Log in:  

Register

U.S. Politics

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Alpe d'Huez, Red Rick, Tonton, Pricey_sky, King Boonen

Re: Re:

20 Mar 2017 00:22

aphronesis wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:Anytime. I think. Although other than slamming me you didn't really have a point.

Dershowitz as well as many others have a problem when legislating from the bench occurs even when it produces an outcome he prefers. There's a term for that.


When you filter what Republican "constitutional scholars" consider this to be, AND you filter it through Marbury v. Madison,..well, pretty much every decision by the Court is "legislating from the bench."...or it isn't. I go with the latter, but you experts seem to disagree...not every position is equally correct...


I thought you said judges weren't political?


I did/am...though I will admit that sentiment is a little more compromised at the lower federal levels. SCOTUS, not, Scott started this by sullying one Supreme Court Justice, and then another, both of whom just happen to have a more liberal constitutional interpretation. I don't find them political, nor do I find Roberts, Alito, or even Thomas (though his wife is a freaking hack) political in their interpretations either. They hold a more conservative constitutional philosophy, but I don't find them to be political in nature as it relates to rulings. There is a difference, that being that truly political views are economically motivated over and above any philosophical position. That is the province of congress and the executive, but not justices of the Supreme Court, nor most of the judges sitting on the federal bench.

But you guys can decry every facet of our constitutional system of you want. It is particularly important for people like Scott to do so.
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

20 Mar 2017 00:53

Not sure why you need to fall on " you guys". It undercuts anything you may have said.More on point: your suggestion that economic doesn't hit juridical has zero basis. Zero.
aphronesis
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,666
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re:

20 Mar 2017 03:25

aphronesis wrote:Not sure why you need to fall on " you guys". It undercuts anything you may have said.More on point: your suggestion that economic doesn't hit juridical has zero basis. Zero.


I disagree completely. It isn't that economics plays no role in their constitutional philosophy, it's that it is merely a component of an overall constitutional philosophy on their role in shaping our country. If you read their writings, any of their writings, you will see a dedication to ethics that exists nowhere else in our government. That is the part that I don't think "you guys" are either heeding or giving any credence. You're all wrong. Period. They are not the politician who takes special interest money in order to further their career, and then mold their actual policies to facilitate continued access to that capital. They have no need for that, and that is the distinction I am making, and there is zero basis to believe otherwise. Zero. When I refer to "politically motivation," I am referring to the compromised ethic that substitutes genuine economic, social, or protective philosophy for graft and continuing the power of the position they hold.
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

20 Mar 2017 05:37

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
aphronesis wrote:Not sure why you need to fall on " you guys". It undercuts anything you may have said.More on point: your suggestion that economic doesn't hit juridical has zero basis. Zero.


I disagree completely. It isn't that economics plays no role in their constitutional philosophy, it's that it is merely a component of an overall constitutional philosophy on their role in shaping our country. If you read their writings, any of their writings, you will see a dedication to ethics that exists nowhere else in our government. That is the part that I don't think "you guys" are either heeding or giving any credence. You're all wrong. Period. They are not the politician who takes special interest money in order to further their career, and then mold their actual policies to facilitate continued access to that capital. They have no need for that, and that is the distinction I am making, and there is zero basis to believe otherwise. Zero. When I refer to "politically motivation," I am referring to the compromised ethic that substitutes genuine economic, social, or protective philosophy for graft and continuing the power of the position they hold.


It's interesting reading this debate. I've not followed it in full so my apologies in advance if I'm jumping in out of context. The bolded in your post above suggests you don't make the category distinction between a person's writing and their personal beliefs and actions. That can be problematic, though I fully acknowledge I may be misunderstanding your point. In the context of the judiciary, money, politics etc., I thought these articles were interesting and hopefully relevant, simply as a contribution to the discussion (I don't feel I know enough about this topic to have a strong personal opinion):

But others see the Blankenship controversy as a proverbial canary in the coal mine for what top judicial scholars – including Justice O'Connor -- are now calling an alarming political trend. The amount of money flowing into these contests, O'Connor told a group of Georgetown Law students last month, has become "a threat to judicial independence."

"If both sides unleash their campaign spending without restrictions," O'Connor said, it will "erode the impartiality of the judiciary."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/study-shows-money-flooding-campaigns-state-judgeships/story?id=10120048

and:
A study of rulings in 276,000 cases in Washington state by Carlos Berdejo of Loyola Law School and Noam Yuchtman of the University of California, Berkeley found that judges gave criminals sentences that were 10% longer when they were about to face re-election. Another study by the left-leaning Centre for American Progress found that races that cost over $3m led to more rulings favouring the prosecution. At a time when many states are concluding that harsh justice is expensive and counter-productive, elected judges may prove an obstacle to reform.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21613276-theyre-not-politicians-so-they-shouldnt-act-them-trouble-electing-judges


Slightly at a tangent, there was something you wrote previously that I found interesting, along the lines of, and forgive the paraphrasing, '''I am very protective of our judiciary because in every way they are the great hope for our democracy''. With respect, it could be fairly argued that this is a naive belief. Though I would add, in fairness, what does ''great hope for our democracy'' really mean? It's a nebulous phrase. Do you believe that the judiciary exists as a system of pure ethics, an entirely beneficent force? (that's not a loaded question, it's genuine, it just piqued my curiosity).

One last comment, and I hope it doesn't appear adversarial, it's just a polite suggestion to 'file away', so to speak; you wrote something previously along the lines of ''I actually work in the courts and you don't...you don't know what you're talking about''. This is an 'argument from authority' fallacy. It doesn't strengthen your argument. Neither does ''You're all wrong. Period''. In fact there's an old adage along the lines of ''whenever an argument from authority is trotted out the debate is lost''. An authority on a subject is required to present a credible argument like everyone else.

Take my post as a 'just popping my head in'. Hopefully a contribution in some way. It's not intended to support one side or the other or add to any 'fussin and fightin'.
Dan2016
Member
 
Posts: 622
Joined: 21 Jul 2016 15:36

Re: U.S. Politics

20 Mar 2017 10:12

Jagartrott wrote:
Bustedknuckle wrote:
Trump was a vocal critic of former President Barack Obama for taking golf trips while serving as president, though has made a series of trips to his branded golf clubs since entering office.


10 golf trips in 8 weeks. dope. Liar.

How can anyone be fine with all the hopping back and forth between White House and Trump Resort X? Not least because it costs the tax payers tens of millions of dollars. The hypocrisy of announcing budget cuts for needy people vs. this is absolutely revolting.


Add this..donnie is a hypocrite, along with being ignorant.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cost-protecting-jet-setting-president-elect-trump-yuge-n687336

Adolf doesn't care about you or me but more are not caring about him.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-approval-rating-sinks-low/story?id=46243176
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,946
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re: U.S. Politics

20 Mar 2017 10:15

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-director-expected-undercut-trump-claims-wiretapping/story?id=46240979

Gonna be interesting..adolf will twitter explode..probably saying Comey's testimony was 'fake'..

dope
clown
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,946
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re: U.S. Politics

20 Mar 2017 11:49

Indeed..learning from Vlad, donnie's shower-mate...

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520435073/trump-embraces-one-of-russias-favorite-propaganda-tactics-whataboutism

Would the EO about immigrants be granted if donnie hadn't shot his mouth off about 'banning muslim's'?
Probably

Would there be such intense investigation about Russia meddling in the 2016 election if donnie hadn't fawned and stroked his BFF Vlad?
Probably not.

c'mon don, STFU..'some' of your(or whomever's, doubt you have any)ideas aren't bad. Better economy, better health care, better treatment of Vets, a realistic immigration policy..but he just can't STFU, and be, ya know, 'presidential'.

And he does have little hands.
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,946
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re: U.S. Politics

20 Mar 2017 12:14

Bustedknuckle wrote:Indeed..learning from Vlad, donnie's shower-mate...

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520435073/trump-embraces-one-of-russias-favorite-propaganda-tactics-whataboutism

Would the EO about immigrants be granted if donnie hadn't shot his mouth off about 'banning muslim's'?
Probably

Would there be such intense investigation about Russia meddling in the 2016 election if donnie hadn't fawned and stroked his BFF Vlad?
Probably not.

c'mon don, STFU..'some' of your(or whomever's, doubt you have any)ideas aren't bad. Better economy, better health care, better treatment of Vets, a realistic immigration policy..but he just can't STFU, and be, ya know, 'presidential'.

And he does have little hands.


Speaking of STFU...

Perhaps most revealing of all are the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — charged with investigating these matters — who recently told BuzzFeed how petrified they are of what the Democratic base will do if they do not find evidence of collusion, as they now suspect will likely be the case. “There’s a tangible frustration over what one official called ‘wildly inflated’ expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation,” BuzzFeed’s Ali Watkins wrote.

Moreover, “several committee sources grudgingly say, it feels as though the investigation will be seen as a sham if the Senate doesn’t find a silver bullet connecting Trump and Russian intelligence operatives.” One member told Watkins: “I don’t think the conclusions are going to meet people’s expectations.”

What makes all of this most significant is that officials like Clapper and Morell are trained disinformation agents; Clapper in particular has proven he will lie to advance his interests. Yet even with all the incentive to do so, they are refusing to claim there is evidence of such collusion; in fact, they are expressly urging people to stop thinking it exists. As even the law recognizes, statements that otherwise lack credibility become more believable when they are ones made “against interest.”


https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: U.S. Politics

20 Mar 2017 12:24

Scott SoCal wrote:
Bustedknuckle wrote:Indeed..learning from Vlad, donnie's shower-mate...

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520435073/trump-embraces-one-of-russias-favorite-propaganda-tactics-whataboutism

Would the EO about immigrants be granted if donnie hadn't shot his mouth off about 'banning muslim's'?
Probably

Would there be such intense investigation about Russia meddling in the 2016 election if donnie hadn't fawned and stroked his BFF Vlad?
Probably not.

c'mon don, STFU..'some' of your(or whomever's, doubt you have any)ideas aren't bad. Better economy, better health care, better treatment of Vets, a realistic immigration policy..but he just can't STFU, and be, ya know, 'presidential'.

And he does have little hands.


Speaking of STFU...

Perhaps most revealing of all are the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — charged with investigating these matters — who recently told BuzzFeed how petrified they are of what the Democratic base will do if they do not find evidence of collusion, as they now suspect will likely be the case. “There’s a tangible frustration over what one official called ‘wildly inflated’ expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation,” BuzzFeed’s Ali Watkins wrote.

Moreover, “several committee sources grudgingly say, it feels as though the investigation will be seen as a sham if the Senate doesn’t find a silver bullet connecting Trump and Russian intelligence operatives.” One member told Watkins: “I don’t think the conclusions are going to meet people’s expectations.”

What makes all of this most significant is that officials like Clapper and Morell are trained disinformation agents; Clapper in particular has proven he will lie to advance his interests. Yet even with all the incentive to do so, they are refusing to claim there is evidence of such collusion; in fact, they are expressly urging people to stop thinking it exists. As even the law recognizes, statements that otherwise lack credibility become more believable when they are ones made “against interest.”


https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/


....and to put a real fine point on it , that was Buzzfeed in that bolded bit...yes Buzzfeed, the lapdog of the DNC, the Shillbilly Collective and alt-left nation....purveyers of first choice for fake news for smart people....so if that is the Buzzfeed read on this just wonder how "wildly inflated" this really is ?.....

.....do they have Judith Miller on their payroll ?.....

Cheers
User avatar blutto
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,335
Joined: 04 Jul 2009 19:27

20 Mar 2017 12:33

Tillerson said this after his Asian trip

Image


In another part of the world, these two things:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-egypt-idUSKBN16P0VF?

http://thehill.com/policy/international/323985-abbas-tells-us-envoy-historic-peace-deal-possible-under-trump

-----

Gorsuch Senate Judiciary hearing today.

-----

Infowars claims the NSA under both W Bush and Obama surveilled Trump:

https://www.infowars.com/nsa-documents-prove-surveillance-on-donald-trump-and-alex-jones/

https://www.infowars.com/breaking-documents-show-obama-surveiled-entire-trump-family-for-8-years/

--

And on the Democrats' side, Donna Brazile has admitted she gave Hillary the town hall questions (after originally denying), and Hillary has announced that she's "coming out of the woods" and getting her *** back involved in politics again.
Benotti69 wrote:I don't believe anything from Astana any more than Sky.
Beech Mtn
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,292
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 16:50

Re:

20 Mar 2017 13:46

Dan2016 wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
aphronesis wrote:Not sure why you need to fall on " you guys". It undercuts anything you may have said.More on point: your suggestion that economic doesn't hit juridical has zero basis. Zero.


I disagree completely. It isn't that economics plays no role in their constitutional philosophy, it's that it is merely a component of an overall constitutional philosophy on their role in shaping our country. If you read their writings, any of their writings, you will see a dedication to ethics that exists nowhere else in our government. That is the part that I don't think "you guys" are either heeding or giving any credence. You're all wrong. Period. They are not the politician who takes special interest money in order to further their career, and then mold their actual policies to facilitate continued access to that capital. They have no need for that, and that is the distinction I am making, and there is zero basis to believe otherwise. Zero. When I refer to "politically motivation," I am referring to the compromised ethic that substitutes genuine economic, social, or protective philosophy for graft and continuing the power of the position they hold.


It's interesting reading this debate. I've not followed it in full so my apologies in advance if I'm jumping in out of context. The bolded in your post above suggests you don't make the category distinction between a person's writing and their personal beliefs and actions. That can be problematic, though I fully acknowledge I may be misunderstanding your point. In the context of the judiciary, money, politics etc., I thought these articles were interesting and hopefully relevant, simply as a contribution to the discussion (I don't feel I know enough about this topic to have a strong personal opinion):

But others see the Blankenship controversy as a proverbial canary in the coal mine for what top judicial scholars – including Justice O'Connor -- are now calling an alarming political trend. The amount of money flowing into these contests, O'Connor told a group of Georgetown Law students last month, has become "a threat to judicial independence."

"If both sides unleash their campaign spending without restrictions," O'Connor said, it will "erode the impartiality of the judiciary."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/study-shows-money-flooding-campaigns-state-judgeships/story?id=10120048

and:
A study of rulings in 276,000 cases in Washington state by Carlos Berdejo of Loyola Law School and Noam Yuchtman of the University of California, Berkeley found that judges gave criminals sentences that were 10% longer when they were about to face re-election. Another study by the left-leaning Centre for American Progress found that races that cost over $3m led to more rulings favouring the prosecution. At a time when many states are concluding that harsh justice is expensive and counter-productive, elected judges may prove an obstacle to reform.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21613276-theyre-not-politicians-so-they-shouldnt-act-them-trouble-electing-judges


Slightly at a tangent, there was something you wrote previously that I found interesting, along the lines of, and forgive the paraphrasing, '''I am very protective of our judiciary because in every way they are the great hope for our democracy''. With respect, it could be fairly argued that this is a naive belief. Though I would add, in fairness, what does ''great hope for our democracy'' really mean? It's a nebulous phrase. Do you believe that the judiciary exists as a system of pure ethics, an entirely beneficent force? (that's not a loaded question, it's genuine, it just piqued my curiosity).

One last comment, and I hope it doesn't appear adversarial, it's just a polite suggestion to 'file away', so to speak; you wrote something previously along the lines of ''I actually work in the courts and you don't...you don't know what you're talking about''. This is an 'argument from authority' fallacy. It doesn't strengthen your argument. Neither does ''You're all wrong. Period''. In fact there's an old adage along the lines of ''whenever an argument from authority is trotted out the debate is lost''. An authority on a subject is required to present a credible argument like everyone else.

Take my post as a 'just popping my head in'. Hopefully a contribution in some way. It's not intended to support one side or the other or add to any 'fussin and fightin'.


You missed my point completely. I did not make a statement that covered any of the judges in the articles you posted. I also do not believe in electing judges. The articles you posted do advance that argument. Supreme Court Justices are not elected, and I confined my arguments almost exclusively toward them. Please read more carefully the arguments I posit if we are going to engage in a discussion, because I cannot debate points I didn't make.
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

Re: Re:

20 Mar 2017 14:05

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Dan2016 wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
aphronesis wrote:Not sure why you need to fall on " you guys". It undercuts anything you may have said.More on point: your suggestion that economic doesn't hit juridical has zero basis. Zero.


I disagree completely. It isn't that economics plays no role in their constitutional philosophy, it's that it is merely a component of an overall constitutional philosophy on their role in shaping our country. If you read their writings, any of their writings, you will see a dedication to ethics that exists nowhere else in our government. That is the part that I don't think "you guys" are either heeding or giving any credence. You're all wrong. Period. They are not the politician who takes special interest money in order to further their career, and then mold their actual policies to facilitate continued access to that capital. They have no need for that, and that is the distinction I am making, and there is zero basis to believe otherwise. Zero. When I refer to "politically motivation," I am referring to the compromised ethic that substitutes genuine economic, social, or protective philosophy for graft and continuing the power of the position they hold.


It's interesting reading this debate. I've not followed it in full so my apologies in advance if I'm jumping in out of context. The bolded in your post above suggests you don't make the category distinction between a person's writing and their personal beliefs and actions. That can be problematic, though I fully acknowledge I may be misunderstanding your point. In the context of the judiciary, money, politics etc., I thought these articles were interesting and hopefully relevant, simply as a contribution to the discussion (I don't feel I know enough about this topic to have a strong personal opinion):

But others see the Blankenship controversy as a proverbial canary in the coal mine for what top judicial scholars – including Justice O'Connor -- are now calling an alarming political trend. The amount of money flowing into these contests, O'Connor told a group of Georgetown Law students last month, has become "a threat to judicial independence."

"If both sides unleash their campaign spending without restrictions," O'Connor said, it will "erode the impartiality of the judiciary."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/study-shows-money-flooding-campaigns-state-judgeships/story?id=10120048

and:
A study of rulings in 276,000 cases in Washington state by Carlos Berdejo of Loyola Law School and Noam Yuchtman of the University of California, Berkeley found that judges gave criminals sentences that were 10% longer when they were about to face re-election. Another study by the left-leaning Centre for American Progress found that races that cost over $3m led to more rulings favouring the prosecution. At a time when many states are concluding that harsh justice is expensive and counter-productive, elected judges may prove an obstacle to reform.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21613276-theyre-not-politicians-so-they-shouldnt-act-them-trouble-electing-judges


Slightly at a tangent, there was something you wrote previously that I found interesting, along the lines of, and forgive the paraphrasing, '''I am very protective of our judiciary because in every way they are the great hope for our democracy''. With respect, it could be fairly argued that this is a naive belief. Though I would add, in fairness, what does ''great hope for our democracy'' really mean? It's a nebulous phrase. Do you believe that the judiciary exists as a system of pure ethics, an entirely beneficent force? (that's not a loaded question, it's genuine, it just piqued my curiosity).

One last comment, and I hope it doesn't appear adversarial, it's just a polite suggestion to 'file away', so to speak; you wrote something previously along the lines of ''I actually work in the courts and you don't...you don't know what you're talking about''. This is an 'argument from authority' fallacy. It doesn't strengthen your argument. Neither does ''You're all wrong. Period''. In fact there's an old adage along the lines of ''whenever an argument from authority is trotted out the debate is lost''. An authority on a subject is required to present a credible argument like everyone else.

Take my post as a 'just popping my head in'. Hopefully a contribution in some way. It's not intended to support one side or the other or add to any 'fussin and fightin'.


You missed my point completely. I did not make a statement that covered any of the judges in the articles you posted. I also do not believe in electing judges. The articles you posted do advance that argument. Supreme Court Justices are not elected, and I confined my arguments almost exclusively toward them. Please read more carefully the arguments I posit if we are going to engage in a discussion, because I cannot debate points I didn't make.


....and they aren't appointed by divine fiat either.....and last I checked the whole appointment process is very politically charged and driven.....

Cheers
User avatar blutto
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,335
Joined: 04 Jul 2009 19:27

Re: U.S. Politics

20 Mar 2017 14:31

Happiness is on the wane in the US, UN global report finds
US slips to 15th out of 155 countries ranked with Norway out in front – and Trump’s policies expected to continue slide

Happiness in the US is declining and is expected to continue on a downward path, with Donald Trump’s policies forecast to deepen the country’s social crisis.

The US has slipped to 15th place in the World Happiness Report 2017, produced by the United Nations. The world’s economic superpower is well behind top-ranked Norway, although it remains above Germany in 17th place, the UK in 19th, and France in 32nd.

Norway knocked Denmark off the top spot as the world’s happiest country, with Iceland and Switzerland rounding out the top four. The report’s authors stress, however, that the top four are so close that changes are not statistically significant.

The next tier of countries are regular leaders in international happiness surveys: Finland is in fifth place, followed by the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Sweden.

The world’s “unhappiest” countries are all in the Middle East and Africa: war-stricken Yemen and Syria feature in the bottom 10, with Tanzania, Burundi and Central African Republic making up the final three.

The UN report, which is based on Gallup polls of self-reported wellbeing as well as perceptions of corruption, generosity and freedom, this year has a special focus on the “story of reduced happiness” in the US.

Although the US is ranked in 15th place in the UN report, released on Monday, other studies highlighted by the authors show how rapidly the country has slid down international rankings on wellbeing.

The US has fallen to 19th place in happiness rankings of rich countries, compared with third place just over a decade ago, the report states.

“The United States offers a vivid portrait of a country that is looking for happiness in ‘all the wrong places’,” writes Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia University economist and author of the chapter on the US. “The country is mired in a rolling social crisis that is getting worse.

“Yet the dominant political discourse is all about raising the rate of economic growth and the prescriptions for faster growth – mainly deregulation and tax cuts – are likely to exacerbate, not reduce, social tensions.”

Since his inauguration in January, Trump has pledged to cut taxes and proposed slashing budgets for most federal agencies, including justice, health and education, to pay for increased military spending. He also wants to repeal and replace Obamacare, the healthcare reforms enacted by Barack Obama, which could lead to 24 million Americans losing health coverage in the next decade.

Sachs, one of the world’s best-known economists, who has advised successive UN secretary generals, identifies several reasons behind declining American happiness: the rise of big money in American politics as a result of supreme court decisions, which allow billionaires and corporations to make untraceable campaign donations.

Closely related is soaring income inequality and the “severe deterioration” of US education that has left more young Americans facing a precarious and indebted future. Sachs also says the “open-ended global war on terror” following the 9/11 attacks has helped to stoke a climate of fear.

In a stinging critique of policymakers in Washington DC, Sachs criticises “naive attempts to raise the economic growth rate”. He says this prescription is “doubly wrong-headed” because “most of the pseudo-elixirs for growth – especially the Republican party’s beloved nostrum of endless tax cuts and voodoo economics – will only exacerbate Americans’ social inequalities and feed the distrust that is already tearing society apart”.

The unhappiest countries in the world are mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, where the report’s authors note the mismatch between the continent’s ageing leaders and young populations.

The average age of an African leader is 70, meaning many were born at the end of the colonial era, while 70% of African citizens are under 30. According to the report, Africans’ low levels of wellbeing and happiness may reflect dashed expectations of democracy, while growing populations are putting extra pressure on inadequate infrastructure.

In China, the report found that wellbeing continued to lag well behind the country’s rapid economic growth. Economic output has increased five times in the past 25 years, but wellbeing fell between 1990-2005. Although Chinese life satisfaction has improved, it remains lower than it was a quarter of a century ago.

The unhappiest country in Europe was Ukraine (133), while the unhappiest European Union member state was Bulgaria (106).

Newer EU members in central and eastern Europe tended to be less happy than older members. Bucking that trend in 88th place was Greece, still gripped by high unemployment after successive EU bailouts.
User avatar Jagartrott
Member
 
Posts: 1,827
Joined: 15 Apr 2014 13:37

Re: U.S. Politics

20 Mar 2017 15:13

Director of FBI and NSA both just testified that don is FOS, about wire tape. Shocking.
trump is a liar and this session shows that. Can't wait for adolf's twitter tantrum.
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,946
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re: Re:

20 Mar 2017 15:18

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
aphronesis wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:Anytime. I think. Although other than slamming me you didn't really have a point.

Dershowitz as well as many others have a problem when legislating from the bench occurs even when it produces an outcome he prefers. There's a term for that.


When you filter what Republican "constitutional scholars" consider this to be, AND you filter it through Marbury v. Madison,..well, pretty much every decision by the Court is "legislating from the bench."...or it isn't. I go with the latter, but you experts seem to disagree...not every position is equally correct...


I thought you said judges weren't political?


I did/am...though I will admit that sentiment is a little more compromised at the lower federal levels. SCOTUS, not, Scott started this by sullying one Supreme Court Justice, and then another, both of whom just happen to have a more liberal constitutional interpretation. I don't find them political, nor do I find Roberts, Alito, or even Thomas (though his wife is a freaking hack) political in their interpretations either. They hold a more conservative constitutional philosophy, but I don't find them to be political in nature as it relates to rulings. There is a difference, that being that truly political views are economically motivated over and above any philosophical position. That is the province of congress and the executive, but not justices of the Supreme Court, nor most of the judges sitting on the federal bench.

But you guys can decry every facet of our constitutional system of you want. It is particularly important for people like Scott to do so.


Scott didn't start this, Scott reacted to this;

Obviously un-constitutional travel ban held up as such:



Wrt Red Flanders post, Scott didn't mention any Supreme Court Justice much less sully them.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

20 Mar 2017 16:12

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
aphronesis wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:Anytime. I think. Although other than slamming me you didn't really have a point.

Dershowitz as well as many others have a problem when legislating from the bench occurs even when it produces an outcome he prefers. There's a term for that.


When you filter what Republican "constitutional scholars" consider this to be, AND you filter it through Marbury v. Madison,..well, pretty much every decision by the Court is "legislating from the bench."...or it isn't. I go with the latter, but you experts seem to disagree...not every position is equally correct...


I thought you said judges weren't political?


I did/am...though I will admit that sentiment is a little more compromised at the lower federal levels. SCOTUS, not, Scott started this by sullying one Supreme Court Justice, and then another, both of whom just happen to have a more liberal constitutional interpretation. I don't find them political, nor do I find Roberts, Alito, or even Thomas (though his wife is a freaking hack) political in their interpretations either. They hold a more conservative constitutional philosophy, but I don't find them to be political in nature as it relates to rulings. There is a difference, that being that truly political views are economically motivated over and above any philosophical position. That is the province of congress and the executive, but not justices of the Supreme Court, nor most of the judges sitting on the federal bench.

But you guys can decry every facet of our constitutional system of you want. It is particularly important for people like Scott to do so.


....to the two bolded bits....you have got to be kidding....and you're pivoting your argument on that !....recuse yourself or something....

Cheers
User avatar blutto
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,335
Joined: 04 Jul 2009 19:27

Re: Re:

20 Mar 2017 16:50

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:...Justices...

Excellent post. You mention something that really stood out, and I'm going to flip it on it's end:
They are not the politician who takes special interest money in order to further their career, and then mold their actual policies to facilitate continued access to that capital...When I refer to "political motivation," I am referring to the compromised ethic that substitutes genuine economic, social, or protective philosophy for graft and continuing the power of the position they hold.

This comparative analysis shows directly what's wrong with our political system. The principles you ascribe to justices (and non-elected judges) should completely apply to politicians, congress, state houses, etc. as well. We absolutely should have a clean system where politicians adhere to principles primarily, even if a political ideology can influence principles. Your wording, almost casually, points out a distorted norm the vast majority have grown to accept as irreparable fact - that politicians have little ethics, and their primary focus is accepting money and favors, and forming legislation to increase this quid pro quo cycle.

Think about this for a moment, and why I repeat again that our political system is a plutocracy. Jimmy Carter, Jesse Ventura and Jack Abrhamoff, have little in common politically, but all said the same thing. Our political system today is driven by bribery.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Administrator
 
Posts: 9,853
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

Re: Re:

20 Mar 2017 18:53

Scott SoCal wrote:
Scott didn't start this, Scott reacted to this;

Obviously un-constitutional travel ban held up as such:



Wrt Red Flanders post, Scott didn't mention any Supreme Court Justice much less sully them.


I refer you to your post about Sotomayor that I originally responded to, and suggest you might be misremembering (gotta love W) things...
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

Re: Re:

20 Mar 2017 19:03

Alpe d'Huez wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:...Justices...

Excellent post. You mention something that really stood out, and I'm going to flip it on it's end:
They are not the politician who takes special interest money in order to further their career, and then mold their actual policies to facilitate continued access to that capital...When I refer to "political motivation," I am referring to the compromised ethic that substitutes genuine economic, social, or protective philosophy for graft and continuing the power of the position they hold.

This comparative analysis shows directly what's wrong with our political system. The principles you ascribe to justices (and non-elected judges) should completely apply to politicians, congress, state houses, etc. as well. We absolutely should have a clean system where politicians adhere to principles primarily, even if a political ideology can influence principles. Your wording, almost casually, points out a distorted norm the vast majority have grown to accept as irreparable fact - that politicians have little ethics, and their primary focus is accepting money and favors, and forming legislation to increase this quid pro quo cycle.

Think about this for a moment, and why I repeat again that our political system is a plutocracy. Jimmy Carter, Jesse Ventura and Jack Abrhamoff, have little in common politically, but all said the same thing. Our political system today is driven by bribery.


Thanks for posting thoughtfully Alpe...that seems in short supply on this topic...suggesting I recuse myself, and that I don't understand that politicians appoint Supreme Court Justices (without addressing the founder's the constitutional intent behind lifetime appointments being addressed in any way...) are vapid responses. Your's however is much welcomed.

Anyway, my wording was very intentional on the point you addressed. Our system of elections only allows the dynamic I describe, as adherence to any true ethic would see an almost certain reduction in campaign contributions that really pay the bills...Billionaires funding themselves notwithstanding.
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

Re: Re:

20 Mar 2017 19:12

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
Scott didn't start this, Scott reacted to this;

Obviously un-constitutional travel ban held up as such:



Wrt Red Flanders post, Scott didn't mention any Supreme Court Justice much less sully them.


I refer you to your post about Sotomayor that I originally responded to, and suggest you might be misremembering (gotta love W) things...


Got it. I wasn't sure what you were referring to.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Back to top