America - The Official Thread

[Biggles]

You mean like this democratic process the Catolonians are trying to engage in but were being blocked from the polling station by the jackboots?

Or the fireman that were beaten by police as they tried to form a human shield to protect protestors exercising their democratic rights?:


Or these citizens being "immobilized" while trying to exercise their democratic rights outside a polling station?:

It's actually a perfect example of my point ... and echoes of the American Civil War. The vote to separate was not sanctioned by the Spanish constitutional court. A large number of people living in Catalonia do not wish to separate. Violence on both sides has been present in the past. If the Catalonian separatists were heavily armed & fought back it would not likely end in a good outcome, not for democracy & not for Catalonia or Spain. Political dialogue is the only realistic way forward.

From the Washington Post:

Before 2010, it was rare for more than 20 percent of Catalans to support independence. After 2010, support increased for two reasons. First, the Great Recession struck, leading to widespread unemployment. Second, the Constitutional Court struck down an overhaul of Catalonia’s statute of autonomy — the equivalent of its constitution — at the request of Spain’s conservative People’s Party. In 2013, support for independence peaked at 49 percent. But since then, support for independence has declined, falling below 40 percent last fall.

In fact, in the most recent survey, 76 percent of Catalans actually identified with Spain. In another survey, 56 percent of Catalans stated that they would never vote for the Catalan president’s party. Support for Catalan secession is, thus, far from overwhelming.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pendence-in-catalonia/?utm_term=.61ed936381e9

The situation in Catalonia is, as is often the case in situations like this, complex. Injecting a large number of personally owned firearms into the mix would make things worse, not better.

 

[Johnnypenso]

How likely is that to occur?

It is one of those things you sometimes hear, "As part of its annexation, Texas can leave the union if it wants to."

How likely is that to occur? Not very, which is kind of the point of the 2A.

It's actually a perfect example of my point ... and echoes of the American Civil War. The vote to separate was not sanctioned by the Spanish constitutional court. A large number of people living in Catalonia do not wish to separate. Violence on both sides has been present in the past. If the Catalonian separatists were heavily armed & fought back it would not likely end in a good outcome, not for democracy & not for Catalonia or Spain. Political dialogue is the only realistic way forward.

It's an example of what even a western democracy is capable of when it knows it's citizens can't fight back with anything other than rocks and sticks. Disarm the citizens so that jackbooted government thugs have no fear of resistance whatsoever and can just go in and impose their will. Again, good luck trying that in Texas.

From the Washington Post:

Before 2010, it was rare for more than 20 percent of Catalans to support independence. After 2010, support increased for two reasons. First, the Great Recession struck, leading to widespread unemployment. Second, the Constitutional Court struck down an overhaul of Catalonia’s statute of autonomy — the equivalent of its constitution — at the request of Spain’s conservative People’s Party. In 2013, support for independence peaked at 49 percent. But since then, support for independence has declined, falling below 40 percent last fall.

In fact, in the most recent survey, 76 percent of Catalans actually identified with Spain. In another survey, 56 percent of Catalans stated that they would never vote for the Catalan president’s party. Support for Catalan secession is, thus, far from overwhelming.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pendence-in-catalonia/?utm_term=.61ed936381e9

The situation in Catalonia is, as is often the case in situations like this, complex. Injecting a large number of personally owned firearms into the mix would make things worse, not better.

Not sure how this is relevant. Are you saying the response on the part of the government was justified because of polls? I guess that kind of makes sense. Disarm the citizens and then the majority imposes their will through an armed response to a movement that you yourself are saying would have been defeated anyway if it came to a vote. If there was nothing to worry about by following a democratic process why the over the top response? Again, wouldn't happen in Texas. Kind of the point of the 2A. The government wouldn't even have attempted such a response, again, the point of the 2A. If you know the citizens are going to resist with firepower you are forced to follow the democratic process and the will of the people and can't resort to violence and intimidation to impose your will on the people.

 

[DK]

Well that's fantastic for the economy...wait no it isn't. If you want to push manufacturing out of the US and have it done elsewhere, you put a premium on the raw materials they use. If these companies choose not to relocate, then the increased cost of production with either be passed along the the consumer or have reduced wages for workers. Either way, it's not exactly good.

I'm also curious if Trump used American steel with his construction projects, or did he do what every company does and look for the lowest price possible (which I'm guessing is China)?

Who cares about the wider economy when the swamp is not just doing fine, but getting deeper?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Who cares about the wider economy when the swamp is not just doing fine, but getting deeper?

I have no idea what the facts are and neither does the author of the piece nor you for that matter. But according to the numbers contained in the source, the money Icahn avoided losing (so far) represents .0167% of Icahn's wealth. A "journalist" with an enquiring mind might ask why someone would risk an SEC investigation for what amounts to 1/6000th of his wealth.

 

[Joey D]

Who cares about the wider economy when the swamp is not just doing fine, but getting deeper?

It's definitely suspicious and it looks like CBS Money has a little more on the story: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/icahn-sold-millions-in-steel-related-stock-days-before-trump-tariff/

According to that article, he started dumping shares on Feb 12th and hadn't done any trading with that company since January 17, 2015. It does look like insider trading on the surface for sure.

Also according to Think Progress, which broke the story, now that he's dropped below a 5% stake he no longer needs to disclose his trades, which also, at least on the surface, seems odd.

I have no doubt insider trading happens all the time among the wealthy though. He just happened to get called on it. At most though, he'll get a $5,000,000 fine and even though it carries upwards of a 20 year prison sentence, I'd wager that wouldn't happen. The civil part of it is a little different, but there would be a lot to prove there.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I have no idea what the facts are and neither does the author of the piece nor you for that matter. But according to the numbers contained in the source, the money Icahn avoided losing (so far) represents .0167% of Icahn's wealth. A "journalist" with an enquiring mind might ask why someone would risk an SEC investigation for what amounts to 1/6000th of his wealth.

You stay rich by keeping an eye on your money. Why lose it when you don't have to? It takes about 5 seconds of a phone call or meeting to say "sell my xyz shares". The question in this case is whether or not he did so based on a gut feeling, an astute reading of the wind or straightforward inside information. The sale doesn't have to constitute an enormous part of his wealth for the question to be worth asking.

 

[TexRex]

I have no idea what the facts are and neither does the author of the piece nor you for that matter. But according to the numbers contained in the source, the money Icahn avoided losing (so far) represents .0167% of Icahn's wealth. A "journalist" with an enquiring mind might ask why someone would risk an SEC investigation for what amounts to 1/6000th of his wealth.

Individuals and organizations attempt to cheat the system because they believe they can get away with it. You, they, he, nor I can be sure that amount wasn't calculated to provide plausible deniability similar to what you proffered: "Why would I risk so much for so little?"

 

[Joey D]

Plus like every human on the planet, rich people don't want to lose any money unless they have too.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You stay rich by keeping an eye on your money. Why lose it when you don't have to? It takes about 5 seconds of a phone call or meeting to say "sell my xyz shares". The question in this case is whether or not he did so based on a gut feeling, an astute reading of the wind or straightforward inside information. The sale doesn't have to constitute an enormous part of his wealth for the question to be worth asking.

You also keep rich by being smart and by having good lawyers. It takes about 5 seconds of a phone call to say, "Hey, here's info, is my 🤬 if I sell?" But I agree, it doesn't have to constitute an enormous part of his wealth for the "journalist" to ask the question of what would motivate someone to do this when the risk/reward tradeoff doesn't look so favourable.

Individuals and organizations attempt to cheat the system because they believe they can get away with it. You, they, he, nor I can be sure that amount wasn't calculated to provide plausible deniability similar to what you proffered: "Why would I risk so much for so little?"

Glad you agree you don't know the facts behind the motivations for this sale either.

Plus like every human on the planet, rich people don't want to lose any money unless they have too.

We have a great many attributes as human beings, not sure why this particular one applies to this particular human being in this particular case.

 

[TexRex]

the risk/reward tradeoff doesn't look so favourable.

Risk means little when getting caught isn't seen as a possibility, whether no illicit acts were performed or they were performed so well as to not result in legal action.

Glad you agree you don't know the facts behind the motivations for this sale either.

Are you really? Or did you just want to respond without addressing other implications?

not sure why this particular one applies to this particular human being in this particular case.

This particular human being in this particular case acted to avoid losing money. How does it not apply? What's being asked is whether legitimate reasons justified acting or knowledge of upcoming events motivated this particular human being to act.

It looks suspicious and it should be investigated. Are you arguing that it shouldn't? If you are, why shouldn't it?

 

[Joey D]

We have a great many attributes as human beings, not sure why this particular one applies to this particular human being in this particular case.

You asked why someone with as much wealth as Ichan would risk anything for ".0167%" of his total worth. It's because regardless of how wealthy (or not) you are, no one wants to lose money.

 

[ryzno]

You asked why someone with as much wealth as Ichan would risk anything for ".0167%" of his total worth. It's because regardless of how wealthy (or not) you are, no one wants to lose money.

Which answers Tex's question.
If I know I'm going to/might lose money on a route, guess what I'm gonna do...

I don't know why the heck "insider trading" is illegal, while I can get "insider" route info to figure out if I want to waste my time losing money.(there are MANY factors in my decisions including knowing I can't finish a route and losing half the pay in "breech fees".

I'll quote Kat Williams. That's not insider trading, that's a brother lookin' out for you.
Immoral? Maybe.
Illegal? Shouldn't be.
People know or figure out things for their benefit EVERY day...

 

[TexRex]

I don't know why the heck "insider trading" is illegal, while I can get "insider" route info to figure out if I want to waste my time losing money.(there are MANY factors in my decisions including knowing I can't finish a route and losing half the pay in "breech fees".

I'll quote Kat Williams. That's not insider trading, that's a brother lookin' out for you.
Immoral? Maybe.
Illegal? Shouldn't be.
People know or figure out things for their benefit EVERY day...

This is why insider trading is illegal.

This is why you shouldn't look to Katt Williams for legal advice.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Risk means little when getting caught isn't seen as a possibility, whether no illicit acts were performed or they were performed so well as to not result in legal action.

Or the timing is completely random. Or he found out information from a variety of legal sources. Or he's very smart and just read the wind properly, using the same good sense that helped him accumulate billions of dollars in wealth. There are a stunning number of possibilities.

Are you really? Or did you just want to respond without addressing other implications?

What implications? He sold some stock. Unless you are privy to information that points directly towards insider trading there are no implications.

This particular human being in this particular case acted to avoid losing money. How does it not apply? What's being asked is whether legitimate reasons justified acting or knowledge of upcoming events motivated this particular human being to act.

This particular human being sold some stock. That's all you know for sure. Unless you are a mind reader you have no idea what his motivations are. Ask all the questions you want but if I were him I'd ignore you like I'd ignore an ant on the sidewalk. Produce some evidence of anything nefarious and then you've got something. Until then it's just keyboard warriors speculating based on their political bias.

It looks suspicious and it should be investigated. Are you arguing that it shouldn't? If you are, why shouldn't it?

You asked why someone with as much wealth as Ichan would risk anything for ".0167%" of his total worth. It's because regardless of how wealthy (or not) you are, no one wants to lose money.

Sounds great on paper but unless you know him you have no idea what .0167% of his wealth means to him. I don't treat money at my age the same way I treated it when I was 20 or 35 and he has a lot more than me. My $50k is his $50M? Who knows? My net worth has gone up and down in a day more than my entire net worth was 30 years ago. Back then I'd have cried like a baby, now it barely gets a stir out of me. Just because you'd be triggered over such an insignificant amount doesn't mean he is.

 

[TexRex]

Or the timing is completely random. Or he found out information from a variety of legal sources. Or he's very smart and just read the wind properly, using the same good sense that helped him accumulate billions of dollars in wealth.

Yes...those would be the lawful acts that I spoke of when presenting the "no illicit acts were performed" option. Either he didn't do something wrong or he did.

What implications?

That people attempt to cheat because they believe they can get away with it, and that the "insignificant" amount could very well have been a calculated one to defend against accusations--in not knowing for sure that it was, we don't know for sure that it wasn't. This is where an investigation comes in.

This particular human being sold some stock. That's all you know for sure.

But it's not. We also know when he did it, which was before someone we can infer he knows/knew quite well made an announcement that affected stock value to a significant degree. These are the facts that were presented in the article. Presenting anything more would be conjecture.

Until then it's just keyboard warriors speculating based on their political bias.

And keyboard white knights defending based on their political bias.

Just because you'd be triggered over such an insignificant amount doesn't mean he is.

He was "triggered." His actions were dependant on an internal or external trigger. That trigger doesn't have to be that he had knowledge of something that would potentially cause the stock price to fall. Maybe the sale of that stock was deemed the easiest or most logical way to free up $31.6 million for, say, the purchase of some nice beachfront property.

Edit: What does political bias have to do with this anyway? I for one couldn't give the furry crack of a rat's ass about Carl Icahn. I had to look up when he left his post as an official (albeit unpaid) Trump advisor...six months ago. Just look at what's happened in the last six months.

 

[Joey D]

Just because you'd be triggered over such an insignificant amount doesn't mean he is.

I'm not sure where, in any of my statements, I came across as "triggered". I'm not offended by his actions, I think he did what virtually anyone in that situation would have done, he just happened to get called on it.

Also, are you really going to tell me $31.3 million is an insignificant amount of money? Even someone as wealthy as Ichan can't be that out of tune with reality that they'd consider that a pittance.

 

[TexRex]

I'm not sure where, in any of my statements, I came across as "triggered"

"Blah blah blah blah blah triggered snowflake blah blah blah."

Also, are you really going to tell me $31.3 million is an insignificant amount of money?

I think the $6 million he's said to have lost at the time the article was published is what's supposed to be insignificant. While it's obviously less than 30+...I'm not getting the insignificance of that either.

 

[Biggles]

Disarm the citizens so that jackbooted government thugs have no fear of resistance whatsoever and can just go in and impose their will. Again, good luck trying that in Texas.

Again, wouldn't happen in Texas.

You mean like the Waco siege that didn't happen & didn't result in the deaths of 80 men, women & children?

 

[huskeR32]

You mean like this democratic process the Catolonians are trying to engage in but were being blocked from the polling station by the jackboots?

I don't think I need the specifics of the Spanish Consitution to know that the Catalonians weren't doing enough to warrant hundreds of them getting beaten and bloodied on their way to vote, by a bunch of jackbooted government thugs carrying illegal weapons.

Disarm the citizens so that jackbooted government thugs have no fear of resistance whatsoever and can just go in and impose their will.

Did you learn a new word?

If you can't make your argument stick without constant scary Nazi imagery, maybe it's not a great argument.

It's an example of what even a western democracy is capable of when it knows it's citizens can't fight back with anything other than rocks and sticks.

Compared to the weaponry at our military's disposal, citizens armed with ARs may as well have rocks and sticks.

 

[TexRex]

Did you learn a new word?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Did you learn a new word?

If you can't make your argument stick without constant scary Nazi imagery, maybe it's not a great argument.



Compared to the weaponry at our military's disposal, citizens armed with ARs may as well have rocks and sticks.

Did you learn how to use the search function?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Did you learn how to use the search function?

I did! Do I win $5?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Did you learn a new word?

If you can't make your argument stick without constant scary Nazi imagery, maybe it's not a great argument.

Compared to the weaponry at our military's disposal, citizens armed with ARs may as well have rocks and sticks.

Please allow me to broaden your horizons a little bit.

The first reference to the term jackboot is more than 2 centuries old, referring to the boots worn by a french positillion or a horse drawn carriage driver who was mounted on one of the horses as opposed to riding in the carriage itself. The term has of course come to be known for much more, but the origin of the word jackboot is, in fact, of Catalan origin.

The term originates from the French word Jaque (m) meaning mail. The term is of Catalan origin, descended from the Arabic schakk.[3

. The term has since been used in association with various fascist or totalitarian police forces from the Nazis to the armies of the USSR and East Germany and the oppressive regimes of Generalissimo Franco, Mussolini and many more.

So as you can see, it's much more than Nazi imagery, it's a general symbol for an oppressive police force working on behalf of an authoritarian state, more interested in enforcing it's own desires rather than protecting the rights of it's citizens to free assembly, association etc. However, you are free to think of it in the very miopic context of the Nazis if it makes you feel better. 👍

Alexander Morozov:

Morozov suggests the Kremlin could roll its troops up to the border of the Baltic states and demand the withdrawal of NATO units there. “Nothing keeps it from taking such steps now, because its moves are defined by revolutionary logic not political rationality,” writes Morozov. “If you can force your jackboot in the door, you can try to go all the way.”

 

[huskeR32]

The first reference to the term jackboot is more than 2 centuries old, referring to the boots worn by a french positillion or a horse drawn carriage driver who was mounted on one of the horses as opposed to riding in the carriage itself.

And the swastika is a 5,000-year-old symbol from the Indus Valley.

You aren't using that word over and over because you want people to associate the Spanish police with horse-drawn carriage drivers.

 

[Famine]

You aren't using that word over and over because you want people to associate the Spanish police with horse-drawn carriage drivers.

But the Guardia Civil (strictly speaking it is a military group, rather than police) has actual jackboots as part of its uniform...

Although not as part of the riot gear its members wore when they went in to brutalise the Catalan civilians and destroy property.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And the swastika is a 5,000-year-old symbol from the Indus Valley.

You aren't using that word over and over because you want people to associate the Spanish police with horse-drawn carriage drivers.

Good job reading my post because that's the only thing I mentioned was the Spanish police with horse drawn carriage drivers. You're entitled to make up your own conclusions, obviously you're good at it, it's the internet after all. Don't let the fact that I didn't mention Nazi's or Hitler in connection with this incident stop you from making all the assumptions you need to make to feel better about the Guardia Civil dropping in to stomp and beat the unarmed Catalans into submission.

 

[TexRex]

Good job reading my post because that's the only thing I mentioned...

I find it interesting that you would speak of one's inclination to focus on a portion of your post that you believe to be of little consequence and glossing over the comments you presumably consider more important with regards to your intent.

I find it more interesting that you'd do so in this very thread and indeed on this very page, what with...

Individuals and organizations attempt to cheat the system because they believe they can get away with it. You, they, he, nor I can be sure that amount wasn't calculated to provide plausible deniability similar to what you proffered: "Why would I risk so much for so little?"

Glad you agree you don't know the facts behind the motivations for this sale either.

...looming above.

 

[Joey D]

I don't know what jackboots are, but after a quick Google I'm 99% sure I've seen something incredibly close on April the stripper.

 

[TexRex]

I don't know what jackboots are, but after a quick Google I'm 99% sure I've seen something incredibly close on April the stripper.

Albeit with more sequins, no doubt.

 

[ryzno]

I don't know what jackboots are, but after a quick Google I'm 99% sure I've seen something incredibly close on April the stripper.

Pics?