|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 15 2016 08:56 IgnE wrote:
And personal liability involving their obscene bonuses is a good thing. Sending them to jail when they could theoretically be productive members of society is just punitive with no upside.
id be okay with some jail time if it is possible to specify a standard of action the breach of which is necessary and sufficient for various forms of harm. i think the law is not very suitable for the various forms of harmful interactions produced by finance. you are looking at regulation which mostly does not reach the individual execs.
finance is too big of a sector anyway but an effort to restrict its influence has to be international in scope.
disruptors of retail level finance already are dissembling the system somewhat. the areas with high size premium/reputation power are going to remain but should also suffer lower margins as the financial technology gets cheaper and more widespread
|
On June 15 2016 09:13 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 09:11 farvacola wrote:While we move towards dissembling the system, I think a healthy mix of pecuniary and personal liability is in order relative to financial institutions  Pecuniary and personal aren't opposites.
They don't have to be.
|
On June 15 2016 09:15 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 08:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2016 08:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Do people who intend to vote for Donald trump think his Muslim ban is a good idea? It's an idea that is at least worthy of serious discussion as opposed to being summarily dismissed by the left. Like I have said previously, the US -- or any other Western nation for that matter -- should not import peoples who are unwilling/unable to assimilate into Western culture. Many in the left are unwilling to properly acknowledge the existence of a Muslim problem, and are willing to ignore some remarkably bad actions by Muslims that are a direct result of poorly thought out immigration policies. Not all Muslims are bad, and probably not most, but many more than are being acknowledged by the American and European left. Between doing what the left does and an outright ban, the latter is probably better.
I don't know why it has to be a travel ban or religious test. Just practically speaking it appears to be that 2nd gen immigrants are a bigger issue (also true for crime among Central American immigrants, which is interesting), not travelers. And we already restrict travel on a country of origin basis, no practical reasons exist for not expanding that.
|
DC is a great way for this primary to end.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
id focus on personal liability in the west for corruption and the more brutal forms of government looting from the developing world
|
I hereby nominate African Americans for MVP of this election. Their unwavering support for Clinton has been crucial. Without them, this may have gone totally differently.
|
On June 15 2016 09:43 Mohdoo wrote:
This is my last time I will have the opportunity, so I am enjoying the live results thread in the Bernie subreddit. After the long, drawn out kicking and screaming, a crushing defeat.
This is bitter sweet. The grand finale will be watching the subreddit implode when he endorses her, but for now, this is the last live results that I will be able to devour. Props to Bernie for winning 22 states.
About 20 more than anyone expected, and that's despite several states having several significant problems and investigations in several states he didn't win.
Hell, he's still winning back counties in California.
|
On June 15 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 09:43 Mohdoo wrote:
This is my last time I will have the opportunity, so I am enjoying the live results thread in the Bernie subreddit. After the long, drawn out kicking and screaming, a crushing defeat.
This is bitter sweet. The grand finale will be watching the subreddit implode when he endorses her, but for now, this is the last live results that I will be able to devour. Props to Bernie for winning 22 states. About 20 more than anyone expected, and that's despite several states having several significant problems and investigations in several states he didn't win. Hell, he's still winning back counties in California.
Dang, ya got me before I could edit out my less than constructive post.
|
Who won more Democrat/swing states?
|
On June 15 2016 09:28 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 09:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 08:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2016 08:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Do people who intend to vote for Donald trump think his Muslim ban is a good idea? It's an idea that is at least worthy of serious discussion as opposed to being summarily dismissed by the left. Like I have said previously, the US -- or any other Western nation for that matter -- should not import peoples who are unwilling/unable to assimilate into Western culture. Many in the left are unwilling to properly acknowledge the existence of a Muslim problem, and are willing to ignore some remarkably bad actions by Muslims that are a direct result of poorly thought out immigration policies. Not all Muslims are bad, and probably not most, but many more than are being acknowledged by the American and European left. Between doing what the left does and an outright ban, the latter is probably better. I don't know why it has to be a travel ban or religious test. Just practically speaking it appears to be that 2nd gen immigrants are a bigger issue (also true for crime among Central American immigrants, which is interesting), not travelers. And we already restrict travel on a country of origin basis, no practical reasons exist for not expanding that.
A full ban on travel and immigration, certainly not the best outcome. But the point is that if the choice is between "do what the left has been doing" and "enforce a ban on all Muslims from entering the country" then the latter is the better option.
On June 15 2016 09:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 15 2016 09:43 Mohdoo wrote:
This is my last time I will have the opportunity, so I am enjoying the live results thread in the Bernie subreddit. After the long, drawn out kicking and screaming, a crushing defeat.
This is bitter sweet. The grand finale will be watching the subreddit implode when he endorses her, but for now, this is the last live results that I will be able to devour. Props to Bernie for winning 22 states. About 20 more than anyone expected, and that's despite several states having several significant problems and investigations in several states he didn't win. Hell, he's still winning back counties in California. Dang, ya got me before I could edit out my less than constructive post.
You really ought to control your impulse to make shitposts like those.
|
On June 15 2016 10:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 09:28 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 09:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 08:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2016 08:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Do people who intend to vote for Donald trump think his Muslim ban is a good idea? It's an idea that is at least worthy of serious discussion as opposed to being summarily dismissed by the left. Like I have said previously, the US -- or any other Western nation for that matter -- should not import peoples who are unwilling/unable to assimilate into Western culture. Many in the left are unwilling to properly acknowledge the existence of a Muslim problem, and are willing to ignore some remarkably bad actions by Muslims that are a direct result of poorly thought out immigration policies. Not all Muslims are bad, and probably not most, but many more than are being acknowledged by the American and European left. Between doing what the left does and an outright ban, the latter is probably better. I don't know why it has to be a travel ban or religious test. Just practically speaking it appears to be that 2nd gen immigrants are a bigger issue (also true for crime among Central American immigrants, which is interesting), not travelers. And we already restrict travel on a country of origin basis, no practical reasons exist for not expanding that. A full ban on travel and immigration, certainly not the best outcome. But the point is that if the choice is between "do what the left has been doing" and "enforce a ban on all Muslims from entering the country" then the latter is the better option.
Yeah I can imagine that going a long way to prove to the Muslim world that we aren't fighting a war against their religion. No way ISIS and other groups could use that as propaganda to show the US hates them because they are Muslim not because they are radical. (though that's not to say the left isn't screwing up plenty)
|
Still wondering what the religious test is going to look like to prove people are Muslim. Are we going to continue to monitor every dark skinned person who enters the country after they get in to make sure they aren't Muslim, like they told us they weren't in the interview?
|
|
|
On June 15 2016 10:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Still wondering what the religious test is going to look like to prove people are Muslim. Are we going to continue to monitor every dark skinned person who enters the country after they get in to make sure they aren't Muslim, like they told us they weren't in the interview?
Which is why rhetoric and policy prescriptions are not the same thing. When promoting the PPACA they didn't talk about mandates, penalties, and minimum required coverage, but that is what the policy is in practice. Similarly, this would likely be a country of origin system, in practice. Which we already have and historically have had.
Honestly, it feels like intentional feigning of naivety when people ask this question. And I don't even particularly think its a good solution (just think this question is incredibly disingenuous).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
or maybe trump consistently says shit that is racial and identity focused. that or he is actually advancing a nuanced policy position by bashing nuance.
you can say he wont do what he says but to dispute the obvious interpretation of what he has said is just denial
|
On June 15 2016 09:47 IgnE wrote:
Who won more Democrat/swing states?
Iirc, Hilary won the states where voters showed up, Bernie won the states where voters didn't.
|
On June 15 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 10:14 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 09:28 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 09:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 08:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2016 08:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Do people who intend to vote for Donald trump think his Muslim ban is a good idea? It's an idea that is at least worthy of serious discussion as opposed to being summarily dismissed by the left. Like I have said previously, the US -- or any other Western nation for that matter -- should not import peoples who are unwilling/unable to assimilate into Western culture. Many in the left are unwilling to properly acknowledge the existence of a Muslim problem, and are willing to ignore some remarkably bad actions by Muslims that are a direct result of poorly thought out immigration policies. Not all Muslims are bad, and probably not most, but many more than are being acknowledged by the American and European left. Between doing what the left does and an outright ban, the latter is probably better. I don't know why it has to be a travel ban or religious test. Just practically speaking it appears to be that 2nd gen immigrants are a bigger issue (also true for crime among Central American immigrants, which is interesting), not travelers. And we already restrict travel on a country of origin basis, no practical reasons exist for not expanding that. A full ban on travel and immigration, certainly not the best outcome. But the point is that if the choice is between "do what the left has been doing" and "enforce a ban on all Muslims from entering the country" then the latter is the better option. Yeah I can imagine that going a long way to prove to the Muslim world that we aren't fighting a war against their religion. No way ISIS and other groups could use that as propaganda to show the US hates them because they are Muslim not because they are radical. (though that's not to say the left isn't screwing up plenty)
I mean, there are definitely better plans than banning all Muslims, but you're not right either. I'm pretty sure most people who would be able to be radicalized don't really care all that much about the border policy of a nation on the other side of the world. More significant would be US meddling in their actual homes.
Though ISIS isn't going to be beat with magical thinking along the lines of "we is gunna convince dem ppls that USA good guys and ISIS bad guys and all the bad people are gonna go away." This was the idea of the Iraq war and I think we all know how well that turned out. To kill the organization, you have to do what you do to put down guerilla movements: cut off their supplies, bomb them indiscriminately enough that they can't just hide behind the population or so-called "moderate rebels," then support a stable government which will keep them from coming back. Saying that strong policies against malicious immigrants who are Muslims is helping ISIS, is just wrong.
|
On June 15 2016 11:12 TMagpie wrote:Iirc, Hilary won the states where voters showed up, Bernie won the states where voters didn't.
Not to mention the whole caucus nonsense that is somehow still around.
|
On June 15 2016 11:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 15 2016 10:14 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 09:28 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 09:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 15 2016 08:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2016 08:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Do people who intend to vote for Donald trump think his Muslim ban is a good idea? It's an idea that is at least worthy of serious discussion as opposed to being summarily dismissed by the left. Like I have said previously, the US -- or any other Western nation for that matter -- should not import peoples who are unwilling/unable to assimilate into Western culture. Many in the left are unwilling to properly acknowledge the existence of a Muslim problem, and are willing to ignore some remarkably bad actions by Muslims that are a direct result of poorly thought out immigration policies. Not all Muslims are bad, and probably not most, but many more than are being acknowledged by the American and European left. Between doing what the left does and an outright ban, the latter is probably better. I don't know why it has to be a travel ban or religious test. Just practically speaking it appears to be that 2nd gen immigrants are a bigger issue (also true for crime among Central American immigrants, which is interesting), not travelers. And we already restrict travel on a country of origin basis, no practical reasons exist for not expanding that. A full ban on travel and immigration, certainly not the best outcome. But the point is that if the choice is between "do what the left has been doing" and "enforce a ban on all Muslims from entering the country" then the latter is the better option. Yeah I can imagine that going a long way to prove to the Muslim world that we aren't fighting a war against their religion. No way ISIS and other groups could use that as propaganda to show the US hates them because they are Muslim not because they are radical. (though that's not to say the left isn't screwing up plenty) I mean, there are definitely better plans than banning all Muslims, but you're not right either. I'm pretty sure most people who would be able to be radicalized don't really care all that much about the border policy of a nation on the other side of the world. More significant would be US meddling in their actual homes. Though ISIS isn't going to be beat with magical thinking along the lines of "we is gunna convince dem ppls that USA good guys and ISIS bad guys and all the bad people are gonna go away." This was the idea of the Iraq war and I think we all know how well that turned out. To kill the organization, you have to do what you do to put down guerilla movements: cut off their supplies, bomb them indiscriminately enough that they can't just hide behind the population or so-called "moderate rebels," then support a stable government which will keep them from coming back. Saying that strong policies against malicious immigrants who are Muslims is helping ISIS, is just wrong.
ISIS gets recruits off the notion it is representing Islam against the West. And yes, those people hate the US. A total Muslim ban bolsters the pitch used by ISIS. But hopefully you don't really support the Muslim ban - you just dream up a dichotomy and then say you'd prefer the Muslim ban. I guess that is one way of pseudo-supporting Trump without saying it explicitly - couch your statement as an alternative to the other extreme.
|
On June 15 2016 10:59 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 10:52 On_Slaught wrote:
Still wondering what the religious test is going to look like to prove people are Muslim. Are we going to continue to monitor every dark skinned person who enters the country after they get in to make sure they aren't Muslim, like they told us they weren't in the interview? Which is why rhetoric and policy prescriptions are not the same thing. When promoting the PPACA they didn't talk about mandates, penalties, and minimum required coverage, but that is what the policy is in practice. Similarly, this would likely be a country of origin system, in practice. Which we already have and historically have had. Honestly, it feels like intentional feigning of naivety when people ask this question. And I don't even particularly think its a good solution (just think this question is incredibly disingenuous).
Yes, asking Trump and his supporters for a basic, initial detail on how his stated plan would be carried out is naive and disingenuous.
Your analogy is way off because this detail we're requesting from Trump's supporters is fundamental. A religion ban and a country of origin ban are two very different things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
