Data which you still need to access somehow. Most companies allow only trusted hardware as working laptops for good reason.
It's simply the US government doing what it's done for decades, now: Chase wealth-producers and job-creators out of the US. They've done a smash-up job on manufacturing, and the IT/Tech sector is next.
"That's the thing that they are obsessed with, the terrorists, the idea of knocking down an airplane in flight, particularly if it's a U.S. carrier, particularly if it's full of U.S. people."
Oh, bullshit! If any non-brain-dead terrorist had been intending to take down airliners it would have already happened! TSA is a terribly-bad joke and has failed miserably every time it's effectiveness has been tested. This is more about getting people used to having their personal devices being banned/restricted and taken from their possession and control under certain circumstances, particularly when entering or leaving the country, without any other legal probable cause. It's also about attacking civil rights including privacy.
The reasons given for this proposal don't hold up to logic. It is security theater of the worst kind; Intended to reduce the security of the general population rather than increase it. We see the same behavior with the NSA withholding information about the existence of massive and dangerous computer security vulnerabilities in vital US infrastructure. *Your* security is their very *last* concern!
the US DOES NOT spend anywhere near 3 trillion at the moment...
Heh! Thanks for saving me the trouble to point out the flaw in your argument, as you've done so yourself! How considerate of you! As I'm sure you're aware (or should be), entitlement spending is going up faster than ever and the rate is only increasing with an ever larger number of older people living longer and receiving entitlements. It will pass $3T easily and relatively soon.
I can see the government wanting to replace almost all entitlement programs with UBI. Plus, making people's money digital and doled out by government is a tyrant's wet-dream for control of a population, combined with government-controlled healthcare, mass surveillance, and data-mining/analysis, you've got a population by the very-short hairs, indeed.
It is the LOVE OF MONEY that is the root of all evil. Not money itself.
I'd think the *particularly* relevant parts in the context of TFA/TFS are "share it fairly, but don't take a slice of my pie" and "If you ask for a rise it's no surprise they're giving none away".
Aren't the rich the guys who pay most of the tax? They are in fact talking about using rich people's money.
The problem is one of scale. Even if the government took 100% of the wealth of the top 5% it still would be a drop in the bucket. By ny calculations to supply ~320M people $10K/year would cost $3,200,000,000,000 or $3.2 *trillion* dollars...every....single...year!
And, that number will only increase.
The *only* way this is even remotely feasible is if *all* other "social safety net" entitlement programs are halted. No more Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, food assistance, housing assistance, etc etc etc.
Basically it would be removing *all* government assistance in exchange for $10K/year per person. This would actually be a huge savings compared to existing entitlement programs, but at what human cost?
Money, get back I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack Money, it's a hit Don't give me that do goody good bullshit I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set And I think I need a Lear jet
Money, it's a crime Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie Money, so they say Is the root of all evil today But if you ask for a rise It's no surprise that they're giving none away
--excerpted from "Money" - Pink Floyd
The cure for corporations dodging taxes is to charge for the income earned by being in the US.
Wrong.
The cure for corporations dodging taxes is to lower taxes as they are too high if it is worth it to a corporation to go to those lengths to protect it's revenue and capital in the first place.
Sorry if that means there isn't enough 'other people's money' to spend on every SJW program snowflakes want. If you want all these social programs and crap, then put your big-boy pants on, spend your own damned money, and build/operate it yourself and keep your hands out of other people's wallets.
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
If corporations could collect more money by raising their prices, they already would have. The optimum price to sell something before corporate income taxes have been raised is the optimum afterwards. Corporate income taxes shift costs onto shareholders.
No, sorry. Shareholders are the very *last* people who would pay more.
Raising prices to offset taxes paid is exactly what has happened every other time corporate tax rates have been significantly increased. If it were just one business you might have a point. When the cost of nearly *everything* goes up when corporate tax rates go up, people will just shake their heads and try to adapt to the "new normal" like they have every other time it's occurred.
The other possibility is for the corporation to double/triple-down on exactly what Apple, MS, and others have already done. Move their capital out of the US government's reach to tax-haven nations like Ireland. Or they could even move their HQs out of the US entirely.
A corporation's wealth is capital. Capital is fluid. It moves where there are the least burdens on it. That's one of the reasons why so many businesses have already offshored their operations and HQs (and their capital) out of the IRS's reach.
You do realize that by calling for government action that he knows will require taxing the hell out of the rich, he IS offering his money. Right?
"Taxing the hell out of the rich"!?!?
Bwaahaahaahaa!!
Good one, you almost had me thinking you were serious up to that point.
You can't raise taxes on rich corporations as they simply raise the prices customers must pay to compensate, effectively shifting the taxes onto their customers. You may as well simply raise individual income taxes.
So, what happens when so many people live on UBI that there aren't enough people working and earning money to tax to pay for UBI?
UBI/Mincome is a doomed-to-fail economic strategy. It's great until you run out of other people's money.
Oh hell yeah between that and Obama and the IRS destroying 1099 workers...
They did not "destroy" 1099 workers. A large percentage of those workers now simply take pay under the table and in cash when possible. The IRS simply doesn't get a cut anymore. Maybe a few 1099 workers either left the workforce or found a wage-slave job, maybe even found another work-around to the regulations, but many simply "dropped off the 'scope".
Sure, the government will make up the losses with more of your tax money and that's good that they don't actually lose revenue when manipulating people, but the really cool part is that the government simultaneously makes nearly an entire class of people into criminals, and now government can play the selective-enforcement game for fun, profit, and power with even more targets of opportunity available! Good times!
Is running a sole proprietor business a "gig"? Or is that too formal to count? It's the same exact thing with even more volatility.
For the purposes of this plan, a "gig" is defined as any area of labor for remuneration where there is not enough money to feed political campaigns and lobbyists sufficient protection money to prevent government interference.
Posts like yours, where you argue that even the children of immigrants aren't British, and are in fact so different from us that they are completely alien, just encourage extremist views like that.
Reality is often extreme and quite rude, as are many people and their beliefs such as radical Islamists. To refuse to acknowledge reality because it may at times seem 'extreme' to delicate sensibilities is irrational.
Britain is once again being invaded, and British leadership cheer for the invaders.
This particular attacker was born in the UK, in Manchester, and therefore not a foreigner.
Legally, yes.
Culturally, morally, and ideologically?
He might as well have had blue skin and spoke Betelgeusean.
That's the problem with the ME refugees; They come to Western nations but never leave their original country. They just bring a piece of it with them, and soon, as their numbers swell, all those little pieces join together and marginalize the native culture until it looks and feels much like where they fled from, including bombings, beheadings, rapes, pedophilia, murder, and the rest of the ME cultural armageddon.
TPTB want a major global shift in power and economics. Major changes can be made during major crisis.
Western leaders know full well that bringing in masses of poorly-vetted Muslim refugees is dangerous and will lead to conflict. That's the goal. Just look at TFA. Crisis => invasions of privacy. They set up the conditions for the crisis and step in to "save the day" with new losses to individual liberty and privacy.
If this were in a medical context, we'd be discussing Munchausen syndrome by proxy with Western citizens the victims and their governments their abusers.
The part you find objectionable is likely not going to make it. It's there so that they can sacrifice something in the bill to show that they're working together in order to get it passed with all of the other things that they do want.
This is a common tactic used with legislation: include bits that you don't care about but can be sacrificed to keep the contraversial bits that you do want.
Yes, exactly.
They'll just need to swap out one term that mistakenly appears multiple times in the bill for the correct term.
Substitute "person" or "people" for the terms "drone" or "drones", respectively.
The new cranial kill-switch implant will be administered the next time you see your doctor or are treated at a hospital, if you do not yet have an active kill-switch implant. Note: An implant is mandatory to be able to drive, work, purchase or sell anything, open a bank account, connect to the internet or cellphone networks, and to use public transportation.
The USA doesn't care - they want all your data and biometrics in the great big database in the sky - because the database will magically protect them, (all it really is doing is adding noise to the signal).
The system is wholly inadequate and the design horrible for the stated purpose of catching radical Islamic terrorists and foreign State-sponsored operations & agents.
That's because it was not designed to catch radical Islamic terrorists or foreign intelligence agents/operations.
It was designed for, and is being used against, the domestic population in order to monitor and control them like cattle. "Terrorism", "Russia/China", are simply the boogeymen trotted out to scare the low-info people sufficiently to implement the police state in slow-motion.
It's about making sure you can't free your drone from surveillance.
Actually, it's to put a system in place to be able to track drones back to users in order to dissuade you from considering using a drone to video record that which the authorities don't want the public to see. Criminals in government avoid accountability and the Chinese get tons of US data for which I'm sure they donated to the appropriate politician-owned "think-tank", private charity organization, etc etc...basically the slush-fund of those politicians that help implement such a system.
Odd. I've only ever heard complaints about them in the last 5 or 6 years, and yet they've been in use since at least the 50s, and I'm pretty sure back to the 40s.
Yes, yes, but those were just simple remotely-controlled miniature flying machines. Nothing to get excited about.
These are totally different! These are privacy-invading, aircraft-wrecking drones! They have **apps** ffs! Might as well paint a big "ISIS" on the side of the things!/s
Except that in this case, sodium bicarbonate is not a big profit center for Pfizer. I don't think they're sending out lobbyists to keep others from getting into this market.
Pharmaceutical companies don't typically enter the market depending on a single product to keep them afloat.
Bicarbonate of soda would be only one minor side-product for a competitor as well as the other, major, cash products they would need to offer to be competitive, same as the established players. Keeping competitors out of the market for medical-grade bicarbonate of soda is simply a part of the collateral damage caused by collusion between the pharma industry and government to suppress new competition.
Government isn't the solution, government is the problem. "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are; 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" --- Ronald Reagan
It's not FDA approval of the initial product so much as FDA approval of the ongoing use of the product.
Your comment started strong, but then...
The problem is the intricate web of approved manufacturers, raw material suppliers, processing/manufacturing equipment makers, etc etc was not implemented with sufficient redundancy along the chain because it gives the government more opportunities to seek graft and votes from those wishing to enter the market and from those already entrenched who wish to cripple possible competition and stay politically/regulatorily-competitive among themselves, as well as political control using the power of approval/denial and an artificially-limited market. If you're a big pharmaceutical or medical device maker you're going to donate to whatever campaigns, pay whatever K-Street lobbyists, and donate big money to whichever charity organization/think-tank front for whichever power-broker they need to buy to stay in business and turn a profit. Include a revolving-door to "friendly" regulators, lawmakers, etc in government who cash in on a "consultancy" job with those they formerly held power over after leaving government as another major reason much of the government regulatory landscape is a nonsensical spaghetti-mess that is the current US pharma and medical device/technology fields.
No, it's the constitution. He tried to make it look like the ban was on particular nations and not religious, but then the judges had the temerity to look into what he'd actually been saying. Yup, he's banning muslims.
Trump could have *said* he'd throw all muslims in the ovens. What was *said* is totally irrelevant does not matter. Only what the EO actually *orders in writing* is relevant and admissable. The EO was in no way a 'muslim ban' and there's no way to reasonably, logically interpret it that way. Nothing outside the text of the EO is relevant.
That judge should be removed and disbarred for life for violating his oath and acting in a purely partisan-political matter like a common political hack willing to act outside the law.
What you say was certainly the intent, but it's not the actual outcome.
That's just your opinion from the viewpoint of the losing Party. It actually worked perfectly. The unindicted-felon/warmongering candidate was not able to secure election despite widespread cheating and fraud in the Democrat primaries (which stole the win from Sanders who would have *trounced* Trump) and the nation may well have avoided WW3 and/or a civil war because of it.
Yeah, I'm sick of the US just blindly following the democratically elected leader for 4 to 8 years.
The President's purpose is not so much to wield power himself, but to distract attention away from actual power (the 'deep state'). A POTUS only has a certain range of options in any given circumstance, as he is restricted (besides any constitutional restrictions which may or may not be adhered to) by what he can get the 'deep state' to go along with.
What happens when the POTUS attempts to act contrary to the agendas of the 'deep state'?
Unless the constitution has changed since he took office, the only way the hurdles should be any less is if he plans on ignoring said constitution.
Obama would have violated the Constitution (he was trying to w/Assange and has a number of times while in office regarding other topics) in a heartbeat to prosecute Assange. It wouldn't matter who was POTUS or if they were (R) or (D). The US has become an authoritarian oligarchy. Oligarchies like the US and other authoritarian regimes will not tolerate having their misdeeds exposed and will go to extreme lengths to retaliate against any who dare, as we've seen both here with Assange and with Snowden.
The US is no longer a nation of laws but of men with power. Government violates constitutional rights and responsibilities on a mass scale with almost no regard and little consequence. High crimes of the elites go unpunished while those who expose the wrongdoing are persecuted, prosecuted, and imprisoned or killed unless they seek asylum in a non-friendly foreign nation.
This is no longer the United States. While we were all busy being apathetic and living life through the TV the US was replaced under our wide-as-a-La-Z-Boy asses with an elitist oligarchy.
The only question now is, will we do anything about it besides whine using 140-character hashtag virtue-signaling?
Slashdot Mirror
Data which you still need to access somehow. Most companies allow only trusted hardware as working laptops for good reason.
It's simply the US government doing what it's done for decades, now: Chase wealth-producers and job-creators out of the US. They've done a smash-up job on manufacturing, and the IT/Tech sector is next.
Strat
"That's the thing that they are obsessed with, the terrorists, the idea of knocking down an airplane in flight, particularly if it's a U.S. carrier, particularly if it's full of U.S. people."
Oh, bullshit! If any non-brain-dead terrorist had been intending to take down airliners it would have already happened! TSA is a terribly-bad joke and has failed miserably every time it's effectiveness has been tested. This is more about getting people used to having their personal devices being banned/restricted and taken from their possession and control under certain circumstances, particularly when entering or leaving the country, without any other legal probable cause. It's also about attacking civil rights including privacy.
The reasons given for this proposal don't hold up to logic. It is security theater of the worst kind; Intended to reduce the security of the general population rather than increase it. We see the same behavior with the NSA withholding information about the existence of massive and dangerous computer security vulnerabilities in vital US infrastructure. *Your* security is their very *last* concern!
Strat
the US DOES NOT spend anywhere near 3 trillion at the moment...
Heh! Thanks for saving me the trouble to point out the flaw in your argument, as you've done so yourself! How considerate of you! As I'm sure you're aware (or should be), entitlement spending is going up faster than ever and the rate is only increasing with an ever larger number of older people living longer and receiving entitlements. It will pass $3T easily and relatively soon.
I can see the government wanting to replace almost all entitlement programs with UBI. Plus, making people's money digital and doled out by government is a tyrant's wet-dream for control of a population, combined with government-controlled healthcare, mass surveillance, and data-mining/analysis, you've got a population by the very-short hairs, indeed.
Strat
It is the LOVE OF MONEY that is the root of all evil. Not money itself.
I'd think the *particularly* relevant parts in the context of TFA/TFS are "share it fairly, but don't take a slice of my pie" and "If you ask for a rise it's no surprise they're giving none away".
Strat
Aren't the rich the guys who pay most of the tax? They are in fact talking about using rich people's money.
The problem is one of scale. Even if the government took 100% of the wealth of the top 5% it still would be a drop in the bucket. By ny calculations to supply ~320M people $10K/year would cost $3,200,000,000,000 or $3.2 *trillion* dollars...every....single...year!
And, that number will only increase.
The *only* way this is even remotely feasible is if *all* other "social safety net" entitlement programs are halted. No more Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, food assistance, housing assistance, etc etc etc.
Basically it would be removing *all* government assistance in exchange for $10K/year per person. This would actually be a huge savings compared to existing entitlement programs, but at what human cost?
Strat
Money, get back
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack
Money, it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit
I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet
Money, it's a crime
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today
But if you ask for a rise
It's no surprise that they're giving none away
--excerpted from "Money" - Pink Floyd
And the song remains the same.
Strat
...That will work flawlessly.
.
Right up until they run out of other people's money.
Strat
The cure for corporations dodging taxes is to charge for the income earned by being in the US.
Wrong.
The cure for corporations dodging taxes is to lower taxes as they are too high if it is worth it to a corporation to go to those lengths to protect it's revenue and capital in the first place.
Sorry if that means there isn't enough 'other people's money' to spend on every SJW program snowflakes want. If you want all these social programs and crap, then put your big-boy pants on, spend your own damned money, and build/operate it yourself and keep your hands out of other people's wallets.
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
Strat
If corporations could collect more money by raising their prices, they already would have. The optimum price to sell something before corporate income taxes have been raised is the optimum afterwards. Corporate income taxes shift costs onto shareholders.
No, sorry. Shareholders are the very *last* people who would pay more.
Raising prices to offset taxes paid is exactly what has happened every other time corporate tax rates have been significantly increased. If it were just one business you might have a point. When the cost of nearly *everything* goes up when corporate tax rates go up, people will just shake their heads and try to adapt to the "new normal" like they have every other time it's occurred.
The other possibility is for the corporation to double/triple-down on exactly what Apple, MS, and others have already done. Move their capital out of the US government's reach to tax-haven nations like Ireland. Or they could even move their HQs out of the US entirely.
A corporation's wealth is capital. Capital is fluid. It moves where there are the least burdens on it. That's one of the reasons why so many businesses have already offshored their operations and HQs (and their capital) out of the IRS's reach.
Strat
You do realize that by calling for government action that he knows will require taxing the hell out of the rich, he IS offering his money. Right?
"Taxing the hell out of the rich"!?!?
Bwaahaahaahaa!!
Good one, you almost had me thinking you were serious up to that point.
You can't raise taxes on rich corporations as they simply raise the prices customers must pay to compensate, effectively shifting the taxes onto their customers. You may as well simply raise individual income taxes.
So, what happens when so many people live on UBI that there aren't enough people working and earning money to tax to pay for UBI?
UBI/Mincome is a doomed-to-fail economic strategy. It's great until you run out of other people's money.
Strat
Oh hell yeah between that and Obama and the IRS destroying 1099 workers...
They did not "destroy" 1099 workers. A large percentage of those workers now simply take pay under the table and in cash when possible. The IRS simply doesn't get a cut anymore. Maybe a few 1099 workers either left the workforce or found a wage-slave job, maybe even found another work-around to the regulations, but many simply "dropped off the 'scope".
Sure, the government will make up the losses with more of your tax money and that's good that they don't actually lose revenue when manipulating people, but the really cool part is that the government simultaneously makes nearly an entire class of people into criminals, and now government can play the selective-enforcement game for fun, profit, and power with even more targets of opportunity available! Good times!
Strat
Is running a sole proprietor business a "gig"? Or is that too formal to count? It's the same exact thing with even more volatility.
For the purposes of this plan, a "gig" is defined as any area of labor for remuneration where there is not enough money to feed political campaigns and lobbyists sufficient protection money to prevent government interference.
Strat
Posts like yours, where you argue that even the children of immigrants aren't British, and are in fact so different from us that they are completely alien, just encourage extremist views like that.
Reality is often extreme and quite rude, as are many people and their beliefs such as radical Islamists. To refuse to acknowledge reality because it may at times seem 'extreme' to delicate sensibilities is irrational.
Britain is once again being invaded, and British leadership cheer for the invaders.
Strat
This particular attacker was born in the UK, in Manchester, and therefore not a foreigner.
Legally, yes.
Culturally, morally, and ideologically?
He might as well have had blue skin and spoke Betelgeusean.
That's the problem with the ME refugees; They come to Western nations but never leave their original country. They just bring a piece of it with them, and soon, as their numbers swell, all those little pieces join together and marginalize the native culture until it looks and feels much like where they fled from, including bombings, beheadings, rapes, pedophilia, murder, and the rest of the ME cultural armageddon.
TPTB want a major global shift in power and economics. Major changes can be made during major crisis.
Western leaders know full well that bringing in masses of poorly-vetted Muslim refugees is dangerous and will lead to conflict. That's the goal. Just look at TFA. Crisis => invasions of privacy. They set up the conditions for the crisis and step in to "save the day" with new losses to individual liberty and privacy.
If this were in a medical context, we'd be discussing Munchausen syndrome by proxy with Western citizens the victims and their governments their abusers.
Strat
The part you find objectionable is likely not going to make it. It's there so that they can sacrifice something in the bill to show that they're working together in order to get it passed with all of the other things that they do want.
This is a common tactic used with legislation: include bits that you don't care about but can be sacrificed to keep the contraversial bits that you do want.
Yes, exactly.
They'll just need to swap out one term that mistakenly appears multiple times in the bill for the correct term.
Substitute "person" or "people" for the terms "drone" or "drones", respectively.
The new cranial kill-switch implant will be administered the next time you see your doctor or are treated at a hospital, if you do not yet have an active kill-switch implant. Note: An implant is mandatory to be able to drive, work, purchase or sell anything, open a bank account, connect to the internet or cellphone networks, and to use public transportation.
Strat
The USA doesn't care - they want all your data and biometrics in the great big database in the sky - because the database will magically protect them, (all it really is doing is adding noise to the signal).
The system is wholly inadequate and the design horrible for the stated purpose of catching radical Islamic terrorists and foreign State-sponsored operations & agents.
That's because it was not designed to catch radical Islamic terrorists or foreign intelligence agents/operations.
It was designed for, and is being used against, the domestic population in order to monitor and control them like cattle. "Terrorism", "Russia/China", are simply the boogeymen trotted out to scare the low-info people sufficiently to implement the police state in slow-motion.
Strat
It's about making sure you can't free your drone from surveillance.
Actually, it's to put a system in place to be able to track drones back to users in order to dissuade you from considering using a drone to video record that which the authorities don't want the public to see. Criminals in government avoid accountability and the Chinese get tons of US data for which I'm sure they donated to the appropriate politician-owned "think-tank", private charity organization, etc etc...basically the slush-fund of those politicians that help implement such a system.
Strat
Odd. I've only ever heard complaints about them in the last 5 or 6 years, and yet they've been in use since at least the 50s, and I'm pretty sure back to the 40s.
Yes, yes, but those were just simple remotely-controlled miniature flying machines. Nothing to get excited about.
These are totally different! These are privacy-invading, aircraft-wrecking drones! They have **apps** ffs! Might as well paint a big "ISIS" on the side of the things! /s
Strat
Except that in this case, sodium bicarbonate is not a big profit center for Pfizer. I don't think they're sending out lobbyists to keep others from getting into this market.
Pharmaceutical companies don't typically enter the market depending on a single product to keep them afloat.
Bicarbonate of soda would be only one minor side-product for a competitor as well as the other, major, cash products they would need to offer to be competitive, same as the established players. Keeping competitors out of the market for medical-grade bicarbonate of soda is simply a part of the collateral damage caused by collusion between the pharma industry and government to suppress new competition.
Government isn't the solution, government is the problem. "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are; 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" --- Ronald Reagan
Strat
It's not FDA approval of the initial product so much as FDA approval of the ongoing use of the product.
Your comment started strong, but then...
The problem is the intricate web of approved manufacturers, raw material suppliers, processing/manufacturing equipment makers, etc etc was not implemented with sufficient redundancy along the chain because it gives the government more opportunities to seek graft and votes from those wishing to enter the market and from those already entrenched who wish to cripple possible competition and stay politically/regulatorily-competitive among themselves, as well as political control using the power of approval/denial and an artificially-limited market. If you're a big pharmaceutical or medical device maker you're going to donate to whatever campaigns, pay whatever K-Street lobbyists, and donate big money to whichever charity organization/think-tank front for whichever power-broker they need to buy to stay in business and turn a profit. Include a revolving-door to "friendly" regulators, lawmakers, etc in government who cash in on a "consultancy" job with those they formerly held power over after leaving government as another major reason much of the government regulatory landscape is a nonsensical spaghetti-mess that is the current US pharma and medical device/technology fields.
Strat
No, it's the constitution. He tried to make it look like the ban was on particular nations and not religious, but then the judges had the temerity to look into what he'd actually been saying. Yup, he's banning muslims.
Trump could have *said* he'd throw all muslims in the ovens. What was *said* is totally irrelevant does not matter. Only what the EO actually *orders in writing* is relevant and admissable. The EO was in no way a 'muslim ban' and there's no way to reasonably, logically interpret it that way. Nothing outside the text of the EO is relevant.
That judge should be removed and disbarred for life for violating his oath and acting in a purely partisan-political matter like a common political hack willing to act outside the law.
Strat
What you say was certainly the intent, but it's not the actual outcome.
That's just your opinion from the viewpoint of the losing Party. It actually worked perfectly. The unindicted-felon/warmongering candidate was not able to secure election despite widespread cheating and fraud in the Democrat primaries (which stole the win from Sanders who would have *trounced* Trump) and the nation may well have avoided WW3 and/or a civil war because of it.
Strat
Your party has left you. You are a conservative now. Traditional democrats and republicans have merged into the Conservative party.
Agreed.
The old (R) vs (D) paradigm is dead, Jim.
The new paradigm is Conservatives vs the Radical Alternative Transnationals...aka RATs.
Strat
Yeah, I'm sick of the US just blindly following the democratically elected leader for 4 to 8 years.
The President's purpose is not so much to wield power himself, but to distract attention away from actual power (the 'deep state'). A POTUS only has a certain range of options in any given circumstance, as he is restricted (besides any constitutional restrictions which may or may not be adhered to) by what he can get the 'deep state' to go along with.
What happens when the POTUS attempts to act contrary to the agendas of the 'deep state'?
JFK
Strat
Unless the constitution has changed since he took office, the only way the hurdles should be any less is if he plans on ignoring said constitution.
Obama would have violated the Constitution (he was trying to w/Assange and has a number of times while in office regarding other topics) in a heartbeat to prosecute Assange. It wouldn't matter who was POTUS or if they were (R) or (D). The US has become an authoritarian oligarchy. Oligarchies like the US and other authoritarian regimes will not tolerate having their misdeeds exposed and will go to extreme lengths to retaliate against any who dare, as we've seen both here with Assange and with Snowden.
The US is no longer a nation of laws but of men with power. Government violates constitutional rights and responsibilities on a mass scale with almost no regard and little consequence. High crimes of the elites go unpunished while those who expose the wrongdoing are persecuted, prosecuted, and imprisoned or killed unless they seek asylum in a non-friendly foreign nation.
This is no longer the United States. While we were all busy being apathetic and living life through the TV the US was replaced under our wide-as-a-La-Z-Boy asses with an elitist oligarchy.
The only question now is, will we do anything about it besides whine using 140-character hashtag virtue-signaling?
Strat