EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3490
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
KwarK
United States42429 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 30 2016 01:54 m4ini wrote: From your link: The most "used" approach is knowingly/intention. Not recklessness. I don't think cLutZ is arguing that is wasn't assault. He is just answering a question better than I did because I haven't worked in criminal law for like 10 years. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
On March 30 2016 01:54 m4ini wrote: From your link: The most "used" approach is knowingly/intention. Not recklessness. Sorry, thats what I meant with Recklessness + (too close to the law), its typically assumed in the law that Negligent>Reckless>Knowing>Intent where if a statute requires one to the left, one to the right suffices. The Model Penal Code embraces recklessness, but a lot of states don't follow that and use their common law system. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 30 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote: I don't think cLutZ is arguing that is wasn't assault. He is just answering a question better than I did because I haven't worked in criminal law for like 10 years. I wasn't assuming he did. I just wanted to clarify, because he stated that "typically you have an element of recklessness", which isn't correct. Typically, you have "an element of intention". Some states include recklessness (no idea in case of Florida) - but it's not the typical approach. That's all. The link was a good read btw, cleared up some things. Sorry, thats what I meant with Recklessness + (too close to the law), its typically assumed in the law that Negligent>Reckless>Knowing>Intent where if a statute requires one to the left, one to the right suffices. The Model Penal Code embraces recklessness, but a lot of states don't follow that and use their common law system. Ah, then i misunderstood. As i said, i didn't assume that you were trying to play something down. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
| ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 30 2016 01:54 KwarK wrote: Still it's a cockup. Even if he's exonerated it's pretty incompetent and reflects poorly on Trump. Sadly it does not reflect poorly on trump to his supporters. If anything, bravery to do "what needs to be done" is something Trump has tapped into amongst his constituents. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 30 2016 02:17 Naracs_Duc wrote: Sadly it does not reflect poorly on trump to his supporters. If anything, bravery to do "what needs to be done" is something Trump has tapped into amongst his constituents. This is the camp that is saying with didn't' torture hard enough. Because that stuff was super effective and talking about it endlessly was very helpful to the image of the US abroad. No bridge is to far for them. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On March 30 2016 01:57 oneofthem wrote: ive posted far more content than sandernistas put together. feel free to defend his policies or strategy is everyone supporting sanders or entertaining the idea to vote for him a sandernista or are you only referring to fans with the fervor of GH? i have no beef in defending candidates or strategies - i want to discuss policies, as i see some problems of the current american society (and reflected in the election cycle): disenfranchisement of parts of society, growing inequality and xenophobic scapegoating (protectionist as well as anti muslim) in response to those internal rifts of status and opportunity, as some of the problems that many modern societies face... and solutions seem rare i agree with sanders on 2 main accounts: that we need a shift in the political conversation to address inequality as our current tools are failing and secondly that current redistributive policies are still failing too many people, as for example the healthcare system focusses on insurance and provider profits instead of general health of the population.... i think to achive the goals of redistribution, taxes will have to increase and the intended progressiveness of the system has to be restored by looking into a financial transaction tax and modifying the capital gains tax to provide higher revenue, much closer to taxes on working income. since the extreme share of investment income in total income of the american society perpetuates the wealth and therefore the class divide, which is opposite to my goals for a more equitable society. i also see a higher inflation target than 2 percent as beneficial as too many coorporations are content with holding cash or doing share buybacks that add no value to the economy and society at large. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
This charge of battery is ridiculous and other video evidence shows that it's not remotely worth looking into. It will be laughed out of court but CNN will use it again in its continued smear attempts. CNN has made it abundantly clear, it wants Hillary. Standard news outlets: Ignore Bernie, smear Trump. It should not remotely reflect poorly on Trump. CNN could have chosen the much clearer and more fluid video, instead they go with this. They don't highlight it, they don't slow it down. There's fluid video of the event. And it's literally nothing. Choppy video to make it seem much worse than it is. http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/03/29/corey-lewandowski-arrest-police-video-ath.cnn | ||
|
farvacola
United States18821 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17952 Posts
On March 30 2016 02:43 SK.Testie wrote: Implying she didn't create that bruise herself. Maybe she bruises like a peach. Victim blaming  | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The oldest and worst argument in creation. Yet people break it out every time and act like it is something new. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
We just got off a famous sexual assault trial of women completely lying for personal gain. Jian Ghomeshi trial was a prime example of this. There's real victims of assault. And then there's people who make a complete mockery of our justice system by claiming assault. This one is most likely the latter or I would be with her on the issue. You need to be angrier at the people who make false claims that ruin real victims chances of being heard and taken seriously. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18821 Posts
That you're still using the word "assault" speaks volumes about your knowledge of the topic at hand. That is, that you have none. | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
First, a few things need to be set aside. This isn't a political decision, but is done by the central bank, which is an apolitical institution (in fact, if there's an inkling that the central bank is no longer independent, people start losing confidence in the management of the economy which leads to FDI running off, and suchlike). That doesn't mean that it might not be a good idea for central bank governors to consider. The trade off is generally between those that own property and those that do not. It's not simple though. As I understand, generally speaking the biggest winners are people with few savings and price-adjusted income (take someone who takes out bank loans to rent out apartments to other people: their loan loses value quickly, while they can increase rent reasonably often). The greatest losers are those with little income that live off their savings (old people). I don't know how to calculate the impact though, for example, I don't know how much larger the trade off would be from changing it from 2% to 3%. There are many ripple effects to take into account. Let's start with some: bank loans will have higher interest rates. As bank loans will lose value quicker as the price of money depreciates, banks must ask for higher interest rates to make it worthwhile to give out loans. These can become prohibitive and slow down financial markets in that people cannot afford the interest rates. This is a problem for both private individuals and companies (and banks themselves). One danger is that the people who are most likely to suffer ill effects are the most vulnerable. With high inflation, the cost of basic goods increases, so people who cannot scale back consumption suffer the most. Poor people spend more of their income on basic necessities such as rent, food, commutes, etc; costs you cannot live without easily. So their real income would decrease unless there's fast wage growth. This is generally unfortunate for competitiveness as companies would need to be able to quickly and frequently increase their revenue to keep up. If they hit a hitch, they'll lose competitiveness. Companies in countries with less inflation might be more inclined to innovate and spend on research and development because their loss of competitiveness isn't quite as quick. This isn't to say that there aren't merits to this. For a country that is behind its neighbors in terms of wages and a general level of living standards might prefer such a shake-up. I don't quite see how this would apply to the US, though. Also, with higher inflation and resulting wage growth, exports become relatively more difficult to sell as your labour and manufacture costs as a whole increase, requiring you to either cut profits to remain competitive (see the point about R&D above) or to increase your prices. On the reverse, imports become more desirable as you can buy them relatively cheaply. This will probably skew your trade balance. As the US already exports a great deal less than it imports (Source), this might be a problem. I hope this serves as an introduction to the discussion. There's a great deal more to this topic but I ran out of time. I would also be glad if someone provided a way to quantify the effects. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
#Berninginthecloset | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On March 30 2016 02:56 PassiveAce wrote: come on guys women lie all the time he clearly grabbed her but it was probably more like a tender loving grab and she seems like an attention whore anyways so lets just give him the benefit of the doubt mmkay? No, I'm saying this because I've seen the cellphone video where it's a lot less than this video of locomotion. That is all. I don't readily have it on hand sadly but it should appear sooner or later. It gives a much clearer picture of what went on. I am not a victim blamer. I am saying in this case, given the evidence I have seen I highly doubt she is a victim. I think there's another video showing it as well, but skip to 42ish here. You can clearly see the movement is not a wrenching, it's not forceful, it's almost just briskly walking past while gently pulling her aside. Are you saying in that movement he was in such a rage that he SQUEEZED so hard that she bruised? This particular woman has no credibility and comes off as a complete liar in this case. Yes, a tonne of people lie around really powerful men. Amanda Carpenter and Ted Cruz going on right now for instance. With Carly Fiorina being paid hush money possibly by the Cruz Campaign. Yes, people lie all the time and this election is proving that. That's the massive message this election. Anti-establishment. This election has shown where every news agencies allegiances lie in a much clearer fashion than any previous election I've seen to date. | ||
| ||
