The Political Discussion Thread

[jelgate]

Who is taking the govt. to court?

Trump. When he loses, it will be because the government rigged it against him

[thekillman]

Who is taking the govt. to court?

You weren't replying to my post about the recent court decision on brexit? Cause it looked that way, but i may be mistaken

[Coco Pops]

NY Times article about the FBI thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/op...ister=facebook

[Annoyed]

But it's not the government opposing the will of the people at all. It's not the government that sued, they *got* sued.

Who is taking the govt. to court?

You weren't replying to my post about the recent court decision on brexit? Cause it looked that way, but i may be mistaken

Who is suing the govt?

[thekillman]

Who is suing the govt?

That was a massive brainfart on my part

It's one Gina Miller. https://www.theguardian.com/politics...egal-challenge

[Annoyed]

That was a massive brainfart on my part

It's one Gina Miller. https://www.theguardian.com/politics...egal-challenge

The businesswoman at the centre of the legal challenge to ensure parliament is consulted before Theresa May triggers Brexit has said the landmark case was motivated by her fear that the UK faced a “treacherous future”.

In an interview with the Guardian, Gina Miller said she knew the ruling would leave her unpopular with many EU referendum voters, but believed that the UK had failed itself and the rest of Europe by voting to leave the bloc rather than reform it from within

Ok, so my guess is that she is representing the big business interests who benefit from free trade? As I recall, free trade wasn't working out so well for the masses, and that was one of the driving forces behind brexit?

[thekillman]

Ok, so my guess is that she is representing the big business interests who benefit from free trade? As I recall, free trade wasn't working out so well for the masses, and that was one of the driving forces behind brexit?

Judging from the article, she wasn't happy with the EU as-is but also didn't think leaving was worth it.



Also:

Miller denies her lawsuit is trying to reverse the referendum. “I don’t think that’s possible,” she told the Guardian. Instead, she says it is an attempt to gain legal clarity over whether the government is entitled to trigger article 50, or whether this must be approved by parliament.

And:

But she added: “Unless we have the legal certainty to know what we’re doing as we go forward is binding, then who knows what the future will have in store for us? We could be walking into so many legal challenges and nightmares. Isn’t it better that the legal certainty is ruled [on] now rather than later?”

the whole Article 50 thing will be a legal mess of titanic proportions. Some people want answers *before* we get into that legal mess.

The problem was basically that the Prime Minister claimed the referendum was enough mandate to do whatever they want, whereas the counter-argument is that leaving the EU changes law and that can't be done without parliament. In the previous set-up, the PM would basically have all the power in deciding a new trade agreement.

[Womble]

I was more interested in what -specifically- in foreign policy dude

Oh, in that case just use Gateworld's search function and review my posts for the last 8 years. I was quite outspoken and gave lots of specifics

It's what happens when "people" decide to gut the system before it exists and don't allow government to regulate insurance and pharma companies as well.

Yeah, they should've either tweaked the full-on private system or go full-on government. Not create a sterile hybrid.

[SoulReaver]

then the insurance companies are the main culprits
but why the f didn't Obama simply impose a price cap on the insurance companies?

[Falcon Horus]

The will of the people doesn't exist. Not everyone is for or against something. The will of the people is a utopia.

If you say, the will of some people -- yeah, that works on some level.

[Ian-S]

then the insurance companies are the main culprits
but why the f didn't Obama simply impose a price cap on the insurance companies?

There's probably some restrictive practice / antitrust legislation that prevents the Government interfering with the free trade of businesses, the EU has a similar law which although great in theory, doesn't work in practice because no profit making business is going to knowingly cut their profit for the benefit of customers, they're going to squeeze enough out of them as they can while safe in the*knowledge insurance will pay for it.

The same happened in the pet insurance industry, before pet insurance became popular you could get, say your cat vaccinated for £15, now you're looking at £100+ for the same thing.

All because restricting free trade is evil and naughty, letting companies do as they wish encourages competition and lower prices, which is utter bull****.*

[Womble]

then the insurance companies are the main culprits
but why the f didn't Obama simply impose a price cap on the insurance companies?

Because it could devastate the healthcare market and lead to all kinds of unintended consequences, presumably.

[Annoyed]

then the insurance companies are the main culprits
but why the f didn't Obama simply impose a price cap on the insurance companies?

Because it wouldn't work. The government cannot force a company to be in a business it doesn't want to be in.
Just as the insurers that are losing their shorts in the exchanges are pulling out of those exchanges, if you cap prices to the point where it's not profitable for the insurers to offer coverage, they simply won't offer it.

The whole mess exposes the fatal flaw in LSoScare that has been there all along, but proponents refuse to look at: Somebody has to pay for it.

[Womble]

FBI is ‘Trumpland’ and agents are leaking to harm Clinton, report claims

[garhkal]

In reality, you know what will happen as well as I do. The LSoS will simply issue a pardon.
The arrest would have to come BEFORE the election; If it happens that way, and he issues a pardon, that will kill her chances of winning the election.

How do you figure? Most of her voters would still vote for her regardless.

like in Ohio? or in Florida? in 2000? wait that was the Republicans. in fact so far only the Republicans have stolen a presidential election & it looks like they're about to do it again

You must be smoking some good weed to completely ignore the stores me and others have shown/linked time and time again showing the dems fraudulent methods/ways..

No one judges like him. He knows how to judge. We won't know how but no one judges like him Believe me

He knows more than the judges do! Trust him!

Holy ****:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-brexit-ruling

The UK is not turning into a pretty place.

That usually happens when the government opposes the will of the people.
Or, put another way, that usually happens when the business interests that would lose out are trying to override the will of the people.

Yup. Which is why i hate having referendums for the PUBLIC to decide something, then when the decision doesn't go the muckity muck's way they just go to court to get it overruled..
WHAT THE hec then was the point in having a referendum?
Or is it like "Free speech zones", you are ok to speak what you want only as long as it agrees with our POV??

If you believe the front pages of the tabloid trash...

Remember when the Daily Mail wrote an article about how dinosaurs mated with no actual evidence to back it up, just so they could publish their dinosaur porn collection?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...feet-long.html

None of those "newspapers" are above manufacturing a "crisis" to sell copies. Just a few weeks ago The Sun was claiming national outrage about Gary Lineker's "offensive" tweets. The only outrage was coming from The Sun itself..

I used to love the sun.. For its page 3 girls!!

The will of the people doesn't exist. Not everyone is for or against something. The will of the people is a utopia.

If you say, the will of some people -- yeah, that works on some level.

Isn't it the will of the people (the majority vote) that determines who gets elected??