SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the not-surrendering-to-corporations-for-now dept.
Common Dreams reports
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said [August 25] that the U.S. Senate will not vote on the 12-nation, corporate-friendly Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) this year, buoying progressive hopes that the trade deal will never come to fruition.
[...] McConnell told a Kentucky State Farm Bureau breakfast in Louisville that the agreement, "which has some serious flaws, will not be acted upon this year".
Common Dreams also reports
Germany's Vice Chancellor and Economic Minister said that the controversial Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has "de facto failed", admitting that negotiations between the U.S. and E.U. have completely stalled.
"Negotiations with the U.S. have de facto failed because, of course, as Europeans, we couldn't allow ourselves to submit to American demands", Sigmar Gabriel told the German news station ZDF [1][2] in an interview that will air at 7pm German time [August 28], according to Der Spiegel. [1]
"Everything has stalled", Gabriel said.
[1] In German [2] Content behind scripts
Reported by BBC, in English.
In 14 rounds of talks, the two sides had not agreed on a single common chapter out of 27 being discussed, Mr Gabriel said. "In my opinion the negotiations with the United States have de facto failed, even though nobody is really admitting it," said Mr Gabriel.
He suggested Washington was angry about a deal the EU struck with Canada, because it contained elements the US does not want to see in the TTIP.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheGratefulNet on Monday August 29 2016, @02:04PM
the reason 'we want clintons' is the same as the last in recent memory: the other guy would be a much worse disaster.
this time, its trump we are talking about. never in the history of the US has there been a worse candidate. no sane mind would vote for such a lunatic. only those 'triggered' by his smooth talk (??) are, at all, swayed by his lies and bullshit.
clinton is no peach, but she's at least a professional. the other guy is a loose canon ready to make a bad situation 100x worse.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @02:09PM
Please. Clinton is a 'professional' alright, a professional criminal.
Even an idiot like Trump couldn't possibly be worse than giving that bloodthirsty harpy the presidency again.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @02:18PM
Can we please start agreeing that both Clinton and Trump are terrible and not vote for either? Vote 3rd party. Vote independent. Write in a better candidate. Write-in yourself. Write-in your dog. Anyone else is better than "the lesser of two evils".
(Score: 0, Troll) by TheGratefulNet on Monday August 29 2016, @02:24PM
write-in for president worked once. right?
oh wait, it NEVER WORKED. NEVER. not once.
what makes you think its even worth the effort?
if you are not voting for one of the 2 'chosen few' (barf!) then you might as well just stay home.
I don't like either one, but I'm under no false illusion that 3rd party candidates or write-ins will mean a single thing.
now, you want to have some power: have the write-in's matter in terms of quantity and have that higher quantity LOWER the power of the ones who do get in. ie, lets vote them to be less influential and powerful. wouldn't that be something!
but this is not the american way. our way is full of crap and the 'voting' is just an illusion that used to work but ceases to, at this point.
the elites get together, they decide on a vacation outing who gets it and that guy gets it. the rest is all a show.
so, write in your dog or your best friend. you are free to waste your time. and anyone else written in is a waste of time. its not like your vote matters anymore when you do this. no one says 'xyz got in but there was 20% who voted 'none of the above'. its not said and no one cares or even brings it up.
not sure why you think the way you do, but as you grow older you realize how utterly powerless you are in this world. the schemers makes the rules and vote their own people in. and... here... we.... GO!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @02:34PM
That's exactly the kind of attitute that has prevented anyone else from ever having a chance. It's self-reinforcing, and the problem will never be solved until that stigma changes. Don't kid yourself, your single vote isn't going to change who wins in the 2 party battle either, so either way your vote is worthless by itself, no matter what, so why keep voting for the terrible choices? We need some change here, both in voting and in the stigma of worthless votes. That's the real battle.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday August 29 2016, @02:52PM
I think there's some value in quoting Eugene Debs here: "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it, than it is to vote for what you don't want and get it."
Getting to the point where the media talking heads have to at least be giving lip service to Gary Johnson and/or Jill Stein will at the very least expand the range of what's considered "mainstream" political thought rather than having all their ideas and their party's proposals relegated to the lunatic fringe a la Vermin Supreme. Of course, even better is electing third-party candidates in down-ballot and even local races, but that's less likely than a 10% showing from somebody for president.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @03:52PM
I changed my name to "None of the Above" and I'm running for president. My platform: I'm neither Donald nor Hillary.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Monday August 29 2016, @05:43PM
Can we please start agreeing that both Clinton and Trump are terrible and not vote for either?
No, I actually like Clinton.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Monday August 29 2016, @02:26PM
Trump is not just an idiot. He's a demagogue, a failed businessman, and a fascist. He has no real policies, only emotions, which means either that nobody knows what he would really do or that he would become a puppet to his handlers, either of which is exactly the opposite of what his followers actually want. His business ventures have all failed so badly that he would have more money now if he had invested his startup money in a passive index fund instead; every success he's ever had came after he got famous enough to leverage his fame into impossible-to-lose deals, every one of which (like Trump University) he used to manipulate quick cash out of people instead of building anything useful to anyone but himself. He is intensely nationalist to the point where, like classic fascists, he would redefine his national heritage to only include one homogeneous ethnic group and cast out all others. Trump is a sociopath who will do whatever it takes to see his name in bold letters at the top of the world. Trump could be America's Putin if elected, and something about having two Putins ruling the two best armed military powers of the world makes me want to build a fallout shelter on a remote pacific island.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday August 29 2016, @04:13PM
All this stuff about Trump sounds pretty accurate and of course very worrisome. But it's still questionable whether it's better or worse than Hillary.
Seriously, HowTF did we manage to get to this ridiculous point in our electoral process? All the other elections in my adult life have been bad too, but none were nearly as ridiculously bad choices as this one. My only hope is this election will be such an apocalyptic disaster that the government will finally be forced to revamp our election system (or better yet, scrap the Constitution and make a new one which implements a Parliamentary system like every other advanced western nation).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Monday August 29 2016, @05:23PM
(or better yet, scrap the Constitution and make a new one which implements a Parliamentary system like every other advanced western nation).
You read SN and can say this with a straight face?! I can only imagine how much authoritarian shit would inevitably find its way into the new version.
If politicians wrote the Constitution today, it would be a far different document.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday August 29 2016, @06:30PM
Are you arguing that parliamentary systems are bad, or that our current politicians would make the worst possible one? If the latter, you have a valid point. Maybe we should outsource the writing of our Constitution to another country, like Norway or Finland. They don't seem to have all the corruption problems we do.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday August 29 2016, @06:42PM
Yeah, the latter. The upside of parliamentary systems is they usually have more than 2 major parties, yes? I'd be game to try that out.
Not sure how germane it is, but the seventeenth amendment [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday August 29 2016, @10:24PM
Having more than 2 major parties is a big plus. That isn't the only upside of parliamentary systems: the executive is not chosen by the people, but rather by Parliament. This prevents long government shutdowns like we've had in the US where two major branches (exec and legislative) are at odds. Also, it forces people to do a better job choosing their legislators, instead of only focusing on one person (the President), since the people only get to vote for their representatives.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 30 2016, @05:33AM
At least here in Canada and I believe in many other Parliamentary systems, most people vote who they want to be Prime Minister, or in other words, by party. Most Canadians probably don't even know who their MP is. At the extreme, a few years back when the opposition parties got together and decided to overthrow the government (they outnumbered the ruling party), many (especially the government) called it undemocratic even though it is the way our system works, whichever group can get the votes together in Parliament to pass a budget, forms the government, with the most populous party given first try and if none can pass a budget, well there's another election. The people don't like too many elections and usually punish the party who won't compromise though the last government was very good at laying the blame on others.
We've also had a series of PMs, especially the last, who pictured themselves as more of a US President type rather then a Parliamentary leader and much power has concentrated into the PM Office with Parliament acting too often as a rubber stamp. Party discipline is very strong.
There are other advantages too our system, elections traditionally last 6 weeks rather then years like down there, though once again our previous government tried to change that with political attack ads happening all the time and the longest election in over a hundred years. It was an interesting election though as all 3 parties were in the lead at various times and it actually came down to strategic voting as the vast majority of Canadians wanted the previous government gone and were well aware that a fragmented vote could see them continue to remake Canada in their image. 33%+33%+34% party votes can see the 34% party being dictator for the next 4-5 years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @12:51AM
Hardly, the 66% can just call a no confidence vote (or local equivalent) and it's back to the polls for another try.
If the %34 were really as bad as dictators and not doing what the people wanted they would easily lose.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 31 2016, @02:25AM
You're assuming that the 34%/66% is in seats, it can just as easy be in votes, with one party getting 34% of the vote and the other 66% of votes split between the other parties.
And a no-confidence vote doesn't always mean another election as sometimes the opposition gets a chance to form government, which was the plan the other year, except the PM prorogued Parliament before the vote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @08:29AM
Yes, but if those 34% cant get at least some of the 66% to agree with their legislation, none of it will get anywhere.
Yes the 66% get a chance to form a government, thats the point. If they can agree on a platform that their voters will support good. If not voters still get to try again, but this time less people will vote for the uncompromising waste of time 34%.
You do realise that the 34% don't just get to 'form a government' because they got the biggest number, they still have to get a majority of the parliament to agree to let them for the government in the first place. They have to have confidence to lose in the first place, but once they step out of line it's game over for them. You can't get a 34% dictatorship, unless another 16% also want it and then it's not a dictatorship anymore but a democracy.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday September 01 2016, @12:15AM
Yes, if a party has less then 50+% of seats, they have to work with at least one other party to pass legislation and there is usually trade offs and things are good unless the party is very good at bullshitting the public so the public blames the other parties for calling a non-confidence vote.
There is still the problem where the party gets 51% of seats with 34% or less of the the votes.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 30 2016, @05:41AM
The Constitution was pretty well hated when it was first passed, being full of compromises and was expected to be replaced within a couple of decades. Unluckily the government, with the support of the people, just ignored the parts they didn't like rather then fixing it.
I'd imagine an attempted rewrite would have the same problems with a deadlock between the various factions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @09:23AM
Seriously, HowTF did we manage to get to this ridiculous point in our electoral process? All the other elections in my adult life have been bad too, but none were nearly as ridiculously bad choices as this one.
So, I take it you were not around for the Johnson/Goldwater Hobson's Choice? If it wasn't for that little girl picking petals off a daisy . . . . Hey, can we bring her back?
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday August 29 2016, @05:16PM
We live in a TV nation. Trump makes for good TV. Putin also makes good TV. We need more TV.... Don't come in. I'm batin'.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Monday August 29 2016, @05:36PM
Recently I watched a very interesting Cracked video about Idiocracy, and how specifically it is not actually as dystopian as it seems. Sure, it's a world full of idiots, but the one thing most strikingly different from the real world is that they all know what they are. The guy takes an intelligence test, and the results of it place him in the white house because of his unusual intelligence. The president fears not for his own safety despite being black, holding public parties on the white house lawn. And when there is a better person to hold the office, he simply steps down. Sure, everything boils down to a reality show, but it's dumbed down to the point that nobody even cares what specific crazy plan the president has to fix the vague problems that nobody even understands. Can you imagine a world in which the Trump candidacy was more like an episode of the Kardashians? Where all we really had to know was that Jeb is a mess and forget about all this wall nonsense? And in this fairy tale land where we don't even pretend to have the solution to all the world's problems, everybody including Trump himself knows exactly how much of a total idiot Trump is and nobody expects him to take action beyond the reach of his actual intelligence. All in all, I'd take the Idiocracy version of Trump over the real one. I think a lot of us like to pretend that's what we're going to get.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @06:02PM
he would have more money now if he had invested his startup money in a passive index fund instead
Yup.
This is a guy who couldn't make money owning CASINOS.
He has declared bankruptcy FOUR times.
No bank will lend him money.
All he has to trade on (with suckers) is his name.
...and even businesses which have licensed his name (but in which Trump has no ownership stake) are failing.
This run for office is an attempt to strengthen his failing brand.
It has been reported|speculated that after he gets creamed, he will ally with the disgraced former chairman of Fox and get some kind of media thing going (another web-based something, quite likely).
.
...and if you would insert a paragraph break now and then into your otherwise excellent prose, my tired old eyes would thank you.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @12:56AM
Bankruptcy four time you say, and he's still rich?
He must be doing something right.
Seems like he knows how to play the system, and Republicans obviously. What is the US government if not the biggest system around?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @03:38PM
Please. Clinton is a 'professional' alright, a professional criminal.
Even an idiot like Trump couldn't possibly be worse than giving that bloodthirsty harpy the presidency again.
While I'm not in full agreement with your premise that Clinton is a professional criminal (I would say professional politician, which given our corrupt, money take all politics, should be criminal, but technically isn't because politicians control the laws.)
I have to disagree with your suggestion that a professional criminal is worse than an amateur. I would much rather be mugged by a professional criminal than the crazy guy who can't talk coherently, changes what he's saying mid sentence, all while waving his gun every which way. The first one will take your money. The second might just kill you accidentally, or on purpose, whether or not he gets your money.
Of course, my preference would not to be mugged in the first place. But according to the mass-media and both major parties, I don't have any other options.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @12:59AM
Ahh, the professional writes the laws..
And it just so happens, the new law allows them to just kill you and take all your stuff anyway.
I'll take my chances with the obvious incompetent I saw a mile off.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by EvilSS on Monday August 29 2016, @02:18PM
I am honestly starting to think the entire Trump campaign was a plot cooked up by the Clintons to get Hillary elected. It's the perfect plan. Get him to run, say crazy shit that will ignite the far-right (who happen to be the ones who vote in primaries), knowing that he will completely flop in the general election on the same platform and probably take out some congressional republicans in the process. It's the perfect plan.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @02:26PM
I thought this way back when there were still 10+ republicans still in the race. It makes perfect sense. In fact, I've seen a similar strategy locally in a sheriff race where the current sherrif is a former democrat who "converted" to republican during his term. As it's always hard for a newcomer to overcome an incumbent, so he has kept all other republicans from winning a primary. On the democratic primary there was only one person running as dem, thus not having to spend any money on campaigning. Of course the current sheriff won the republican primary, so the general election will be a democrat "republican" current sheriff vs a democrat "opponent", so it doesn't matter who wins, the dems win. It's a crock.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by migz on Monday August 29 2016, @02:34PM
If that is your belief then, the solution is to call their bluff. Go vote for Trump, and campaign for him. He would be a lame duck, since he will never muster a majority on any of his grand schemes.
Then punish them both in the next senate, and house votes, by flipping every gerrymandered seat. Vote for 3rd parties in your local elections, get accountable local government at least.
Take control, use your vote tactically.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29 2016, @06:19PM
[Inigo Mode] You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Gerrymandering is a method to make sure that minority voices get buried in the noise.
Unless you somehow managed to flip the majority in your electoral district, you're just pissing into the wind.
If you have a brilliant plan on how to accomplish *that* flip, now, THAT would be interesting.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @02:12AM
Gerrymandering is also very effective at burying majority voices by lumping them into a few, very safe districts for your opponents while giving your side slight advantages in many more districts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday August 30 2016, @08:55AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @05:50AM
This time, its Clinton we are talking about. Never in the history of the US has there been a worse liked/trusted candidate. No sane mind would vote for such.
Until Trump came along that is.