Donald Trump

[tankasnowgod]

Sounds like it's all definitely feeding paranoia of some kind of conspiratorial takeover by the 'other'.

The reality is that nothing you've listed new or particularly damning.

Censorship has existed from the beginning in the US. It was historically always people on the left being beaten by the police, blacklisted, prevented from speaking publicly and even thrown in jail. The conservative side never faced that because, well, as conservatives there were happy with the status quo (various wars, capitalism) and only people who wanted to change that got in trouble. How about Trump's gag order on scientists corresponding with the public on matters of publicly funded research? That's truly Stalinist.

Journalists have always sided with one group or another. Every major news organisation in America carried the water for the Bush administration when they went into Iraq, for example. It's possible that so many news organisations don't like him because he's a walking disaster.

Intelligence leaks are not new. And just because they are illegal doesn't make them immoral. Often quite the opposite.

The recounts aren't bizarre. They are a completely normal and healthy part of a democracy. The only time to worry is when electoral bodies refuse to carry them out.

As for renegade judges, is the judiciary supposed to be a rubber stamp for the executive? I don't know an ounce of what a federal judge in the US would know about American law, but it's pretty obvious to me that Trump's ban runs contrary to a lot of ideals that are upheld in that society so it's no surprise it was challenged.

I like how you deliberately misrepresent statements to make them seem "normal."

I'll concede, recounts happen. But name ONE other election where the FORTH place finisher demanded a recount. When that challenger even admitted they had no hope of possibly winning.

Journalists have always had their opinions, but my point was that they were ACTIVELY COLLUDING with Hillary Clinton. Can you point to any source that shows, say, Fox news was actively colluding with Bush Jr during the early 2000s?

It is not obvious that Trump's ban runs contrary to ideals that are upheld in society. Not in the slightest. It is NOT the role of judges to legislate from the bench. That is the role of juries. Ever heard of Jury Nullification? The role of judges is to enforce the law as it is written. The fact that the Ninth Circuit is overturned about 80% of the time pretty much proves they are lousy at doing their job.

And the riots aren't censorship. Technically, the government is the only one that can censor speech.

Point to the gag order that says SCIENTISTS can't correspond with the public on their research. You sure it's not "government employees?"

You have no idea what "conservatives" stand for, and certainly not all people that are "conservative" have been happy with the status quo. Many haven't for a looooooong time. Rush Limbaugh has been unhappy with the status quo for over two decades. Ron Paul has been bringing up conservative issues since the 80s.

 

[Queequeg]

If you look at opinion polls in countries with nationalised healthcare you'll notice people want more funding for them, not less. The fact there is no unified movement amongst the public to tear these systems down should give you pause to doubt the information you are reading about how terrible they apparently are. The truth is quite the opposite. Politically, it ranges from dangerous to outright suicide for politicians to neglect public healthcare systems in these countries. People want them because the alternative is completely inhumane.

The two-tier system exists in many of these places for a)the uber wealthy who want deluxe hospital suites, b) a failed theory to encourage people to take out private insurance in order to take the load off the public health system c) a neoliberal attempt to completely privitize health care, which nobody wants

Nobody goes bankrupt from hospital bills where I live. The same can't be said for certain other countries....

just my 2c

Free healthcare is a fundamental right for farm animals and slaves, not free men. But guess what, even the sheep are not so happy with what their owners are giving them.
NHS is most widely held concern of UK adults, survey finds
Nearly three-quarters of Britons expect rapid decline in NHS, says poll

 

[Westside PUFAs]

 

[x-ray peat]

 

[Ahanu]

The fact that the Ninth Circuit is overturned about 80% of the time pretty much proves they are lousy at doing their job.

Just adding something :
The 9th Circuit is by far the largest circuit. In the 12 months leading up to March, 31, 2015, just under 12,000 caseswere filed in the 9th Circuit — more than 4,000 more than the next-largest circuit, the 5th Circuit. Despite that gigantic docket, the Supreme Court heard just 11 cases from the 9th Circuit in 2015, reversing eight.

This means the Supreme Court generally reverses far less than 1 percent of all the cases the 9th Circuit (and other circuits) decide.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Just adding something :
The 9th Circuit is by far the largest circuit. In the 12 months leading up to March, 31, 2015, just under 12,000 caseswere filed in the 9th Circuit — more than 4,000 more than the next-largest circuit, the 5th Circuit. Despite that gigantic docket, the Supreme Court heard just 11 cases from the 9th Circuit in 2015, reversing eight.

This means the Supreme Court generally reverses far less than 1 percent of all the cases the 9th Circuit (and other circuits) decide.

Actually, this means that this circuit should certainly be broken up into multiple smaller circuits.

 

[Ahanu]

EDIT

 

[Ahanu]

Actually, this means that this circuit should certainly be broken up into multiple smaller circuits.

Actually that means that your comment: The fact that the Ninth Circuit is overturned about 80% of the time pretty much proves they are lousy at doing their job."
Is pretty misleading

 

[Birdie]

Was just thinking how there is no freedom of the press. We have about 6 corporations, oligarchs owning the media. Their viewpoint is shown 90 percent of the time. So funny that when somebody complains, the media shouts about freedom as if they represent it!

 

[yerrag]

Actually that means that your comment: The fact that the Ninth Circuit is overturned about 80% of the time pretty much proves they are lousy at doing their job."
Is pretty misleading

The percentage actually refers to cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court, is it not?

 

[Ahanu]

The percentage actually refers to cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court, is it not?

Yes so the Supreme Court generally reverses far less than 1 percent of all the cases . So no reason to say they are lousy at doing their job .

 

[yerrag]

Yes so the Supreme Court generally reverses far less than 1 percent of all the cases . So no reason to say they are lousy at doing their job .

On the contrary. The figure of 80% refers to cases that were reversed by the Supreme Court that came from Ninth Circuit rulings. Whereas 1% refers to cases that were reversed by the SCOTUS from all lower court rulings.

This bolsters the argument of tankasnowgod, does it not?

 

[Ideonaut]

I am still waiting for some information on your claim that the Japanese Keiretsus are employee owned and a good example of socialism. They are not.

read the g d article I referred you to

 

[Ideonaut]

btw I am still waiting for some information on your claim that the Japanese Keiretsus are employee owned and a good example of socialism. They are not.[/QUOTE]

okay, for you and others who don't want to read the article (Robert Locke, "Japan, Refutation of Neoliberalism", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 23): Keiretsu are industrial groups with a bank at the center. All of the corporations in the keiretsu own each others' stock--there is no significant outside ownership.

"Most corporate capital in Japan is owned by banks, and the banks are principally owned not by shareholders, but by other companies in the same keiretsu or industrial group.� And who owns these companies?� Although there are some outside shareholders, majority control is in the hands of the keiretsu�s bank and the other companies in the group.� So in essence, the whole thing is circular and private ownership of the means of production has basically been put into the back seat."

"Even when there are nominal outside owners, corporations are managed so that the bulk of the wealth generated by the corporation flows either to the incomes of present workers or to investment in the future competitive strength of the company, making the workers and the company itself the de facto or beneficiary owners."

I call the workers being the de facto owners socialist.

Korea, Taiwan, and China use the same kind of keiretsu system. It is an aspect of the "East Asian Economic" system that has propelled them all from poverty to wealth, as described in Eamonn Fingleton's In The Jaws of the Dragon. Central planning and forced credit creation are other aspects. Richard Werner produced a great video of the same title as his book Princes of the Yen that describes how this great system has been somewhat dismantled in Japan by outside coercive economic and political pressure. The West does its best to destroy better alternative models in which the people truly share in the wealth.

 

[Queequeg]

btw I am still waiting for some information on your claim that the Japanese Keiretsus are employee owned and a good example of socialism. They are not."

okay, for you and others who don't want to read the article (Robert Locke, "Japan, Refutation of Neoliberalism", Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue 23): Keiretsu are industrial groups with a bank at the center. All of the corporations in the keiretsu own each others' stock--there is no significant outside ownership.

"Most corporate capital in Japan is owned by banks, and the banks are principally owned not by shareholders, but by other companies in the same keiretsu or industrial group.� And who owns these companies?� Although there are some outside shareholders, majority control is in the hands of the keiretsu�s bank and the other companies in the group.� So in essence, the whole thing is circular and private ownership of the means of production has basically been put into the back seat."

"Even when there are nominal outside owners, corporations are managed so that the bulk of the wealth generated by the corporation flows either to the incomes of present workers or to investment in the future competitive strength of the company, making the workers and the company itself the de facto or beneficiary owners."

I call the workers being the de facto owners socialist.

Korea, Taiwan, and China use the same kind of keiretsu system. It is an aspect of the "East Asian Economic" system that has propelled them all from poverty to wealth, as described in Eamonn Fingleton's In The Jaws of the Dragon. Central planning and forced credit creation are other aspects. Richard Werner produced a great video of the same title as his book Princes of the Yen that describes how this great system has been somewhat dismantled in Japan by outside coercive economic and political pressure. The West does its best to destroy better alternative models in which the people truly share in the wealth.

I did read the G D article and can only say the you should not get your economic ideas from a non-economist journalist writing for the “post-autistic economics review."
An academic paper written by real economists would give you a very different conclusion.
Does Employee Stock Ownership Work? Evidence from Publicly-Traded Firms in Japan “these plans do not own large percentages of company stock. For listed companies the proportion of stock owned by ESO plans has been rising recently yet it is still around 2 percent (2.09 in 2013)” http://www.sole-jole.org/16485.pdf

Kereitsu member companies have employee stock ownership incentives just like we do but are certainly not controlled or managed in a socialist manner. Two percent ownership is not socialism. Like all capitalist companies they are managed for the primary benefit of their owners. Your source's claim that Kereitsus are managed for the benefit of the workers as opposed to their owners is just one more of his many uninformed and incorrect opinions. What proof does he have for this ludicrous claim.

Rather than a source of economic growth, the Japanese Kereitsu has been a big part of Japan’s economic stagnation. Since business decisions are based on personal relationships and not on financial merits the economic benefits of competition are removed. This inefficient allocation of capital has been a major part of Japan’s economic meltdown. As just one example, banks can’t foreclose on many of their customers because they would be at risk of going bankrupt themselves if they were to write down these loans. Likewise industrial companies are forced to prop up failing banks or they would lose there source of credit. There is no creative destruction, just good money after bad with the help of the Japanese government.

Looking at your source’s bibliography, he seems to have taken his ideas from books that were written in the 1980s and 1990s when Japan was flying high. The Kereitsu system is not quite as popular today as a model for other countries as Japan's 30 year economic downturn has shown their weaknesses. It is monopoly capitalism or crony capitalism at its worst.

As for the rise of the Asian economies, I would argue that this is mainly due to unfair trade practices. We have opened our markets to them as well as encouraged our companies to outsource and move manufacturing overseas through tax incentives and low tariffs. They on the other hand have maintained extensive trade barriers and imposed unfair demands on foreign companies. The fact that the US has allowed this has more to do with the end goals of globalization and little to do with economics. If the US insisted on fair trade and employed the same mercantilist strategy they use, we would not be having this debate. A free market will always be more efficient than a centrally planned one.

 

[Ahanu]

On the contrary. The figure of 80% refers to cases that were reversed by the Supreme Court that came from Ninth Circuit rulings. Whereas 1% refers to cases that were reversed by the SCOTUS from all lower court rulings.

This bolsters the argument of tankasnowgod, does it not?

12000 cases(from the 9th), 12 came to supreme court, 8 were reversed. Do the math! And tell me that the 9th get it wrong all the time!

 

[yerrag]

12000 cases(from the 9th), 12 came to supreme court, 8 were reversed. Do the math! And tell me that the 9th get it wrong all the time!

The math is clear. Of 12,000 cases, 12 were brought to appeal with the Supreme Court. Of the 12 cases, eight were reversed. Ok, granted, it's not 80% reversal, but 67%. But that still doesn't look good compared to the 1% reversal of all cases handled by the Supreme Court for appeal, as you had mentioned.

Tell me then, did I massage any of those data? I'm just presenting it as I see it. Now, if you want to present it as 8 cases reversed out of 12,000 decisions made by the Ninth Circuit Court, by all means, I will agree to that as well.

 

[Ahanu]

The math is clear. Of 12,000 cases, 12 were brought to appeal with the Supreme Court. Of the 12 cases, eight were reversed. Ok, granted, it's not 80% reversal, but 67%. But that still doesn't look good compared to the 1% reversal of all cases handled by the Supreme Court for appeal, as you had mentioned.

Tell me then, did I massage any of those data? I'm just presenting it as I see it. Now, if you want to present it as 8 cases reversed out of 12,000 decisions made by the Ninth Circuit Court, by all means, I will agree to that as well.

I Cannot follow you. I said that saying the 9th get it wrong all the time is misleading or evevn wrong when you look at the actual data. And if just one percent of all their decisions get reversed by supreme Court i would not say they are lousy doing their job.
Yes or no ?

 

[thomas00]

It's sad how the majority of people have been made blind to what is clearly in plain sight. Its doubly sad how easily you resort to a pre-programmed reflex of attacking the truth with personal insults. Look into the history of the term "conspiracy theory" and the CIA's intentional design to inoculate people against the truth.

Whilst acting like you are the only with who can see the truth and everybody else is just too dumb to get it is no doubt comforting, it's not argument.

If you are certain there is a conspiracy then the onus is on you and others who believe it to try and build a case with the evidence.

 

[thomas00]

I like how you deliberately misrepresent statements to make them seem "normal."

I'll concede, recounts happen. But name ONE other election where the FORTH place finisher demanded a recount. When that challenger even admitted they had no hope of possibly winning.

Precedents don't really matter. The whole point is in a functioning democracy, a recount of any election should not be controversial. Why do you think it is such a bad thing for anybody to call for one?

Journalists have always had their opinions, but my point was that they were ACTIVELY COLLUDING with Hillary Clinton. Can you point to any source that shows, say, Fox news was actively colluding with Bush Jr during the early 2000s?

Is there any evidence of this active collusion?

It's really a moot point. Every news organisation has it's biases and has a pretty narrow range of opinion and views it's willing to air, either for commercial reasons or political ones. Sometimes they are one in the same. But to act like there aren't news outlets that carry the water for the neocon view is to stick your head in the sand. We don't need direct evidence of secret agreements and conversations. You just need to analyse the content. Fox wasn't exactly well known for its scrutiny of Bush's hare-brained ideas.

There was this, and it was pretty insidious:

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY; Hollywood Discusses Role in War Effort

It is not obvious that Trump's ban runs contrary to ideals that are upheld in society. Not in the slightest.

The fact there were so many protests and objections (including from conservatives) suggests that not to be the case.

Point to the gag order that says SCIENTISTS can't correspond with the public on their research. You sure it's not "government employees?"

I think that is splitting hairs because what matters is the control of information, regardless of who is being gagged. But anyway:

Trump Administration Restricts News from Federal Scientists at USDA, EPA

You have no idea what "conservatives" stand for, and certainly not all people that are "conservative" have been happy with the status quo. Many haven't for a looooooong time. Rush Limbaugh has been unhappy with the status quo for over two decades. Ron Paul has been bringing up conservative issues since the 80s.

I know there is a number of different views within the conservative movement and I don't think any of their aims are hard to understand.