US primaries: Sanders challenges Clinton to debate on home turf

[Usernames]

Then somebody should tell the wing-nut right GOP that social security is not socialistic (though it's debatable, and not wrong if it is). After all, they love to use the Frank Luntz-generated term "entitlement' when referring to Social Security to give it a nasty 'you're taking from me' talking point.

You tell them. I'm not part of the so-called wing-nut right GOP. I'm an economic nationalist, who wants to see the lives of American workers improved, illegals deported, abortion rights protected, and scores of other things the Ted Cruzers don't like. America First sounds fine to me. Can't understand why every other candidate except Trump puts America last.

Trump has changed positions more often than is hair color, currently a cigar-stained teeth yellow. He couldn't even discuss abortion on the fly without totally blowing it, as he is simply befuddled when it comes to anything of substance. He puts self-marketing, not America, first.

Economic nationalist? You already had your guy once before - Pat Buchanan, another knee-jerk protectionist who, like Trump, failed to grasp the complexities of the issue. Make slogans great again.

Yeah. Sure, it's all the Freemasons, isn't it?

[Usernames]

Absolutely Bernie will rip up all these trade deals. These trade deals are not negotiated by the people for the people they are negotiated by Multi National Corporations to increase their profits and to protect those profits. They are all done in secret and even the trade deals themselves are not released to the public. The public interest is totally and utterly unrepresented and is a no consideration. Any Nation that have entered these trade deals the people of that Nation have been screwed over.

Treasuries of all countries involved in Trade Deals do not factor in ANY benefit from these trade deals into their forecasts. The reason for this is they have ZERO benefit to increased tax income, more employment or increase in GDP. They are all just sham deals put together to benefit Mult National Corporations.

Bernie would rather poke a stick in his eye than sign one.

This is where you and I diverge.

It is also where you and the trumpenista's converge. You are peas in a pod on this one. You want the same thing.

The jobs that disappeared in the past 20 years probably would have disappeared anyway even behind a tariff wall....

samran what are these Trade Deals? Buggered if I or anyone knows they are all negotiated in secret and confidential and market sensitive apparently. The little I hear of them they tend to want to allow Corporations the freedom to import foreign low paid workers and also I have heard that Big Pharma attempts to extend drug patents and push back more affordable generics. Also 'economic zones' with low wages and no tax.

Fact is Treasuries and Finance Departments factor in no economic benefit forecasts attached to these deals. They benefit Corporations not Nations who sign them. They simply are not needed.

Please do not mention myself and Trump in the same sentence. He is an idiot and wouldn't have a clue. He is a small bit player in the Global Business world. Multi National Corporations would buy and sell Trump before morning smoko. These guys buy and sell countries not deli products. Trump wouldn't last a second with these guys.

Google GATT

Australian US FTA

On the later there is plenty of info.

There are also a plethora of bilateral US deals. None of them secret and the texts are fully downloadable.

Granted international economics are arcane. You can't forecast innovation that comes from lowered barriers to trade.

One great tangible benefit of the australian US FTA? Australian workers now have easy access to the US labour market. A job offer and off you go. You can't model the cross fertilisation that comes from letting things like that happen.

Ed: and on trade, bernie and trump supporters sound like they want the same thing.

Of course! It's the duty of Americans to elect presidents who will make it easier for Australians to come to the US in order to pillage the economy. Let's see Hillary and Bernie run on THAT slogan.

[simple1]

Absolutely Bernie will rip up all these trade deals. These trade deals are not negotiated by the people for the people they are negotiated by Multi National Corporations to increase their profits and to protect those profits. They are all done in secret and even the trade deals themselves are not released to the public. The public interest is totally and utterly unrepresented and is a no consideration. Any Nation that have entered these trade deals the people of that Nation have been screwed over.

Treasuries of all countries involved in Trade Deals do not factor in ANY benefit from these trade deals into their forecasts. The reason for this is they have ZERO benefit to increased tax income, more employment or increase in GDP. They are all just sham deals put together to benefit Mult National Corporations.

Bernie would rather poke a stick in his eye than sign one.

The Impressive Benefits of America’s Free Trade Agreements

The results of this comprehensive study are impressive. The increased trade brought about by these FTAs boosted U.S. output by more than $300 billion and in turn supported 5.4 million U.S. jobs. No other budget neutral initiative undertaken by the U.S. government has generated jobs on a scale comparable to these FTAs, with the exception of the multilateral trade liberalization begun in 1947

A simple review of history is also helpful in rebutting critics who claim that FTAs have led to the net loss of U.S. jobs. For instance, one study by a labor-backed group contends that 60.8% of 682,000 U.S. jobs claimed to have been “lost or displaced” due to trade with Mexico were in manufacturing industries. However, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data refute this claim: U.S. manufacturers added more than 800,000 net jobs in the four years NAFTA entered into force.

https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/open_door_trade_report.pdf

[samran]

Of course! It's the duty of Americans to elect presidents who will make it easier for Australians to come to the US in order to pillage the economy. Let's see Hillary and Bernie run on THAT slogan.

Well they are trade deals. Americans got similar access to the Australian labour market.

Happy for you to point out where the 10,000 Australians let in per year under this deal have pillaged the US economy.

(well there maybe one area - Australians have bought you real coffee. Must have been tough for traditional American perveyors of the black water that you call coffee http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/dining/australians-arrive-serving-breakfast.html).

[Usernames]

Of course! It's the duty of Americans to elect presidents who will make it easier for Australians to come to the US in order to pillage the economy. Let's see Hillary and Bernie run on THAT slogan.

Well they are trade deals. Americans got similar access to the Australian labour market.

Happy for you to point out where the 10,000 Australians let in per year under this deal have pillaged the US economy.

(well there maybe one area - Australians have bought you real coffee. Must have been tough for traditional American perveyors of the black water that you call coffee http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/dining/australians-arrive-serving-breakfast.html).

More than happy for you to stay in Australia and drink to your heart's content, although I do realize you provide a lot of work for American dentists when you come to the US.

[chuckd]

One only has to look at the failed track record of Socialism. Take Venezuela for example - the most recent mega-failure, eh? Runs out of toilet paper? Electricity for only parts of the day?

As Lady Thatcher most aptly stated: Socialism is a fine form of government until you run out of other peoples money.

Sanders will turn America into another Greece - bet on it.

Instead of looking at the failures of socialism, why not look at the successes

It was the new deal that brought the US out of the great depression, and it was capitalism that got as in the Great depression and in the current one.

By the way, it was not socialism that got Greece in trouble, it was the Capitalist plutocrats.and now are trying to socialize the debt by making every pensioner pay it.

"It was the new deal that brought the US out of the great depression, "

Nonsense.

It was WWII.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/30/the-great-depression-was-ended-by-the-end-of-world-war-ii-not-the-start-of-it/#5995a8f961cb

Edit in to add:

It wasn't capitalism that caused the 2007 recession, it was the government insistence that lenders make mortgage loans to unqualified buyers, thereby creating the housing bubble and the ensuing bail out requirements.

All of this chasing the rainbow of government regulation on the lending industry as required by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

Carter signed it and it became really active during the Clinton administration. Democrat's all.

Yes, WW2 - also a time of massive government spending which boosted the economy. All rather socialistic don't you think?

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution rules out national defense as a social program. It is a constitutionally mandated activity of the federal government.

[samran]

Tariffs are what made America the greatest nation on earth. Pat Buchanan has already pointed out how the US grew to power under tariffs, while the British declined into irrelevance under Free Trade.

So who gets to decide tariff levels?

Government bureaucrats cheered on by business lobbying for cushy tariff rates to hide behind.

Say goodbye to innovation, competition. Say hello to monoplistic behaviour, higher prices from tariffs passed on to consumers (you know the same workers that have been down trodden for so long).

For people trying to get government out of the way and to lower taxes, you have a rather unique way of going about it!!

The US grew to power because it had the 6th fleet. It also had a world beating transport and logistics infrastructure and highly trained workforce which made it competitive. But in the race to the bottom you've allowed all that to crumble. It wasn't the lowering of tariffs. It was your own benign neglect.

[samran]

Of course! It's the duty of Americans to elect presidents who will make it easier for Australians to come to the US in order to pillage the economy. Let's see Hillary and Bernie run on THAT slogan.

Well they are trade deals. Americans got similar access to the Australian labour market.

Happy for you to point out where the 10,000 Australians let in per year under this deal have pillaged the US economy.

(well there maybe one area - Australians have bought you real coffee. Must have been tough for traditional American perveyors of the black water that you call coffee http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/dining/australians-arrive-serving-breakfast.html).

More than happy for you to stay in Australia and drink to your heart's content, although I do realize you provide a lot of work for American dentists when you come to the US.

We like to come to Thailand for dental work. Cheaper. Plus they don't give you caps which make you look like the Osborne's.

[samran]

Yes, WW2 - also a time of massive government spending which boosted the economy. All rather socialistic don't you think?

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution rules out national defense as a social program. It is a constitutionally mandated activity of the federal government.

And there is a very simple economic reason for that: The market would fail spectacularly in providing national defense. Government spending is government spending. Others people's money that paid your salary Charles.

If you left it to the free market. The Koch brothers would build a big wall around themselves, and leave the rest of you to yourselves. Heck, maybe they'd give you a run at forming you own milita's when Saskatchewan decides to invade and take you over.

[chuckd]

Yes, WW2 - also a time of massive government spending which boosted the economy. All rather socialistic don't you think?

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution rules out national defense as a social program. It is a constitutionally mandated activity of the federal government.

And there is a very simple economic reason for that: The market would fail spectacularly in providing national defense. Government spending is government spending. Others people's money that paid your salary Charles.

If you left it to the free market. The Koch brothers would build a big wall around themselves, and leave the rest of you to yourselves. Heck, maybe they'd give you a run at forming you own milita's when Saskatchewan decides to invade and take you over.

What an ignorant response.

I took you off ignore recently because you weren't posting much.

Back on you go.

[samran]

Yes, WW2 - also a time of massive government spending which boosted the economy. All rather socialistic don't you think?

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution rules out national defense as a social program. It is a constitutionally mandated activity of the federal government.

And there is a very simple economic reason for that: The market would fail spectacularly in providing national defense. Government spending is government spending. Others people's money that paid your salary Charles.

If you left it to the free market. The Koch brothers would build a big wall around themselves, and leave the rest of you to yourselves. Heck, maybe they'd give you a run at forming you own milita's when Saskatchewan decides to invade and take you over.

What an ignorant response.

I took you off ignore recently because you weren't posting much.

Back on you go.

You mean I should argue my point by posting Meme's and video's of der-con hipsters?

It is called Market Failure, Charles. Look it up.

Enjoy others people's money paying your retirement cheques.

Edited April 2, 2016 by samran

[sirineou]

Rip up, Nafta? Yes, why not? It's lose, lose, lose. As for TPP and TTIP, they're not even in place yet. So, just don't approve them. Surprised you and the other lefties don't get that, as most of the leftwingers on this forum constantly howl about how TPP is an American conspiracy to control Asia. Here's your chance to stop it. Why don't you?

I'm a free trader. I like trade and the benefits it brings. But then I'm a capitalist and I believe in competition. I work for myself and don't rely on government trying to shield me from the big bad world. (which is quite funny you call me a lefty....but anyway).

But you haven't answered my my question. If you rip up these trade deals, then what happens? How does everything become wonderful and magical again?

You tell me.....step by step. Spell out what happens, and how....

" If you rip up these trade deals, then what happens?"

You negotiate better ones

" I work for myself and don't rely on government trying to shield me from the big bad world. "

You negotiate you own trade deals with foreign governments then? I mean when you are not busy fighting the Taliban on your own.

Edited April 2, 2016 by sirineou

[samran]

Rip up, Nafta? Yes, why not? It's lose, lose, lose. As for TPP and TTIP, they're not even in place yet. So, just don't approve them. Surprised you and the other lefties don't get that, as most of the leftwingers on this forum constantly howl about how TPP is an American conspiracy to control Asia. Here's your chance to stop it. Why don't you?

I'm a free trader. I like trade and the benefits it brings. But then I'm a capitalist and I believe in competition. I work for myself and don't rely on government trying to shield me from the big bad world. (which is quite funny you call me a lefty....but anyway).

But you haven't answered my my question. If you rip up these trade deals, then what happens? How does everything become wonderful and magical again?

You tell me.....step by step. Spell out what happens, and how....

" If you rip up these trade deals, then what happens?"

You negotiate better ones

Nearly all trade deals have addendum to them which set out areas which should worked towards that weren't agreed to in the initial version. They are meant to be organic documents. If you ripped them up now you'd risk trade retaliation and starting from a weaker position than when you signed them.

[samran]

You negotiate you own trade deals with foreign governments then? I mean when you are not busy fighting the Taliban on your own.

I think you are talking about the TV posters who sit at bars telling everyone they are special forces.

Touche anyway. Well put....

[Boon Mee]

Bernie's New Normal. Turning America into one of those Euro Socialist Utopias!

[Publicus]

Yes, WW2 - also a time of massive government spending which boosted the economy. All rather socialistic don't you think?

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution rules out national defense as a social program. It is a constitutionally mandated activity of the federal government.

And there is a very simple economic reason for that: The market would fail spectacularly in providing national defense. Government spending is government spending. Others people's money that paid your salary Charles.

If you left it to the free market. The Koch brothers would build a big wall around themselves, and leave the rest of you to yourselves. Heck, maybe they'd give you a run at forming you own milita's when Saskatchewan decides to invade and take you over.

What an ignorant response.

I took you off ignore recently because you weren't posting much.

Back on you go.

The Honor Roll.

Regardless, during the Cold War legislation from industry to agriculture had the standard clause in it saying how providing tax breaks or subsidies and the like were in the national defense.

The National Defense porkbarrel Highway Bill. The National Defense Cotton Planting Support Act. The National Defense Build a New Post Office Building In My Hometown Act.

Still true. It's a national defense expenditure every time Kotch Bros with the rest of the 1% get (yet more) tax breaks. It's national defense each time agriculturalists get a subsidy to meet food stamp demand. It's a national defense employment tax credit every time Walmart hires someone to sweep the floor.

Gotta stay strong, make America grate again.

[sirineou]

Rip up, Nafta? Yes, why not? It's lose, lose, lose. As for TPP and TTIP, they're not even in place yet. So, just don't approve them. Surprised you and the other lefties don't get that, as most of the leftwingers on this forum constantly howl about how TPP is an American conspiracy to control Asia. Here's your chance to stop it. Why don't you?

I'm a free trader. I like trade and the benefits it brings. But then I'm a capitalist and I believe in competition. I work for myself and don't rely on government trying to shield me from the big bad world. (which is quite funny you call me a lefty....but anyway).

But you haven't answered my my question. If you rip up these trade deals, then what happens? How does everything become wonderful and magical again?

You tell me.....step by step. Spell out what happens, and how....

" If you rip up these trade deals, then what happens?"

You negotiate better ones

Nearly all trade deals have addendum to them which set out areas which should worked towards that weren't agreed to in the initial version. They are meant to be organic documents. If you ripped them up now you'd risk trade retaliation and starting from a weaker position than when you signed them.

and what do you do with provisions agreed and signed in the initial version that were ill advised? Since they are organic, can they be used for fertilizer?

Here is a crazy idea, Crazy enough that it might work, Instead of free trade, how about Fair trade?

The purpose of a Government is to prevent the free movement of unfair practices.

How did protectionism become a negative word? Protection is the purpose of the government.

[sirineou]

Bernie's New Normal. Turning America into one of those Euro Socialist Utopias!

only because your capitalist buddies sold their jobs down the river.

[mikebike]

Rip up, Nafta? Yes, why not? It's lose, lose, lose. As for TPP and TTIP, they're not even in place yet. So, just don't approve them. Surprised you and the other lefties don't get that, as most of the leftwingers on this forum constantly howl about how TPP is an American conspiracy to control Asia. Here's your chance to stop it. Why don't you?

I'm a free trader. I like trade and the benefits it brings. But then I'm a capitalist and I believe in competition. I work for myself and don't rely on government trying to shield me from the big bad world. (which is quite funny you call me a lefty....but anyway).

But you haven't answered my my question. If you rip up these trade deals, then what happens? How does everything become wonderful and magical again?

You tell me.....step by step. Spell out what happens, and how....

Let me try once again. TPP and TTIP are not done deals. Don't do them and the world continues to run pretty much like it is today. Tear up Nafta and maybe food safety and health standards return to the higher state they were before Nafta came along and allowed big agribusiness to shift its farms to Mexico (and totally dismantle Mexican peasant farming, btw, sending the farmers north to the US, leaving villages and small towns decimated). Two things in particular made America prosperous in the past. High wages and cheap land. Nafta and immigration, alongside each other, has successfully driven down wages and driven up land/house prices. Yes, things were better before Nafta. Scrap it. America spent over 200 years without merging its economy directly with mexico and canada. It can do well again without them.

You've got a tonne of trade deals. Not just Nafta. You've got the US-Australia FTA for instance. US Singapore FTA. Ones with South American Countries.

So you rip them all up. Tariff walls go up. Fortress America is back.

Who gets to decide the level of tariff protection? You know tariffs are really just a tax. Which I thought was supposed to be an evil for you fellas.

Tariffs are what made America the greatest nation on earth. Pat Buchanan has already pointed out how the US grew to power under tariffs, while the British declined into irrelevance under Free Trade.

You do realize in those halcyon days the US had a vibrant and adaptive manufacturing sector. Returning that won't happen overnight with the tearing up of FT agreements. Much groundwork to be done to go back to the future...

[samran]

and what do you do with provisions agreed and signed in the initial version that were ill advised? Since they are organic, can they be used for fertilizer?

Here is a crazy idea, Crazy enough that it might work, Instead of free trade, how about Fair trade?

The purpose of a Government is to prevent the free movement of unfair practices.

How did protectionism become a negative word? Protection is the purpose of the government.

I've always thought of governments role first and foremost is to promote opportunity and equity of that opportunity, but not necessarily outcome - albeit with a sufficient safety net.

So long as fair trade isn't code for encouraging mediocrity (ie helping lethargic dying industries last a little bit longer behind a tariff wall) then I'm not opposed to it

[sirineou]

You negotiate you own trade deals with foreign governments then? I mean when you are not busy fighting the Taliban on your own.

I think you are talking about the TV posters who sit at bars telling everyone they are special forces.

Touche anyway. Well put....

You have a good sense of humor which is IMO the best indicator of intelligence.

An internet forum is a difficult medium to convey complex ideas with simple one sentence reply, and well intended thoughts can some times come out smelling like brain farts

Let him with out a sin throw the first stone, I will admit, If brain farts in this forum were currency I would be a wealthy man

It takes a big man secure in his own skin to say, well you know ,you might be right, instead of going on the defensive as some posters do.

Edited April 2, 2016 by sirineou

[sirineou]

and what do you do with provisions agreed and signed in the initial version that were ill advised? Since they are organic, can they be used for fertilizer?

Here is a crazy idea, Crazy enough that it might work, Instead of free trade, how about Fair trade?

The purpose of a Government is to prevent the free movement of unfair practices.

How did protectionism become a negative word? Protection is the purpose of the government.

I've always thought of governments role first and foremost is to promote opportunity and equity of that opportunity, but not necessarily outcome - albeit with a sufficient safety net.

So long as fair trade isn't code for encouraging mediocrity (ie helping lethargic dying industries last a little bit longer behind a tariff wall) then I'm not opposed to it

you are absolutely right, Provide a level plain field.

I dont think NAFTA does that, I think the field is sloped to the south and a manufacturer who remains in the US has to fight an up hill battle with regulations necessary to protect workers, environment and consumers, not available or enforced in Mexico.

[keemapoot]

Looks like all roads lead to the FBI right now on the Clinton case:

State Department Halts Its Clinton Email Investigation, Defers to FBI

The FBI is expected to interview Clinton's closest aides and the presidential candidate may also be part of its investigation. It's not clear when the investigation will be completed. The FBI has not formally named Clinton as a target and she has not been accused of any crimes.

Right now, FBI Director Comey looks to be the most powerful man in America. His determination on this issue could turn the election, both in Bernie's favor and possibly in the favor of the GOP.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-department-halts-clinton-email-investigation-defers-fbi/story?id=38083129

Interesting analysis of the Clinton FBI legal strategy here;

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-fbi-strategy-emails-221435

This is a serious matter in many respects, but it is at its most serious because the surveillance bureaucracy led by its several IG's and its IG Supreme are trying to conduct and to execute a silent and under the radar coup d'etat.

Hillary Clinton is on a slow but certain train to the Oval Office. This has been true since before 2007-08. Short of any act of extreme prejudice, this is the only way try to stop her and the Democratic party train.

Republicans and other right wingers had been desperate about it for many years. Then they became extremely desperate. Now in this quadrennial election year, Republicans and other superpatriot rightwingers are frantic.

James Comey is not the most powerful man or person in America. Yes, he is director of the FBI but he is not J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover had a thick dossier of Lyndon Johnson long before LBJ became vice president and then Potus. Those days are however gone while the Constitution endures.

Comey, who has spend at least half of his career in government investigating the Clintons from Whitewater to up to the present moment -- finding absolutely nothing -- lives in a different America and a changing America. Comey needs to uphold the integrity of the FBI. This is true whether it is against a silent rightwing coup d'etat by superpatriot hightech flatfoots or whether it might be to preserve FBI integrity with the actively emerging multicultural majority America.

I don't know whether it is a course lawyers take or just human bonding in the professional sphere but there's a lot of mutual admiration among 'em. It is a unique profession and a profound one in any society. Anyone who says Comy the lawyer etc has integrity would not be completely off base. Yet, the statement would need to be qualified.

Comy who is a Republican is particularly sensitive against government power. As acting Attorney General Comy refused to support reauthorising a Bush-Cheney wiretap program. Still, his first job in government was in 1996 as a counsel-investigator with the Republican controlled Senate Whitewater Committee. They too found nothing and closed up shop. Then the GW Bush appointed Comy investigated Bill Clinton's year 2000 pardons -- all 174 of 'em -- to again find nothing.

I quote a post you made a couple of dayze ago that I'd been meaning to address but which I'd sidetracked in my line of posting since then.......

keemapoot, on 31 Mar 2016 - 04:52, said:

My guess is that they are setting Hilary up to take a "civil penalty" hit sometime before the general election, admit to oversight and error, but nowhere near rising to criminality, have Hilary be humble and seek public forgiveness, say her penance, and then get on to the business of the general election.

Probably game, set, match to be honest -in spite of all the (conservative) legal experts on this forum convinced of her criminal culpability.

Yep, except I'd figure you're a bit over presenting any "hit." Let's just say a mild penitence Hillary may need to express to the body politic. The general public and electorate will accept this. The usual and utterly predictable fringe will launch into orbit. The campaign will continue. As Scarlett said to close out the epic, "There's always tomorrow."

Let's address whether FBI Director Comey is the most powerful man in the world first. I didn't mean that in the sense of the most powerful and infamous cross-dresser in history, J. Edgar, nor in the power bestowed by the office. I meant that at this particular moment in time, where the GOP is self-destructing daily with its Trump nukes, that single person has more power to act as power broker and turn the tables for the next 4-8 years, and in so many ways - Singularly and Individually.

Honestly, I wouldn't want to be in the guy's shoes. He's caught between a raging elephant and a rock hard donkey. If he doesn't press charges, he will be labeled as a traitor by the GOP, ostracized, tarred and feathered from his party for neglecting his duty and blamed for single-handedly destroying the party, and probably 8 years of Clinton rule and 1+ SC appointment. If he does press charges, Dems will paint this as the ultimate desperate illegal act to save a dying party, and destroy the will of the people, and go after him with a furious character assassination such has never been seen - using the examples you cited in your post about his previous propensity to investigate and nail Clinton. In either event, it could be a decisive turning point for the Presidency, Senate control, and Supreme Court Justice appointment - the triple crown.

Everything I've read tells me Comey the lawyer, prosecutor, is a man of integrity, and not a Lex Luther like Hoover. And, yes you are right about lawyers. There is an unspoken, unwritten, understanding among them, that they are usually the smartest guys in the room. Like it or not, they are often correct, or think they are. (Actually, it's not unspoken. I was at a conference a couple weeks ago of corporate Counsels General in Asia, and one of the speakers made that joke in reference to something and the whole room of about 300 top corporate lawyers chuckled and nodded in fraternal understanding)

I'm not sure what kind of determination Comey may make, or even if he will make it in time to affect his election. But for sure, if it's against Clinton, she will take some kind of "hit," depending on the severity and seriousness of the determination.

That is serious nation and world-changing power. MOST POWERFUL MAN IN AMERICA, 2016.

*oops, almost forgot. This is very much on topic of the OP, because if Clinton is charged, Sanders is THE MAN for the Dems.

Edited April 2, 2016 by keemapoot

[samran]

and what do you do with provisions agreed and signed in the initial version that were ill advised? Since they are organic, can they be used for fertilizer?

Here is a crazy idea, Crazy enough that it might work, Instead of free trade, how about Fair trade?

The purpose of a Government is to prevent the free movement of unfair practices.

How did protectionism become a negative word? Protection is the purpose of the government.

I've always thought of governments role first and foremost is to promote opportunity and equity of that opportunity, but not necessarily outcome - albeit with a sufficient safety net.

So long as fair trade isn't code for encouraging mediocrity (ie helping lethargic dying industries last a little bit longer behind a tariff wall) then I'm not opposed to it

you are absolutely right, Provide a level plain field.

I dont think NAFTA does that, I think the field is sloped to the south and a manufacturer who remains in the US has to fight an up hill battle with regulations necessary to protect workers, environment and consumers, not available or enforced in Mexico.

Similarly, Mexico, as would a Thailand, probably would argue that to impose those restrictions from day one wouldn't give them the opportunity to move up the economic curve and leave them perpetually at a disadvantage - you need increasing wealth to have the ability and capacity to implement those standards.

I think there is some merit to that argument, although that if those standards aren't gradually adhered to over a certain period then there would be grounds to revisit things.

[samran]

You negotiate you own trade deals with foreign governments then? I mean when you are not busy fighting the Taliban on your own.

I think you are talking about the TV posters who sit at bars telling everyone they are special forces.

Touche anyway. Well put....

You have a good sense of humor which is IMO the best indicator of intelligence.

An internet forum is a difficult medium to convey complex ideas with simple one sentence reply, and well intended thoughts can some times come out smelling like brain farts

Let him with out a sin throw the first stone, I will admit, If brain farts in this forum were currency I would be a wealthy man

It takes a big man secure in his own skin to say, well you know ,you might be right, instead of going on the defensive as some posters do.

You are being kind. I'm in a contemplative mood today (and procrastinating on a client deadline) and hence am writing more than I normally do - against my own policy of not writing too much at all given no one listens and it is rather a waste of my time.

Nice that you are listening and it is nice to have a good discussion with humour injected, but I must warn in advance I will probably post a lot less and when do, they will be of the brain fart style of writing.

After all, I want chuckd to take me off his ignore list.....

[NumbNut]

You negotiate you own trade deals with foreign governments then? I mean when you are not busy fighting the Taliban on your own.

I think you are talking about the TV posters who sit at bars telling everyone they are special forces.

Touche anyway. Well put....

You have a good sense of humor which is IMO the best indicator of intelligence.

An internet forum is a difficult medium to convey complex ideas with simple one sentence reply, and well intended thoughts can some times come out smelling like brain farts

Let him with out a sin throw the first stone, I will admit, If brain farts in this forum were currency I would be a wealthy man

It takes a big man secure in his own skin to say, well you know ,you might be right, instead of going on the defensive as some posters do.

You are being kind. I'm in a contemplative mood today (and procrastinating on a client deadline) and hence am writing more than I normally do - against my own policy of not writing too much at all given no one listens and it is rather a waste of my time.

Nice that you are listening and it is nice to have a good discussion with humour injected, but I must warn in advance I will probably post a lot less and when do, they will be of the brain fart style of writing.

After all, I want chuckd to take me off his ignore list.....

Would that be Chuck's (Emily) List perchance?

[boomerangutang]

Bernie's New Normal. Turning America into one of those Euro Socialist Utopias!

It would be interesting to see an objective study done on what sorts of people get gov't handouts unfairly. In my personal experience I've seen the following among Americans:

>>> men who get in the armed forces, and then get discharged shortly after - in order to get monthly payments for the rest of their lives

>>> people who fake disabilities to get on SSI for life. They even get cummulative arrears for the months from the time they apply to when they're approved.

>>> Corporations which get federal bail-outs - usually in the billions of dollars range

>>> Corporations which get federal grants for projects they know aren't going to yield anything useful.

>>> Double dipping / pulling in multiple State and Federal hand-outs, often unfairly. Includes the very rich.

Are there more Republicans than Democrats who cheat the system? I don't know. But there are a shitload from either side. Well over 50% of Americans cheat the system in at least one way. That's my own assumption. The number could be closer to 85%. This may or may not be a factor, but it's now official: Over 50% of Americans are seriously overweight, and that includes children.

[keemapoot]

Here's a good synopsis of the pivotal role FBI Director Comey now plays in determining the future of Sanders and America:

I can only see one scenario in which Sanders becomes the 2016 Democratic nominee: the total implosion or self-immolation or indictment of Hillary Clinton. Similarly, there is only one scenario in which Donald Trump is elected president. Unfortunately, it’s the same scenario. Sure, that would be a bizarre and outlandish turn of events, more like a plot twist on a bad TV show than reality. Have you been paying attention?

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/02/bernies_endgame_no_he_cant_win_now_but_his_campaign_has_exposed_hillary_as_a_weak_frontrunner_in_a_divided_party/

Comey, most powerful man in America, 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey

Edited April 2, 2016 by keemapoot

[sirineou]

You negotiate you own trade deals with foreign governments then? I mean when you are not busy fighting the Taliban on your own.

I think you are talking about the TV posters who sit at bars telling everyone they are special forces.

Touche anyway. Well put....

You have a good sense of humor which is IMO the best indicator of intelligence.

An internet forum is a difficult medium to convey complex ideas with simple one sentence reply, and well intended thoughts can some times come out smelling like brain farts

Let him with out a sin throw the first stone, I will admit, If brain farts in this forum were currency I would be a wealthy man

It takes a big man secure in his own skin to say, well you know ,you might be right, instead of going on the defensive as some posters do.

You are being kind. I'm in a contemplative mood today (and procrastinating on a client deadline) and hence am writing more than I normally do - against my own policy of not writing too much at all given no one listens and it is rather a waste of my time.

Nice that you are listening and it is nice to have a good discussion with humour injected, but I must warn in advance I will probably post a lot less and when do, they will be of the brain fart style of writing.

After all, I want chuckd to take me off his ignore list.....

"After all, I want chuckd to take me off his ignore list...."

watch what you wish for, you might just get it.

most of us have being trying to get in his ignore list for years How did you achieve such a momentous accomplishment , you weren't picking your nose in public by any chance? He hates that.

[Publicus]

Looks like all roads lead to the FBI right now on the Clinton case:

State Department Halts Its Clinton Email Investigation, Defers to FBI

The FBI is expected to interview Clinton's closest aides and the presidential candidate may also be part of its investigation. It's not clear when the investigation will be completed. The FBI has not formally named Clinton as a target and she has not been accused of any crimes.

Right now, FBI Director Comey looks to be the most powerful man in America. His determination on this issue could turn the election, both in Bernie's favor and possibly in the favor of the GOP.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-department-halts-clinton-email-investigation-defers-fbi/story?id=38083129

Interesting analysis of the Clinton FBI legal strategy here;

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-fbi-strategy-emails-221435

This is a serious matter in many respects, but it is at its most serious because the surveillance bureaucracy led by its several IG's and its IG Supreme are trying to conduct and to execute a silent and under the radar coup d'etat.

Hillary Clinton is on a slow but certain train to the Oval Office. This has been true since before 2007-08. Short of any act of extreme prejudice, this is the only way try to stop her and the Democratic party train.

Republicans and other right wingers had been desperate about it for many years. Then they became extremely desperate. Now in this quadrennial election year, Republicans and other superpatriot rightwingers are frantic.

James Comey is not the most powerful man or person in America. Yes, he is director of the FBI but he is not J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover had a thick dossier of Lyndon Johnson long before LBJ became vice president and then Potus. Those days are however gone while the Constitution endures.

Comey, who has spend at least half of his career in government investigating the Clintons from Whitewater to up to the present moment -- finding absolutely nothing -- lives in a different America and a changing America. Comey needs to uphold the integrity of the FBI. This is true whether it is against a silent rightwing coup d'etat by superpatriot hightech flatfoots or whether it might be to preserve FBI integrity with the actively emerging multicultural majority America.

I don't know whether it is a course lawyers take or just human bonding in the professional sphere but there's a lot of mutual admiration among 'em. It is a unique profession and a profound one in any society. Anyone who says Comy the lawyer etc has integrity would not be completely off base. Yet, the statement would need to be qualified.

Comy who is a Republican is particularly sensitive against government power. As acting Attorney General Comy refused to support reauthorising a Bush-Cheney wiretap program. Still, his first job in government was in 1996 as a counsel-investigator with the Republican controlled Senate Whitewater Committee. They too found nothing and closed up shop. Then the GW Bush appointed Comy investigated Bill Clinton's year 2000 pardons -- all 174 of 'em -- to again find nothing.

I quote a post you made a couple of dayze ago that I'd been meaning to address but which I'd sidetracked in my line of posting since then.......

keemapoot, on 31 Mar 2016 - 04:52, said:

My guess is that they are setting Hilary up to take a "civil penalty" hit sometime before the general election, admit to oversight and error, but nowhere near rising to criminality, have Hilary be humble and seek public forgiveness, say her penance, and then get on to the business of the general election.

Probably game, set, match to be honest -in spite of all the (conservative) legal experts on this forum convinced of her criminal culpability.

Yep, except I'd figure you're a bit over presenting any "hit." Let's just say a mild penitence Hillary may need to express to the body politic. The general public and electorate will accept this. The usual and utterly predictable fringe will launch into orbit. The campaign will continue. As Scarlett said to close out the epic, "There's always tomorrow."

Let's address whether FBI Director Comey is the most powerful man in the world first. I didn't mean that in the sense of the most powerful and infamous cross-dresser in history, J. Edgar, nor in the power bestowed by the office. I meant that at this particular moment in time, where the GOP is self-destructing daily with its Trump nukes, that single person has more power to act as power broker and turn the tables for the next 4-8 years, and in so many ways - Singularly and Individually.

Honestly, I wouldn't want to be in the guy's shoes. He's caught between a raging elephant and a rock hard donkey. If he doesn't press charges, he will be labeled as a traitor by the GOP, ostracized, tarred and feathered from his party for neglecting his duty and blamed for single-handedly destroying the party, and probably 8 years of Clinton rule and 1+ SC appointment. If he does press charges, Dems will paint this as the ultimate desperate illegal act to save a dying party, and destroy the will of the people, and go after him with a furious character assassination such has never been seen - using the examples you cited in your post about his previous propensity to investigate and nail Clinton. In either event, it could be a decisive turning point for the Presidency, Senate control, and Supreme Court Justice appointment - the triple crown.

Everything I've read tells me Comey the lawyer, prosecutor, is a man of integrity, and not a Lex Luther like Hoover. And, yes you are right about lawyers. There is an unspoken, unwritten, understanding among them, that they are usually the smartest guys in the room. Like it or not, they are often correct, or think they are. (Actually, it's not unspoken. I was at a conference a couple weeks ago of corporate Counsels General in Asia, and one of the speakers made that joke in reference to something and the whole room of about 300 top corporate lawyers chuckled and nodded in fraternal understanding)

I'm not sure what kind of determination Comey may make, or even if he will make it in time to affect his election. But for sure, if it's against Clinton, she will take some kind of "hit," depending on the severity and seriousness of the determination.

That is serious nation and world-changing power. MOST POWERFUL MAN IN AMERICA, 2016.

*oops, almost forgot. This is very much on topic of the OP, because if Clinton is charged, Sanders is THE MAN for the Dems.

Calm down cause I fully understand and comprehend your post and the effervescing, i.e., that FBI Director James Comy J.D. is the "most powerful man in America." In this year of our lord 2016. I got it from the start.

No he is not. I guess I needed to say that again.

The attorney general is the most powerful man person at DoJ. Potus is always the most powerful man person in America. Comy will make a recommendation to the AG. The AG's boss is the Potus. Potus had repeatedly made the point he'll never face an election again (with his name on the ballot).

It is anyway the case that one person in the federal bureaucracy with the power you accurately describe is not quite what the Founders had in mind when they created a new Republic and gave it a formula, i.e., the Constitution. If Comy asked for this the day he entered law school then he's been nuts all along. And one should think if Comy learned anything at law school it is that big cases make lousy law.

Comy anyway makes a privileged work-product communication and/or recommendation to the AG. Nothing else; nothing more, nothing less.

And kindly do pardon moi because AG Loretta Lynch is a lawyer yet the point somehow gets lost in the shuffle of the old boy network among so many lawyers. One might also want to throw some cold water on the notion that Comy is anything more than a 2nd or a 3rd level major player in the current and ongoing melodrama. What director of FBI says has impact for sure and either way the winning side will play it to its full orchestration with the kettle drums over performing.

The determined assertion that James Comy the lawyer is a man of integrity has not yet met its real world down to earth qualifiers in these pages. The guy has a record in which he has demonstrated certain aspects of integrity while at other times he's demonstrated he is a political partisan with a J.D. That Comy has spent almost half his time in government investigating the Clintons without finding anything, criminal or civil, could suggest that either he has become wised up to reality or that this is a Republican lawyer's opportunity of a lifetime.

So Comy needs himself to interview former SecState Hillary Clinton who is a former twice elected US Senator, former First Lady of the USA and also of Arkansas. HRC has been around long enough to emerge from such an interview with a sense of where even the straight man Comy is going on this and who is feeding what to him and from where.