192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 04:53 am
@blatham,
As opposed to capitalism where two wolves force the sheep to butcher and cook their own to serve them their dinner.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 04:54 am
Quote:
More than 70 MPs have signed a letter urging the home secretary to ensure Julian Assange faces authorities in Sweden if they request his extradition.

The Wikileaks founder, who is now in UK custody, was arrested on Thursday after years in Ecuador's London embassy.

Sweden is considering whether to reopen an investigation into rape and sexual assault allegations against him.

And the US is seeking his extradition in relation to one of the largest ever leaks of government secrets, in 2010.

The whistle-blowing website Wikileaks has published thousands of classified documents covering everything from the film industry to national security and war.

Assange sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of sexual assault, which he has denied.

At the time, the Australian-born 47-year-old said he had had entirely consensual sex with two women while on a trip to Stockholm, and that the Swedish claims against him were part of a smear campaign.

Swedish prosecutors dropped a rape investigation into Assange in 2017 because they were unable to formally notify him of the allegations while he stayed in the embassy.

Two other charges of molestation and unlawful coercion had to be dropped in 2015 because time had run out.

But Swedish prosecutors say they are now re-examining Assange's case at the request of the lawyer acting for the alleged rape victim.

In their letter to Sajid Javid, 70 parliamentarians - chiefly Labour MPs - urged him to "stand with the victims of sexual violence" and ensure the rape claim against the Wikileaks founder could be "properly investigated".

"We do not presume guilt, of course, but we believe due process should be followed and the complainant should see justice be done," it says.

Labour's Stella Creasy tweeted a copy of the letter sent to Mr Javid.

On Friday evening, shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry said he should be extradited to Sweden before any attempt to get him to the US. She said she was "disgusted" the US allegation had been "allowed to eclipse" the sex offence case.

Assange was dramatically arrested by UK police on Thursday after Ecuador abruptly withdrew its asylum.

Westminster Magistrates' Court found him guilty of a charge of breaching bail later that day. He faces up to 12 months in prison for that conviction.

The MPs' letter says both UK and US authorities seem to have been aware in advance of Ecuador's decision to rescind Mr Assange's political asylum, but said it was a matter of "grave concern" that Swedish authorities did not appear to be aware of the impending arrest.

On Friday, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the UK government should not extradite Julian Assange to the US.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47917325
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  2  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 05:07 am
It's getting more difficult for Assange to be extradited to the US with three court systems wanting their pound of flesh.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 05:25 am
@Brand X,
Assange broke his bail conditions. When people do that they go to prison. That's how laws work.

Jack Shepherd also broke his bail conditions and got an extra six months added to his sentence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47892602
oralloy
 
  -3  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 06:00 am
@Brand X,
Brand X wrote:
It's getting more difficult for Assange to be extradited to the US with three court systems wanting their pound of flesh.

I'm happy for us to wait our turn.

I do object to claims that we should be prevented from having justice *ever*.

But merely waiting our turn until he has served his time in the UK and Sweden, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Of course, I don't speak for anyone other than myself here. But I assume that I'm not the only American who feels this way.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 08:02 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

As opposed to capitalism where two wolves force the sheep to butcher and cook their own to serve them their dinner.

The whole capitalism-democracy compare-contrast notion is foiled by twisting democracy slightly to refer to popular sovereignty (majority rule) without consent.

Democracy is about representation, but it is ultimately about consent. Majority representation is about preventing a government of elites from ruling over the majority without their consent (e.g. taxation without representation); but if power is modified so that the elite can essentially buy a majority and then rule without consent by majority, that is just as undemocratic as minority rule.

Basically, democracy is about government rule by consent of the people, and all the discussion and deliberation that has to take place for that to happen.

Even consent, however, can be bought in too many cases; which is why we hear so much about 'compromise' in politics. In real democracy, there is no compromise by bought-consent. Citizens are supposed to be independent of the need to sell consent to others; so when everyone consents to some government policy, it is based on the higher judgment of all.

In other words, democracy is supposed to be about a diverse populace discussing the greater good across political/ideological differences in order to achieve policies that are acceptable to all.

The problem is, when people resist consent so that they can (continue to) get away with activities that are exploitative/abusive, then they are using their right to withhold consent as a tool to overpower others' right to resist. E.g. think about a rapist who refuses to consent to anti-rape laws while continuing to rape. In that case, the rapist is buying consent or rejecting consent altogether at the level of his private activities, but yet he is arguing at the political level that a law against rape is something he's not willing to consent to and that making such a law would violate government by consent.

The rape example is just to illustrate how democracy as government by consent can be abused to protect social/economic activities that abuse, exploit, or defy consent. To have a truly voluntary society/economy, we would have to embrace the spirit of accepting dissent in all things; AND then also resist abusing the power of dissent to manipulate others to our advantage by selling consent instead of using independent judgment to decide when it is right to consent and when not.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 08:26 am
@georgeob1,
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/9/18296806/trump-tax-returns-congress-legal-experts
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 09:25 am
@Setanta,
"Of course [Moore] doesn't believe in democracy. The people in a democracy have the power to regulate capitalists, and to curb their worst excesses." Indeed. The pretense of it, however, is necessary for these people to maintain as a sop to their victims. And Moore is far from alone in this vision of how government should operate. Still, they don't usually speak this honestly of what they are working towards.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 10:01 am
Quote:
Officers opened fire in west London on Saturday morning during an incident involving a car which was colliding with vehicles near Ukraine's embassy, the Metropolitan Police has said.

The embassy said its ambassador's vehicle was "deliberately rammed" as it sat parked outside the building in Holland Park.

When officers arrived on the scene, a car was "driven at them", the Met said.

Officers used firearms and a Taser before arresting a man in his 40s.

Police said the uninjured man was "taken to a central London hospital as a precaution".

They added that the situation was neither ongoing nor being treated as terror-related.

The Met said its officers arrived at the scene just before 10:00 GMT after "reports of antisocial behaviour involving a car".

Describing the events of Saturday morning, the Ukrainian embassy said that after seeing the ambassador's car being targeted, police "blocked up" the attacker's vehicle.

"Nevertheless, despite the police actions, the attacker hit the ambassador's car again," the embassy said.

It added police were "forced to open fire on the perpetrator's vehicle".

The embassy said none of its staff had been injured and that police were now investigating "the suspect's identity and motive for the attack".

A woman who works at a nearby shop told the Press Association she heard shots fired twice between 10:00 and 11:00.

The woman, who did not wish to be named, said officers arrived "very quick", adding: "I saw many police cars coming."

Local resident Heather Feiner, originally from the US, added: "From the time I heard the shots until I got to the window, which took about 15 seconds, all these police cars were already there.

"I could see a police officer that fired the shots. I could see them pointing their gun at the car.

"From what I could see [the suspect] didn't appear to be struggling at that point."

Ch Supt Andy Walker, from the Met's specialist firearms command, said: "As is standard procedure, an investigation is now ongoing into the discharge of a police firearm during this incident.

"While this takes place, I would like to pay tribute to the officers involved this morning who responded swiftly to this incident and put themselves in harm's way, as they do every day, to keep the people of London safe."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47921885
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  -1  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 10:08 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

"Of course [Moore] doesn't believe in democracy. The people in a democracy have the power to regulate capitalists, and to curb their worst excesses." Indeed. The pretense of it, however, is necessary for these people to maintain as a sop to their victims. And Moore is far from alone in this vision of how government should operate. Still, they don't usually speak this honestly of what they are working towards.

You may also consider that these issues are made public to invite discussion about the relationship between democracy and capitalism, i.e. because that is something that should be discussed as part of democracy, and not swept under the rug or otherwise ignored for the sake of strengthening the economy.

You may recall that when Obama was first campaigning, he explicitly addressed those who criticize capitalism as a problem because, as he said, capitalism had generated immense wealth and he wanted to expand it to include more people.

This is basically the socialist ethos: take capitalism and expand and control it in a way that reaches more people with more economic power. The problem of capitalism is that it suppresses true democracy, and then socialists turn democracy into a machine for expanding capitalism, which also expands the anti-democratic aspects of capitalism, but that can be ignored by them as long as they are using democratic mechanisms to achieve socialist goals.

The bottom line is that where capitalism and democracy conflict, socialists choose capitalism as a means to expand access to economic power and the means of consumption; and they're perfectly happy to suppress/sacrifice democracy if it impedes that expansion.
snood
 
  1  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 10:41 am
I don’t get the Dems sometimes. They ask nicely for the tax returns, then they set a deadline for a response. Then they ask more firmly and extend the deadline. All along making grave announcements about how they will “exercise subpoena power “ if they have to...

What the **** is this abject TOOTHLESSNESS taking the place of any (desperately needed) strong checks and oversight on this wretched executive?
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 10:58 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
You may also consider that these issues are made public to invite discussion about the relationship between democracy and capitalism,

I'm sure you have this right. Moore said
Quote:
I'm not even a big believer in democracy.
Clearly a call for discussion rather than his settled and extremist opinion. Like "I'm not even a big believer in racial equality or in women's right to vote or the division of powers that leaves the President without that necessary manly virility" or "I'm not even sure Jews are a positive force in our culture" are invitations to discussion.
Quote:
i.e. because that is something that should be discussed as part of democracy, and not swept under the rug or otherwise ignored for the sake of strengthening the economy.
Yeah, because discussions on the relationship of capitalist mechanisms and consequences for democracy haven't ever been seen or heard before.
Quote:
The bottom line is that where capitalism and democracy conflict, socialists choose capitalism as a means to expand access to economic power and the means of consumption; and they're perfectly happy to suppress/sacrifice democracy if it impedes that expansion.
Oh yeah. It's well known that socialists forward capitalist manipulation of government institutions and polices while capitalists are out on the streets encouraging everyone - blacks, latinos, women, young people etc to vote.
Lash
 
  1  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 11:03 am
Britain and the US in tandem through the big political shifts. Will it be Bern and Jeremy?
https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-and-jeremy-corbyn-might-create-a-revolution/
Excerpt:

In Britain, Jeremy Corbyn—a British version of Bernie Sanders, in that he was dismissed for years as a cranky radical while acting as a consistent critic of New Labour’s move to the right—could well lead the party to victory in the next election. The ruling Tory Party is disintegrating in the face of Brexit. In the United States, Bernie Sanders’s stunning primary run in 2016 and his current momentum, along with Senator Elizabeth Warren’s imprint on the early Democratic “ideas primary,” have driven the Democratic debate to the left. The coming British and US elections could mark not simply a change of the party in power, but the end of the 40-year conservative era and the launch of a new reform era.

The historic potential of this transformation can be seen by looking at history. In 1979–80, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan—two movement conservatives deemed far too extreme by the established consensus—were elected within a year of each another. Both consciously set out to end the postwar liberal era and launched their countries into four decades of conservative dominance.

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair came into power within a few years of one another. Clinton’s New Democrats and Blair’s New Labour both pushed their parties to tack to prevailing conservative winds. Both proclaimed a new “Third Way” (ignoring the reality that social democracy was the original third way between communism and capitalism). Both helped consolidate a global economic order designed by, for, and of the multinationals.

Now, a fundamental reordering could again be the result of parallel elections on either side of the Atlantic Ocean. Britain and the United States suffer many of the same maladies: savage inequality, a political economy that does not work for most people, devastation of manufacturing sectors, and a stark contrast between the financial center and the provinces. There is also a corporate culture in both countries dominated by finance, shareholder interests, and characterized by short-term, predatory plunder. Both countries have a young generation likely to fare far worse than their parents. Both suffer an establishment that is both demoralized and bereft of ideas. Rising popular discontent has taken perverse expressions—Brexit in Britain, Trump in the United States.
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 11:05 am
@snood,
Two things going on, I think - one legal and one PR. First are the moves to get the returns published. But the Trump admin and its allies will do everything they can to block any such initiative. Court challenges seem a certainty. So this isn't going to happen any time soon, so far as I can tell. To a significant degree, they are toothless because of those obstructions arrayed against release.

But at the same time as they are pushing these initiatives, they have to keep the issue of the tax returns up front in the public's minds. So they have to talk, write, etc.
livinglava
 
  0  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 11:18 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
I'm not even a big believer in democracy.
Clearly a call for discussion rather than his settled and extremist opinion. Like "I'm not even a big believer in racial equality or in women's right to vote or the division of powers that leaves the President without that necessary manly virility" or "I'm not even sure Jews are a positive force in our culture" are invitations to discussion.

What is your point here? That these other statements you post are also calls for discussion? Of course they are. If they weren't, people would just talk about them in private and propagate uncritical prejudices that way, as they always have.

Quote:
Yeah, because discussions on the relationship of capitalist mechanisms and consequences for democracy haven't ever been seen or heard before.

Obviously the discussion isn't over until those who favor social-capitalism are willing to openly admit that they are willing to sacrifice democracy in the pursuit of a stronger economic position.

Quote:
Oh yeah. It's well known that socialists forward capitalist manipulation of government institutions and polices while capitalists are out on the streets encouraging everyone - blacks, latinos, women, young people etc to vote.

Corralling diversity into voting for socialism is an abuse of democracy to fortify (social)-capitalism against dissent and/or interference from democracy.

blatham
 
  1  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 11:25 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
What is your point here? That these other statements you post are also calls for discussion? Of course they are. If they weren't, people would just talk about them in private and propagate uncritical prejudices that way, as they always have.
All Jews should be killed. We'd be better off. Just like your home is better off when rats are exterminated. The only real question is how best to kill them all"

There's a call for discussion. Good to have it out in the open rather than privately voiced. And let's really get it out there for broad discussion in the nation and the world. Let's see it in every newspaper and TV news show and in all publications dedicated to such matters. Anyone who publicly states those sentences ought to be rewarded for the good they do to culture.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 11:49 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
Obviously the discussion isn't over until those who favor social-capitalism are willing to openly admit that they are willing to sacrifice democracy in the pursuit of a stronger economic position.
Hmm. What do you think should happen here in Germany? And why didn't anyone get excited about it for more than 70 years?

Quote:
The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.
(Article 20,1 Basic Law Germany)
Quote:
The constitutional order in the Länder must conform to the principles of a republican, democratic and social state governed by the rule of law, within the meaning of this Basic Law.
(Article 28,1 Basic Law Germany)

NB:
1. State controlled economy as well as the liberalistic "laissez-faire" are forbidden by the Basic Law.
2. Article 20 is one of the fundamental principles of Germany's democracy that can never be removed, even not by parliament ("eternity clause").
livinglava
 
  1  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 01:13 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
All Jews should be killed. We'd be better off. Just like your home is better off when rats are exterminated. The only real question is how best to kill them all"

There's a call for discussion. Good to have it out in the open rather than privately voiced. And let's really get it out there for broad discussion in the nation and the world. Let's see it in every newspaper and TV news show and in all publications dedicated to such matters. Anyone who publicly states those sentences ought to be rewarded for the good they do to culture.

How would you even know that what you said is a bit of actual nazi propaganda unless it had been published in some way?

It's important to discuss why animal metaphors are used, when they are appropriate and when they are just racist.

Otherwise you end up with statements in the news about comparing people with animals, as if that always necessarily refers to simplistic hierarchy of superiority/inferiority that implies extermination.

The fact is that people can behave more or less like animals, depending on their morality and the conditions influencing them.

e.g. When the news reports that Assange smeared feces on his wall in the embassy, couldn't that be referred to as animalistic behavior? Of course it can, but then we should also ask what could bring a human being down to the level of an animal. Enough Hollywood movies explore this psychological theme; and it goes way beyond "animals are inferior so exterminate them."

In fact, it is only in the most narrow-minded ideology that people go around looking for inferior beings to exterminate, and it should be discussed how people's minds can sink to such a low. I.e. why would you naturally assume that if someone uses the term, "animals" to describe human behavior that it automatically refers to racial-hierarchy/status and/or implies extermination? You might find that nazi/fascist thinking goes beyond the people it is typically attributed to.
livinglava
 
  1  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 01:17 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

livinglava wrote:
Obviously the discussion isn't over until those who favor social-capitalism are willing to openly admit that they are willing to sacrifice democracy in the pursuit of a stronger economic position.
Hmm. What do you think should happen here in Germany? And why didn't anyone get excited about it for more than 70 years?

Quote:
The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.
(Article 20,1 Basic Law Germany)
Quote:
The constitutional order in the Länder must conform to the principles of a republican, democratic and social state governed by the rule of law, within the meaning of this Basic Law.
(Article 28,1 Basic Law Germany)

NB:
1. State controlled economy as well as the liberalistic "laissez-faire" are forbidden by the Basic Law.
2. Article 20 is one of the fundamental principles of Germany's democracy that can never be removed, even not by parliament ("eternity clause").

I don't know why you are always posting German laws, as if the existence of the law implies it's not being ignored in black markets and other hidden ways.

Have you ever heard of governments making laws against drugs and then illegal drugs still being popular? It's not terribly uncommon.

Laws can say one thing and people can do something different. Stop assuming/implying that the laws are an accurate picture of how people behave in reality and/or in secrecy.
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 13 Apr, 2019 01:26 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
How would you even know that what you said is a bit of actual nazi propaganda unless it had been published in some way?
Great. Let's really educate the population by publishing our view that Jewish children should be disemboweled as broadly as possible. The more broadly published, the more educated the population.

And in the cases like that or like Moore's prescription (he's saying what he wants, what he thinks everyone should work towards and what he himself is working towards) for disadvantaging representative democracy so as to advantage capitalism - that is, minimizing/erasing citizen-government control over profit-taking enterprises (laws on pollution, bribery, fraud, monopolies, etc) you are definitely heading towards increased democracy.

We won't be talking any more.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.46 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 12:53:36