Except then the ordinary workers who did nothing wrong are made to suffer. Either they don’t get paid or they lose their jobs. IMHO you make the CEO personally liable. They have the power to change the company attitude and policy. They need to have their personal fortune hit as well as jail time.

So basically upset that the press do their job??

IMO the main reason for the press to exist is to hold people in power accountable for their actions. It doesn’t matter the lengths they go to to get the information or their motivation. There will always be press looking into politics on both sides of the spectrum and we as the public should be glad for it.

You should not excuse bad behaviour just because they are on your team. You should encourage the press to do their job as long as they don’t go too far into harassment, distortion of the truth or digging up irrelevant personal details about someone that affect noone outside that someone.

I really like the line “democracy does in darkness” because it is so true. Political figures who dislike the press generally have something to hide.

If counter with: “We’d be well served to remember the long and cherished tradition of settling criminal matters in the courts.”

Basically they want the right to commit crimes without consequences beyond the possibility of simply not being re-elected… But only for Republican politicians. Democrats should be treated differently.

Even then you can still have someone read the source and write a spec for a second programmer to write a library. The programmer never saw the source code but it was still useful. Still legal to do this. If someone dumped original source into the projector could be similarly checked for duplication without breaking the law.

That would be putting words in my mouth.

Firstly, I think that having been a justice, which is a very distinguished post , they would never have to worry about future employment, it would probably find them. I also think that a job for life means you don’t worry about scrutiny. You can do what you want almost without consequence because you don’t need to worry about what comes next. If no one can fire you, and you don’t need to worry about people being happy with your performance, you can be free so act however you want. In your own interest. In the interest of some benefactor, or should you choose to, in the interest of the people.

Second, I did not say youthfulness it’s important. There is a vast gulf between youthful and aged. I don’t want a 20 year old justice and more than a 70 year old one.

Lastly, expanding it would be great. No arguments here.

Yes I agree with that, but age is a strong indicator.

While experience is clearly an important job qualification for a judge, at some point their experience is from a different era. At the beginning of her training the world was a very different place, but she now applies her experience from that era to cases today. I don’t mean to say her experience is entirely irrelevant, just that the old have to give way to the young if progress is to be made. These guys should have age limits if not term limits. At the very least there should be a known point in time that they need to be replaced so that political games cannot be played with their appointments.

He’s speaking from personal experience. He knows how many crimes he committed last year and is extrapolating to the wider population.

That’s the least of your worries - no more farting!!!

No more rolling coal in TN

Wow, that’s great!! So I guess all the chemicals coming out of the coal, oil and gas fired power plants will be stopped then.

CO2, NOx, particulates all are chemicals and are all intentionally released during combustion.

Agree with you there. PR is the only way you really have one, and even then, as long as there is so much money in politics, you are still not getting candidates who deserve to be there, just the ones that can afford to.

Hardly. Voter suppression is creating an atmosphere of fear around polling stations. Creating voter registration laws. Setting up fake ballot boxes. Etc. In only asking you to really think about what happens when you vote for each of them. Compare those futures. Then decide. I’m not stopping you voting however you want. There’s no real pressure from a random person in another country on the Internet. I.e. Me.
If Trump takes away your vote because your face doesn’t fit and starts getting 80% of the vote, saying “it’s not my fault, I didn’t vote for him” will do you no good. If he does do those things, and it’s not like he hasn’t been signalling it for years, you may never have a real vote again. But if you want to dismiss me as trying to suppress your vote or as a fascist, don’t say I didn’t warn you, and all I asked you to do was think.

PS the point of giant douche vs. Turd sandwich was that no candidate will be perfect. We always have to choose based on who aligns best with our viewpoint even if that choice is far from ideal. From the outside I see two very different candidates. Both are to the right of my politics, but only one wanted to take the people’s choice away altogether.

Last reply because I sense you either don’t see the threat, don’t want to see it, or trust in the system to self correct.

If it were a truly equal system, you would be right. I completely agree that tactical voting should not be needed and I wish your ideological standpoint was effective in sending messages to these guys.

Fact is they do not care how many people vote outside the top two if they still win. You might be trying to send a message but they won’t hear it. Unless you can convince 60 million people to follow you of course.

The Republicans particularly know that the protest votes are typically subtracted from the democrat tally.

PR is the only solution that provides the type of government you want but you don’t have it yet and if you want it, what you plan to do is probably reducing the likelihood you’ll ever get it .

It is a sad fact that a vote for anyone but the two biggest parties (in almost every country) is essentially wasted.

When you have PR vote your conscience all the way. With it you may even have more choice because there would be less pressure for candidates like to firm an alliance with a large party. Until then the very real threat to democracy is far more pressing. Donald Trump tried to take the white house by force 3 years ago. This proved he cares more about his own power than the will of the people. He expended a lot of energy trying to use the system against itself to overturn the results when the capitol riots failed. For decades, the Republicans have repeatedly gerrymandered and tried to prevent certain groups from voting, typically minorities. Lately some Republicans at CPAC called for the end of democracy.

I’m not saying the Democrats are saints that can do no wrong, but at least they are not openly trying to rig the system.

If Trump is legitimately elected this time, your protest vote may mean even less next time than it does this time, because democracy in the United States might look more like Russian “elections”. 87% going one way. No politician is that popular. Side note , I’m surprised those guys don’t choose more realistic numbers to make their “election” more credible, but their ego won’t let them.

But, you do you, just don’t complain about the outcome when one of those octogenarian politicians is in power. “I didn’t vote for him” won’t do you much good when it hurts your wallet, or worse your freedoms.

No, in a system that has been gerrymandered and uses the electoral college system to favour a party (Republicans) that wins power while losing the popular vote, voting outside the two parties favours that party.

Real fascism is what you’ll likely get by allowing Trump back in.

I don’t think you support him intentionally.

Donald Trump thanks you for your support.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmNPyQ-OOp0

Or 081 811 8181