. Which, it'll likely make things worst....

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/29 15:06:18


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





Tornado Alley

sirlynchmob wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 whembly wrote:
. It also violates 18 USC §1924 as Hillary and her staff "knowingly removes documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location..." Meaning... SOMEONE had to extract the information from a secured SIPRnet workstation and manually transcribe/send this information Clinton's unclassified email server.



Oh, please, you didn't give a flying feth about that a year ago every time I tried to explain it to you. In fact, you continually dismissed that particular issue as a "red herring". So why do you suddenly miraculously care about it now?

Explain what? All i could remember from our conversations that you worked on a different network. You don't work on SIPRnet workstations... right?

Edit: the "red herring" argument we got into was that they needed to be "marked" in order to be classifed... which is incorrect. One of the first lies the HRC sprouted in defense of her malfeasance.

Question for you:

1) Do you acknowledge that she had classified information on her server?

2) If you acknowledge #1, how did said classified information reach her server?


yes those are some interesting questions. So if I'm following your logic correctly, if I email you a classified document, you should be arrested as a felon. If you delete the document you should then be arrested for obstruction of justice.

victim blaming at it's finest I guess. would googles CEO be an accomplice to your crime then?

#2 is the key question, most of the documents sent to her were not marked properly, surely if anyone should be in the cross hairs of a witch hunt, it should be the ones who sent them.



I literally just finished my cyber security class, so I can answer those also if you don't mind. This is straight from all training anyone who uses a government computer must take.

1. I acknowledge she did, because she acknowledged she did, just feigned ignorance
To the retort. Receiving the email is not criminal. Failing to report spillage is. Violates US codes and statutes. It is not victim blaming, its is an understanding of the expectations of handing any information above PII(personally identifiable information)
2. Regardless of marking, she has access, and understands what information is sensitive and what is not. If it reached her server, a lackey had to cross it over from Secret Internet Protocol Relay(SIPR) to Non-secure Internet Protocol Relay (NIPR) All systems are marked with stickers. Its a requirement. The government computer I'm typing on now says not classified, do not process classified information on it. Many coming to her defense do not understand the pains the Government takes to make sure everyone knows what you can and cannot do with certain information. Through no stretch of the imagination can I believe she was not complicit in spillage of classified information.

10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: