Jump to content

US Politics: OBAMAGATE - An American Story


Week

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Nope. I’m trying to analyze the events objectively instead of blindly believing an allegation. I heard her version of events and his denial. Since it’s a she said, he said account with no actual evidence, I’d rather analyze the facts and make a reasoned judgment

 

 

The problem is, one thing you presented as a 'fact' is "And no, people don’t forget the location and environment where an assault, especially a traumatic experience like the one Reade describes happened. They may forget the time, date, year, but images are clear and vivid."

That's not a fact, that's a presumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Ah, but we're already talking about two different things.

I focused on the entrepreneur, the business creator, the one who may be factually described as "risk-taker" because -among other things- his income depends on his success AND he may be putting his personal assets at risk.

If you're talking about how a company or a capitalist might invest, you're already talking about something very different.
And for today, I'd rather underline the fact that the two are in fact very different: if we oversimplify a bit, the capitalist is only risking money.
And if we start looking at how things actually work today we quickly end up talking about "privatised profits and socialised risks," among other things because, quite obviously, everything is done to limit the risks taken by the capitalists

Both worry about the variability of their cash flows in the future when making an investment. Both should be discounting those cash flows at an appropriate discount rate.

Or I say both should worry about the variability of their cash flows. In the corporate context that doesn't always happen because the managers may not act with the best interest of shareholders (and often their employees) in mind. In short, there are often agency problems in corporations, leading to such problems as CEOs loading up on debt to make share buybacks rather than making long term investments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Ran said:

The idiotic, nonsensical story of Obama plotting to sabotage Trump by ginning up Michael Flynn's repeated lies ... lies which he actually told, to the FBI and to Pence, among others, lies which he admitted making both in writing and before the judge, and so on.

Let's see if there was anything else in Grennell's Satchel before you jump to the conclusion.  The saga of Flynn's 302 is eye opening.  The 302 form is the official FBI record from an interview.  Apparently the FBI doesn't record meetings, the agent typically has 5 days to write up the official record.

In Flynn's case, the original 302 said that the agent interviewing him didn't think he was lying.  Then Stzork and Page spent a few weeks massaging the report to indicate otherwise.  He was clearly set up.  There was even more skullduggery than that in the timeline with the 302 where another intermediate version has gone conveniently missing.  Flynn was railroaded for talking with a Russia ambassador about US/Russia relations - the horror!  I have to assume that if the transcript of the call supported the Russia collusion narrative instead of blowing it up, it would have been leaked by now, YMMV on that last bit, that part is speculation.

Regardless, the FBI needs to be reformed.  Record every interview so they can be held accountable for what is written into the 302.  Abolish the FISA warrants too, since they obv can't be trusted with it.

There may be a whole lot more poop to hit the fan shortly on this, due to the election timeline if nothing else.  (True whether you think the administration is going to try to clean out politicized intelligence and law enforcement agencies, or if you think the administration is going to go full fascist and start arresting the freedom loving dissenters at the FBI, NSA etc!)

19 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

The FDA just ordered the State of Washington to stop the coronavirus testing backed by Bill Gates, because now they need approval directly from the US government.

I'm going to read into this that the FDA now thinks Coronavirus is going to fizzle out and they have to get back to their core mission of expanding their power, influence, and funding versus competing agencies and bureaucracies.  Kind of like how there was that pissing match in March before everything got locked down between the CDC and FDA about testing.

@Mexal from the last thread - Unmasking itself isn't criminal, it's meant to happen as part of intelligence gathering.  Unmasking for political purposes is a crime, so unmasking Flynn to provide leak material was criminal.  I suspect there will be more to come.  We're still at the point in the news cycle where the Covington kids are harrassing Senator Blumenthal's fox hole buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Isn't one of the depressing things about growing up is learning that people are just often flat full of shit?

Anyway, as I've repeatedly harped about, the problem with the word "socialism" is that it's meaning changes so much in US political discussion it's hard to know what they hell is even being talked about. It's hard to argue the pro and cons of something when you don't even really know what is being talked about. The fact that its definition changes so often is obviously not often done in good faith.

 

I don’t know if the meaning changes so much in US political discussions as much as I think it’s misunderstood and misused by many politicians here. Socialism is the boogie man that they can call upon when they want to scare their constituents. Even the Democrats who argue for more welfare will run as fast as they can if the term socialism is brought up. To many in the US, socialism is associated with the former Soviet Union. It defines a repressed and corrupt society. Most of these people can’t comprehend the fact that you can have a very liberal society and practice socialism in some form. I’m not advocating for socialism as I do not think capitalism or socialism, in their true forms, can ever exist. These are theoretical concepts that can be argued in philosophical discussions but the practical implementation of these systems is difficult and not sustainable. 

Now that we see liberal democracies faltering and populism taking root in many places, the thought leaders of the world should mobilize and figure out a system that works for the common good but promotes liberal values and individual freedom. Or else, we are going to see more amoral and corrupt leaders like the orange menace find a voice among the disaffected and disenfranchised populations. I’ve heard many on the left in the US argue for another term of the Trump presidency so that he can destroy the economy and the political system of this country further, and then, when things really hit rock bottom, they can swoop in and establish utopia. Many of them mean to sit out the 2020 election and are preparing/ hoping for 2024. What they don’t understand is another 4 years of Trump and his republican sycophants may just destroy the entire edifice the US political system is built on and we may be end up living in a fascist society in 2024. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Ah, but we're already talking about two different things.

I focused on the entrepreneur, the business creator, the one who may be factually described as "risk-taker" because -among other things- his income depends on his success AND he may be putting his personal assets at risk.

Also, let me give one clarification here. The standard neo-classical model basically says that the new entrepreneur goes into a new venture for solely pecuniary rewards. I don't think that is always true or its only partly true. I think a lot of entrepreneurs go into business because they love what they are doing.

I once saw Donny Deutsch suggest to Bill Gates that he (Gates) would have gotten rich if he had sold hot dogs or something like that. Gates pretty much rebuffed Deutsch and indicated that he was doing what he loved - ie getting intrinsic rewards instead of purely pecuniary rewards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

There may be a whole lot more poop to hit the fan shortly on this, due to the election timeline if nothing else.  (True whether you think the administration is going to try to clean out politicized intelligence and law enforcement agencies, or if you think the administration is going to go full fascist and start arresting the freedom loving dissenters at the FBI, NSA etc!)

Lol at the idea that this administration is trying to clean out politicized anything. Guess that's why this admin has agreed to release the Mueller grand jury files right? Oh wait. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Think of people or firms looking for a loan as sellers of debt. Buyers of debt are banks. In this case, the sellers of debt have private information about themselves that the bank doesn't know, but tries to discover.

I understand that.
What I don't understand is why you would assume that the asymmetry works against the bank. Banks are not only very good at discovering information about borrowers (not to mention, have legal protections is said borrowers try to hide things), but they also have access to information that will be difficult to obtain for a private individual, or even for a SMB.

15 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Or I say both should worry about the variability of their cash flows. In the corporate context that doesn't always happen because the managers may not act with the best interest of shareholders (and often their employees) in mind. In short, there are often agency problems in corporations, leading to such problems as CEOs loading up on debt to make share buybacks rather than making long term investments.

Here, we agree (of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

 

I'm going to read into this that the FDA now thinks Coronavirus is going to fizzle out and they have to get back to their core mission of expanding their power, influence, and funding versus competing agencies and bureaucracies.  Kind of like how there was that pissing match in March before everything got locked down between the CDC and FDA about testing.

Funny, I was reading into that the fact that Trump hates the governor of Washington state, something he has repeatedly demonstrated ('why would Pence talk to him or that woman from Michigan?') and a right-wing campaign has been going on for weeks now to undermine Bill Gates and anything he touches. The absolutely crazy and outrageous claims that are being made against Gates are being spearheaded by Republican supporters like Laura Ingram and the rest of the Fox crowd, and even Roger Stone has stepped in with comments about what role Gates has played in spreading the virus, for crying out loud. I'd say one of the reasons this has happened is because Gates reported that in one of his meetings with Trump, Trump did not know the difference between HIV and HPV and thought they were related. That, and the fact that Trump is insanely jealous of real billionaires. And of course, because Gates has been spearheading the need for testing, which Trump has several times said is being overdone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

I agree.  The problem is that this is not a belief the Democrats ascribed to when accusations were cast on there political opponents.  Joe Biden being one, as a champion of #BelieveAllWomen and Title ix.  

If you are talking about the Democratic leaders, I can’t speak for them. I’m a democrat and didn’t blindly believe Dr Ford. I saw her testimony and Kavanaugh’s and made a rationale choice to believe her. Even after hearing her testimony, I still didn’t think Kavanaugh should have been disqualified based on an act that he committed decades ago as a drunken teenager. It gave me pause about his character but the man could have changed and grown up in the years since. What disqualified him in my eyes was his testimony and behavior before the senate. His behavior made me think that he hasn’t changed much and doesn’t seem to have the constitution and character to sit on the supreme court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I understand that.
What I don't understand is why you would assume that the asymmetry works against the bank. Banks are not only very good at discovering information about borrowers (not to mention, have legal protections is said borrowers try to hide things), but they also have access to information that will be difficult to obtain for a private individual, or even for a SMB.

Yes Banks are very good at discovering and assessing information. And that is one plausible explanation why they came into existence, rather than having private individuals making loans to firms.

But, there is a bit of daylight between being "very good" and perfect. And when their is heightened fear because of the general economic situation banks at times might think that being "very good" isn't good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Here, we agree (of course).

One of the solutions to this problem was granting CEO's and other C-suite managers stock options. I think we can both agree that hasn't turned out very well. In fact, I'd argue it can often exacerbate agency problems and has led to out of control CEO pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

 

The problem is, one thing you presented as a 'fact' is "And no, people don’t forget the location and environment where an assault, especially a traumatic experience like the one Reade describes happened. They may forget the time, date, year, but images are clear and vivid."

That's not a fact, that's a presumption.

I didn’t think I was stating it as a fact but if that’s the impression you got, fair enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

 

@Mexal from the last thread - Unmasking itself isn't criminal, it's meant to happen as part of intelligence gathering.  Unmasking for political purposes is a crime, so unmasking Flynn to provide leak material was criminal.  I suspect there will be more to come.  We're still at the point in the news cycle where the Covington kids are harrassing Senator Blumenthal's fox hole buddy.

You do realize that when you "unmask" someone, it's because you don't know who they are right? They read an intelligence report, it has an American citizen talking to the Russian Ambassador about sanctions that were just put on them and in order to understand the context, they need to know who that person is. That's not political, it's intelligence. And it's not illegal.

The leaking of that to the press was given it's confidential information and whoever did it should go to jail, but we've known he was unmasked for over 3 years and they haven't arrested anyone. The fact that Grennell had this declassified, specifically to have it leaked to the press, like unmasking is some big crime is pretty fucked up. They're using intelligence as a political weapon, concocting a story with no proof, insinuating things with nothing to back it up and selectively declassifying things to feed the beast. If anything was illegal or if there was any proof that there was anything actually illegal, Barr would be arresting people but given everything was by the book on the unmasking, as catalogued by the IG, the best they can do is this. Remember that when all you get is little bits of the morsel, no accountability and a constant flood of the zone of OBAMAGATE yet not a single person able to tell you what actual criminal statute was violated by Obama, Biden or anyone else in his administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yes Banks are very good at discovering and assessing information. And that is one plausible explanation why they came into existence, rather than having private individuals making loans to firms.

But, there is a bit of daylight between being "very good" and perfect. And when their is heightened fear because of the general economic situation banks at times might think that being "very good" isn't good enough.

Ah, I think I see.

When I talked of trust, I did not mean trust between the borrower and the lender, but trust in the value of money.
In other words, I'm using the heterodox view that the role of banks is to create money (necessary for entrepreneurship/innovation) while preserving the trust in its value.

To quote Varoufakis:

Quote

What mattered then and what matters now is simply that the numbers on those shells or the figures on those ledgers are believable, that the productivity of the land and the wealth and stability of the state make those promises of grain and currency trustworthy.

And back to Mazzucato:

Quote

As long as these funds are invested productively in sectors like healthcare, education, research and others that increase productivity, then the debt/GDP denominator will rise, keeping the ratio in check.

In other words, as long as money is created for endeavors that are actually productive, what one may call the "real" economy, it should all work out.

 

58 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

One of the solutions to this problem was granting CEO's and other C-suite managers stock options. I think we can both agree that hasn't turned out very well.

*chuckles*

That's quite the understatement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are you willing to accept, a minimum of (God only knows what he’ll try if he wins), 4 more years of Trump as the price to keep Biden out of the Oval Office?

That’s real question you have to answer with you advocacy against Biden.

Scot, it's a fair question, but I really don't believe this is a binary "this or that" issue right now. Biden isn't officially the nominee. There is time for the DNC to step in and do something about it. I know they won't, but I think it's worth exploring the idea that we're about to nominate a seriously flawed candidate and put him up against the worst (hands down, not even a contest) president in American history. Trump is the definition of existential threat--primarily because so many people don't see this. They will vote for him or they just won't vote because of the flaws in Biden. I am terrified of Trump winning in the fall, and I think, once again, the Dems are blindly just blundering into another unexpected upset.

I can argue with the others all day about how they're misrepresenting my arguments, but the fact remains, I am terrified about what we're heading into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ants said:

 

The article never said it was a categorical denial, neither did any poster here.  The article and posters have said it raises doubts about some of Reade's claims, which implies either her memory is faulty or she is being untruthful.  Either of which reduces her credibility.  

 

I'm not going to continue the argument with you or Teej as your arguments are circular at this point. For example, Teej used the words "categorical denial" in two posts. So I feel like this is just a "let's argue with someone I don't like" kind of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

we're about to nominate a seriously flawed candidate

So is Sanders and Warren and every damned person else you can think of, from the perspective of a lot of people, so who is the not-seriously-flawed candidate that you believe you would be the right choice? Ralph Nader?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It’s not “Socialism” as most Marxists would style it.  They like the “dictatorship of the Proletariat” and lots of power to the State.  

I see this as a hybrid of Socialism and Captialism keeping the monetary incentives of capitalism while, on a smaller scale, embracing the collectivist ideas of Socialism.  It gives groups of individuals the freedom to spread risk and benefit among those groups without requiring government to plan all aspects of the economy in advance destroying personal incentives created by individual benefits.

It also undermines the dichotomy between labor and management.  Many US unions dislike employee owned shops because it undermines that confrontation (weakening the need for Unions in the first place).

Sorry for the double post Scot, but I just wanted to add in that many Marxist scholars have wrestled with the issue of tyranny in any form, including the proletariat. This is the point that the philosophy reaches a "it's so complex, what can we do?"--I feel.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

not a single person able to tell you what actual criminal statute was violated by Obama, Biden or anyone else in his administration.

I haven't worked on that in a while, but that should be the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or one of the latter Acts that reformed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...