Hillary and Trump

[Brian]

Violation of posse comitatus to let the military operate in the US. If it is up to the states then that complicates the matter. This discussion is moot.

It's not up to the individual States, BTW -- it is expressly spelled out as a responsibility of the central government.

[Kar3n]

No, actually posse comitatus is in reference to using the military for domestic law enforcement. This would be to repel foreign invaders, which is precisely in scope for the military.

 

EDIT: Terrible (and expensive) idea, mind you, but it could be considered an alternative to a physical structure.

 

The Arizona ANG was stationed at the border for quite a while. They were not allowed to detain immigrants that crossed over, they were not allowed to do a damn thing. They were ordered to call in the sighting and nothing more. Their orders were to evade contact all together even if it meant them abandoning their posts if immigrants stayed in their proximity. 

 

The Obama administration tied the hands of our military protecting our border. I would hope that in the future if we are going to have boots on the ground burning up resources that they are allowed to act and detain immigrants before they make it too far into the States.

[ralis]

The Arizona ANG was stationed at the border for quite a while. They were not allowed to detain immigrants that crossed over, they were not allowed to do a damn thing. They were ordered to call in the sighting and nothing more. Their orders were to evade contact all together even if it meant them abandoning their posts if immigrants stayed in their proximity. 

 

The Obama administration tied the hands of our military protecting our border. I would hope that in the future if we are going to have boots on the ground burning up resources that they are allowed to act and detain immigrants before they make it too far into the States.

 

Is this a pro military discussion and what are the ramifications of such actions? Such military action could get out of hand and to be clear, Mexicans are not coming across the border with guns. Most are hungry and dehydrated.

[dust]

I never said Jay Zs language bothered me at all. Youre talking to someone who listened to 2 pac growing up. Im bothered by the double standard of them attacking Trump for his language and then not even really talking about her allowing him on stage with her to sing those lyrics. So yes, you totally missed my point again.

 

Well, I'm sorry. I suppose there is a small double-standard. At the same time, whatever Jay is rapping about, it is entertainment, and people know that. He is not a politician -- if he were caught on tape talking about grabbing women by the pussy, it would be as bad as Trump saying those things, but he still wouldn't be running for president. A man who is running for that office is under higher scrutiny and, should he be president, will be in a position which demands a better character than that.

 

Also, not precisely relevant, but... I simply don't understand why people pay attention to celebrity endorsements in the first place. Loads of politicians do it, and this is a problem in itself -- when some people are apparently so disengaged or lazy or stupid that they'll just base their vote on what some famous singer or actor endorses!

 

 

 

i think there's more chance that someone who isn't already a career politician could follow through with curbing the influence of money in politics, than the alternative. he's a unique candidate in that sense, largely self-funded and has maintained a consistent view on incompetence in politics for decades. it isn't just stuff he's pulling out of a hat, he's literally been saying it since the 80s.

 

Self funded for the campaign, but when someone sits in the White House things get a lot more complicated, no? It's not just about how much money, or even how much influence one has among the populace, but about how much one can swing with the other politicians. I don't like that any more than you, but it's the way of things. I highly doubt that a non-politician in the office will be any more effective than a politician.

 

 

 

the case for trump is largely economic. some of it involves the assumption that the system as it exists today is unsustainable and needs to be torn down and the pieces picked up in a way that will be productive. and that some type of big crash/dislocation in the IMF$ system is inevitable. you see how trump's experience with handling bankruptcies and debt might be relevant? he certainly seems to have a better grasp of economics than many of the top 'experts' in this field, no doubt from his real world business experience https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4544001/donald-trump-1991-house-hearing-us-economic-recovery-depression-vs-recession

 

you kind of need to read between the lines when he talks about renegotiating international trade, he can't give it to people straight because to say default is political suicide. take away trade deficits and you take away the grounds for much of the debt, which is the parasitic banking system's lifeblood. he's also dropped hints like mentioning how the fed is politicized and ZIRP is a huge bubble, but doesn't go into too much as it's over the average person's head. but this is what he's effectively proposing, trigger some sort of default/recalibration of the global economic system, lots of pain the short term but will allow the US to come out stronger in the long term. weed out an inefficient, fradulent financial system by letting the chips fall. the alternative to keep going along as things are is a far more dangerous path, both politically and socially.

 

that's my 2cents.

 

I don't know that anyone can speak on his expertise. Much of what he claims about himself and his businesses is simply not true. He holds a lot back. Yes, he has done well for himself financially, but I also wouldn't think that a CEO of Wall Mart or Apple or any major business in the world would necessarily be a successful leader of a country based on their financial success.

Edited November 8, 2016 by dust

[Brian]

I have seen some ruling on that during the Bush years and there is controversy in regards to that. Further, repelling civilian invaders with lethal force is an act of war. Women and children would be killed and you would support that?

Don't think you have a reading disability, ralis, so I'll assume you are intentionally misrepresenting my very clear statements. To be abundantly clear, however, let me reiterate -- using the military to secure our borders is unnecessary and would be ridiculously expensive. A solid wall is also unnecessary but a physically secure border is required by law and a secure border is a constitutional requirement. Rule of law would solve the immigration problem (not just at the Southern border but across the board) and then border security could be handled by the US Border Patrol agents we currently pay to do that, if they were allowed to do their jobs.

 

BTW, the Border Patrol agents union has endorsed Trump.

[Brian]

Is this a pro military discussion and what are the ramifications of such actions? Such military action could get out of hand and to be clear, Mexicans are not coming across the border with guns. Most are hungry and dehydrated.

You sure do like pivoting, ralis! You'd make a fine cutting horse, if you were a horse.

[Brian]

Violation of posse comitatus to let the military operate in the US. If it is up to the states then that complicates the matter. This discussion is moot.

Just for completeness, The Posse Comitatus Act expressly limits the powers of the central government (limited government and all that jazz) but it not only concerns only domestic law enforcement operations, it explicitly allows Congress to enact an exception for a specific circumstance without conflict (such as in the case of potential threats involving the release of radioactive materials), and it spells out a number of situations which are not forbidden by the Act, including a governor using National Guard troops to enforce domestic policies, or to suppress insurrections (like in Los Angeles in 1992), or in an advisory/support capacity (like Kar3n described along the border above). The Coast Guard is not restricted by the act, either.

 

Another exception is when the use is expressly authorized the Constitution. Additionally, the Enforcement Acts authorize the use of military force when a State is unwilling or unable to comply with a constitutional requirement. Ike used that authority, for instance, when he sent troops to Little Rock in 1957.

[dust]

Great post. Can you define furthermore capitalistic competition with a social emphasis on sharing ?

 

Thanks.

Really, I don't have a firm plan for how that would work... .. I'll suggest some ideas but it's probably all nonsense..

 

The means of production must be in the hands of the individual. Competition must be encouraged in order for an economy and society to flourish; the market must be free. But too much emphasis on "success" and "making money" and such notions can become harmful. When someone decides that capitalism is the best way forward, this is often accompanied by a fervent belief that competition is the only goal, that production is the only motive; and when the only motive is to produce and gather riches, harm is inevitable. When an individual is out only to make money, he might behave harmfully to others in the process; and when a company becomes large (and when companies incorporate) personal/individual responsibility disappears, and nasty things get done (to people and countries and the environment etc), and on a national and global scale individual liberties actually start to disappear.

 

But if we insist that the market must be free, that government is limited and cannot tell individuals/companies how to run their business (or, as in much of the world now, when corporations tell governments what to do!), we have to find a way to prevent this loss of responsibility. We have to have some element of socialist behaviour, rather than a socialist structure.

 

An emphasis must be placed on individual and social responsibility; on sharing the wealth and the responsibility. Education must include coverage of the benefits of capitalism & competition, but also the benefits of social responsibility for all individuals. Companies can, for example, integrate social responsibility plans into their business models -- studies show that this has a neutral impact on financial performance.

 

It's kind of the way things work, or are supposed to work, in many countries now. But it could be done better....

[ralis]

The divisiveness as seen on these threads is the result of demagogues pitting groups, nationalities, against each other.  We will never work together as long as authoritarians are allowed and willing to divide and blame 'the other' for their own imperialistic gain.

Edited November 8, 2016 by ralis

[Kar3n]

We all already know that every problem we face in the US is the fault of the Republican party. No need to remind us, we have heard it for years now.

[Brian]

The divisiveness as seen on these threads is the result of demagogues pitting groups, nationalities, against each other.  We will never work together as long as authoritarians are allowed and willing to divide and blame 'the other' for their own imperialistic gain.

Like the current President, for instance?

[ralis]

Like the current President, for instance?

 

I guess what I wrote has no meaning and the divisiveness will continue. The human condition is a sad state of affairs!

[thelerner]

I'm looking forward to tonight and watching the results.  Should be interesting either way.  I wonder if there's a good bar to watch where there will be good conversation.  Without the bitter nasty edge thats taking place here.

[Brian]

I guess what I wrote has no meaning and the divisiveness will continue. The human condition is a sad state of affairs!

I was just curious whether you included him as one of the authoritarian demagogues who are pitting groups against each other and dividing the nation for the advancement of their own agendas or not.

 

Your answer is clear enough.

 

 

[ralis]

I'm looking forward to tonight and watching the results.  Should be interesting either way.  I wonder if there's a good bar to watch where there will be good conversation.  Without the bitter nasty edge thats taking place here.

 

There is a very good one here in Santa Fe. I will be watching from home instead of going out tonight.

 

https://delcharro.com/

[ralis]

I was just curious whether you included him as one of the authoritarian demagogues who are pitting groups against each other and dividing the nation for the advancement of their own agendas or not.

 

Your answer is clear enough.

 

 

 

I said demagogues, plural. I intentionally left out names.

[Brian]

I said demagogues, plural. I intentionally left out names.

Yes, I noticed.

 

Ever notice how I generally answer direct questions and you generally don't?

[Karl]

Thanks.

Really, I don't have a firm plan for how that would work... .. I'll suggest some ideas but it's probably all nonsense..

 

The means of production must be in the hands of the individual. Competition must be encouraged in order for an economy and society to flourish; the market must be free. But too much emphasis on "success" and "making money" and such notions can become harmful. When someone decides that capitalism is the best way forward, this is often accompanied by a fervent belief that competition is the only goal, that production is the only motive; and when the only motive is to produce and gather riches, harm is inevitable. When an individual is out only to make money, he might behave harmfully to others in the process; and when a company becomes large (and when companies incorporate) personal/individual responsibility disappears, and nasty things get done (to people and countries and the environment etc), and on a national and global scale individual liberties actually start to disappear.

 

But if we insist that the market must be free, that government is limited and cannot tell individuals/companies how to run their business (or, as in much of the world now, when corporations tell governments what to do!), we have to find a way to prevent this loss of responsibility. We have to have some element of socialist behaviour, rather than a socialist structure.

 

An emphasis must be placed on individual and social responsibility; on sharing the wealth and the responsibility. Education must include coverage of the benefits of capitalism & competition, but also the benefits of social responsibility for all individuals. Companies can, for example, integrate social responsibility plans into their business models -- studies show that this has a neutral impact on financial performance.

 

It's kind of the way things work, or are supposed to work, in many countries now. But it could be done better....

It means discovering reason, we have many generations that have not discovered it. Change the philosophy, it's the only way. This must be done through the intellectuals and academics-those that have not discovered reason must discover it.

[Trunk]

I'm looking forward to tonight and watching the results.  Should be interesting either way.  I wonder if there's a good bar to watch where there will be good conversation.

 

I'm getting together with friends at an all-night restaurant.  Group therapy. 

 

Without the bitter nasty edge thats taking place here.

 

There's wide open under-utilized opportunity for people to create positively here... 

[MooNiNite]

Instead of a wall, how about some advanced radar systems with night vision and laser beams that paralyze or incinerate trespassers. 

 

I mean we are supposed to have satellites and missile defense systems, how difficult can a border scanning system be?

[Golden Dragon Shining]

[MooNiNite]

Some discussion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy5PrFxTRpc

[silent thunder]

With all the bitter back and forth, I still just see bait fish, arguing over which shark gets to feed on them.

 

 

I voted... now how do I take a shower on the inside? 

[blackstar212]

Like the current President, for instance?

yes

[Aetherous]

I voted... now how do I take a shower on the inside? 

Not good to vote in a way that makes you feel like that.