OT Thinking, learning, wisdom.

[Rick C]

On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 4:19:47 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 6:38:20 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:


If we ever fix the Constitution so that the President is elected by popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?

--

Rick C.

++-+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

What makes you think that? If the president is elected by popular vote, there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote will count. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incentive to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easier to cheat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democrat states.

I just want to understand what you are saying. We should not give everyone an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in all states rather than just the few states that actually decide an election???

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for pointing it out.

--

Rick C.

--+-- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 1:33:12 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

If we ever fix the Constitution so that the President is elected by popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?

--

Rick C.
--

++-+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
--

What makes you think that? If the president is elected by popular vote, there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote will count. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incentive to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easier to cheat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democrat states.

I just want to understand what you are saying. We should not give everyone an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in all states rather than just the few states that actually decide an election???

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for pointing it out.

Wrong. Just pointing out that electing the president by popular vote will not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the likely hood that there will be voter fraud and increase the likely hood that it will not be caught.

Dan

Rick C.

--+-- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in
news:5d6a0b7e-2e69-41cd-b18d-cc2dcb26e21e@googlegroups.com:

Wrong. Just pointing out that electing the president by popular
vote will not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the
likely hood that there will be voter fraud and increase the
likely hood that it will not be caught.

Dan

In this information age, we should be seeing exactly ZERO vote fraud
and count errors, but NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

I am sure there are still backward towns in backward states still
using the method they used in Iraq. Yeah... that's real accurate.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 9:59:14 PM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 1:33:12 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

If we ever fix the Constitution so that the President is elected by popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?

--

Rick C.
--

++-+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
--

What makes you think that? If the president is elected by popular vote, there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote will count. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incentive to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easier to cheat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democrat states.

I just want to understand what you are saying. We should not give everyone an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in all states rather than just the few states that actually decide an election???

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for pointing it out.


Wrong. Just pointing out that electing the president by popular vote will not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the likely hood that there will be voter fraud and increase the likely hood that it will not be caught.

No one said it would.

The French elect their president by a two stage popular vote - the first round rejects all but the two most popular candidates, and the second round chose between those two.

The French seem to manage this without anybody squalling voter fraud. There's been quite a lot of work done on voting and voter registration since 1788, and if the US adopted some of the more recent technology they might be able to discourage the Republican party from systematically trying to disenfranchise the poor. The Republicans wouldn't like it.

Getting a president who has collected a majority of the popular vote does seem to be a way of adding legitimacy to the office. Voter fraud doesn't seem to be a problem, even in the US. Trump has complained about it, but that doesn't make it a problem that necessarily needs much attention (any more than that vital wall along the US-Mexico border).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 11:02:14 PM UTC+10, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in
news:5d6a0b7e-2e69-41cd-b18d-cc2dcb26e21e@googlegroups.com:

Wrong. Just pointing out that electing the president by popular
vote will not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the
likely hood that there will be voter fraud and increase the
likely hood that it will not be caught.

In this information age, we should be seeing exactly ZERO vote fraud
and count errors, but NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

I am sure there are still backward towns in backward states still
using the method they used in Iraq. Yeah... that's real accurate.

US voter fraud is mostly Republicans finding ways of making it difficult for the poor to register to vote or to actually vote. And the Republicans don't like the idea of people spending tax-payers money - mostly theirs - on improved systems that might thwart their schemes.

It does have its comic aspects.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:59:14 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 1:33:12 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

If we ever fix the Constitution so that the President is elected by popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?

--

Rick C.
--

++-+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
--

What makes you think that? If the president is elected by popular vote, there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote will count. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incentive to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easier to cheat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democrat states.

I just want to understand what you are saying. We should not give everyone an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in all states rather than just the few states that actually decide an election???

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for pointing it out.


Wrong. Just pointing out that electing the president by popular vote will not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the likely hood that there will be voter fraud and increase the likely hood that it will not be caught.

I never said eliminating the electoral college would eliminate voting fraud.. Who said that?

--

Rick C.

--+-+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 1:00:01 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:59:14 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 1:33:12 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

If we ever fix the Constitution so that the President is elected by popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?

--

Rick C.
--

++-+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
--

What makes you think that? If the president is elected by popular vote, there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote will count. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incentive to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easier to cheat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democrat states.

I just want to understand what you are saying. We should not give everyone an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in all states rather than just the few states that actually decide an election???

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for pointing it out.


Wrong. Just pointing out that electing the president by popular vote will not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the likely hood that there will be voter fraud and increase the likely hood that it will not be caught.

I never said eliminating the electoral college would eliminate voting fraud. Who said that?

--

Rick C.

--+-+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

I thought it was you.

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 6:07:51 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

The Left can't get over Hillary losing, and have contempt for the
clingy deplorables who elected him. And who probably will re-elect
him.

It says a *lot* that Democrats have claimed the election has been stolen
every single time a Republican has been elected president since and
including 1980.

If we ever fix the Constitution so that the President is elected by popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?

--

Rick C.

Dan

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 10:19:46 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:04:38 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 1:00:01 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:59:14 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 1:33:12 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

If we ever fix the Constitution so that the President is elected by popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?

--

Rick C.
--

++-+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
--

What makes you think that? If the president is elected by popular vote, there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote will count. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incentive to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easier to cheat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democrat states.

I just want to understand what you are saying. We should not give everyone an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in all states rather than just the few states that actually decide an election???

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for pointing it out.


Wrong. Just pointing out that electing the president by popular vote will not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the likely hood that there will be voter fraud and increase the likely hood that it will not be caught.

I never said eliminating the electoral college would eliminate voting fraud. Who said that?

--

Rick C.

Is "stolen" synonymous with "voting fraud"?

I think that voting fraud is a subset of stolen.


> If that is the way you took my statement, it is not what I meant. I was referring specifically to the issues with the will of the people being subverted by the electoral college.

No big deal. Just hope you can see how I was thinking. You can steal elections using vote fraud.

Dan

Tom Del Rosso is greatly exaggerating when he says democrats claim every "Republican has been elected president since and including 1980" was "stolen". The only two I am aware of being significantly in dispute were Bush v. Gore and of course Clinton v. Trump. Who disputed Bush v. Kerry? Perhaps some fringe crackpots.

--

Rick C.

--++- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++- Tesla referral code - h: ttps://ts.la/richard11209
:

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:47:16 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 10:19:46 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:04:38 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 1:00:01 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:59:14 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 1:33:12 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

If we ever fix the Constitution so that the President is elected by popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?

--

Rick C.
--

++-+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
--

What makes you think that? If the president is elected by popular vote, there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote will count. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incentive to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easier to cheat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democrat states.

I just want to understand what you are saying. We should not give everyone an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in all states rather than just the few states that actually decide an election???

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for pointing it out.


Wrong. Just pointing out that electing the president by popular vote will not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the likely hood that there will be voter fraud and increase the likely hood that it will not be caught.

I never said eliminating the electoral college would eliminate voting fraud. Who said that?

--

Rick C.

Is "stolen" synonymous with "voting fraud"?


I think that voting fraud is a subset of stolen.


If that is the way you took my statement, it is not what I meant. I was referring specifically to the issues with the will of the people being subverted by the electoral college.

No big deal. Just hope you can see how I was thinking. You can steal elections using vote fraud.

Of course. You also make big noise about voting fraud to advance political advantages. Politics is politics. I would like to at least not have the constitution working against the will of the people.

--

Rick C.

--+++ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Robert Baer]

Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:47:16 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 10:19:46 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:04:38 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 1:00:01 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:59:14 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 1:33:12 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

If we ever fix the Constitution so that the President is elected by popular vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?

--

Rick C.
--

++-+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
--

What makes you think that? If the president is elected by popular vote, there will be an incentive to cheat everywhere. Because every vote will count. In a state that is strongly republican , there will be an incentive to get a higher vote count for the Republican. And it will be easier to cheat as Republicans will control the election process. Ditto for Democrat states.

I just want to understand what you are saying. We should not give everyone an equal vote because that will encourage people to cheat in all states rather than just the few states that actually decide an election???

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for pointing it out.


Wrong. Just pointing out that electing the president by popular vote will not prevent vote fraud. It will actually increase the likely hood that there will be voter fraud and increase the likely hood that it will not be caught.

I never said eliminating the electoral college would eliminate voting fraud. Who said that?

--

Rick C.

Is "stolen" synonymous with "voting fraud"?


I think that voting fraud is a subset of stolen.


If that is the way you took my statement, it is not what I meant. I was referring specifically to the issues with the will of the people being subverted by the electoral college.

No big deal. Just hope you can see how I was thinking. You can steal elections using vote fraud.

Of course. You also make big noise about voting fraud to advance political advantages. Politics is politics. I would like to at least not have the constitution working against the will of the people.

Really?
With all of those elected officials subverting and/or ignoring the
Constitution and the law? And still doing that?

One rather nasty example is when Obama bypassed legal contracts
(theft of millions of dollars in bonds) from owners, turning the value
over to the union(s) running GM.

And to be polite, NOBODY did a goddamn thing about it.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 4:57:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:

Rick C wrote:

Of course. You also make big noise about voting fraud to advance political advantages. Politics is politics. I would like to at least not have the constitution working against the will of the people.

Really?
With all of those elected officials subverting and/or ignoring the
Constitution and the law? And still doing that?

One rather nasty example is when Obama bypassed legal contracts
(theft of millions of dollars in bonds) from owners, turning the value
over to the union(s) running GM.

And to be polite, NOBODY did a goddamn thing about it.

Sorry, I don't know exactly which rant this one is. I don't recall hearing about this particular destruction of the Constitution by Obama. Care to explain it so a normal person can understand?

--

Rick C.

-+--- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 8:29:05 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 4:57:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:
Rick C wrote:

Of course. You also make big noise about voting fraud to advance political advantages. Politics is politics. I would like to at least not have the constitution working against the will of the people.

Really?
With all of those elected officials subverting and/or ignoring the
Constitution and the law? And still doing that?

One rather nasty example is when Obama bypassed legal contracts
(theft of millions of dollars in bonds) from owners, turning the value
over to the union(s) running GM.

And to be polite, NOBODY did a goddamn thing about it.

Sorry, I don't know exactly which rant this one is. I don't recall hearing about this particular destruction of the Constitution by Obama. Care to explain it so a normal person can understand?

Robert Baer is channeling James Arthur. When GM folded after the global financial crisis, the government intervention that kept the company running didn't give the share-holders as much compensation as James Arthur thought that they should have got.

Quite why the share-holders (who elected the board of directors who'd run GM so badly that they'd folded) deserved any compensation is a question that you'd have to raise with James Arthur, who is a higher class of right-wing nitwit than Robert Baer, though still not worth paying attention to.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:32:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 8:29:05 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 4:57:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:
Rick C wrote:

Of course. You also make big noise about voting fraud to advance political advantages. Politics is politics. I would like to at least not have the constitution working against the will of the people.

Really?
With all of those elected officials subverting and/or ignoring the
Constitution and the law? And still doing that?

One rather nasty example is when Obama bypassed legal contracts
(theft of millions of dollars in bonds) from owners, turning the value
over to the union(s) running GM.

And to be polite, NOBODY did a goddamn thing about it.

Sorry, I don't know exactly which rant this one is. I don't recall hearing about this particular destruction of the Constitution by Obama. Care to explain it so a normal person can understand?

Robert Baer is channeling James Arthur. When GM folded after the global financial crisis, the government intervention that kept the company running didn't give the share-holders as much compensation as James Arthur thought that they should have got.

Quite why the share-holders (who elected the board of directors who'd run GM so badly that they'd folded) deserved any compensation is a question that you'd have to raise with James Arthur, who is a higher class of right-wing nitwit than Robert Baer, though still not worth paying attention to.

Technically, GM went through bankruptcy, no? When that happens, the shareholders get diddly. Car owners also lost their warranties I believe although they may have done something for partial compensation. So Baer is complaining that he lost money on bonds? Yeah, that happens. That's why the value of bonds goes up and down, at least in part. It is a factor of current interest rates and the perceived risk the bonds will be paid. The rest of his post seems to be a bit of a rant about the Constitution and unions.

--

Rick C.

-+--+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Robert Baer]

Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 4:57:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:
Rick C wrote:

Of course. You also make big noise about voting fraud to advance political advantages. Politics is politics. I would like to at least not have the constitution working against the will of the people.

Really?
With all of those elected officials subverting and/or ignoring the
Constitution and the law? And still doing that?

One rather nasty example is when Obama bypassed legal contracts
(theft of millions of dollars in bonds) from owners, turning the value
over to the union(s) running GM.

And to be polite, NOBODY did a goddamn thing about it.

Sorry, I don't know exactly which rant this one is. I don't recall hearing about this particular destruction of the Constitution by Obama. Care to explain it so a normal person can understand?

Was not called that, to protect him.
Illegal subversion of commercial contract law.
You do not remember the result: Government Motors?
Give me a break.

Sanitized headlines:
November 18-19, 2008 - GM CEO Rick Wagoner and the CEOs of Ford and
Chrysler appear before Congress to request $25 billion in government
assistance for the automobile industry.
December 2008 - GM receives a bailout of $13.4 billion from the US
Treasury, through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
March 30, 2009 - CEO Rick Wagoner announces that he is resigning at the
request of the Obama administration.
April-May 2009 - General Motors receives another $6 billion in bailouts
from TARP.
May 29, 2009 - GM stock closes at less than $1 a share for first time
since the Great Depression.
June 1, 2009 - GM files for bankruptcy. It receives another $30 billion
in government funding to assist with restructuring. After bankruptcy,
the company will be 60.8% owned by the US government, 11.7% by the
Canadian government, 17.5% by the UAW union and unsecured bondholders
will have a 10% share.

Did Obama save General Motors or did Obama steal General Motors from
the bond holders?
It is plain that bondholders were not treated fairly by the
government’s interference in the normal Chapter 11 process.
People and institutions held GM’s corporate bonds. They bought these
at a time when they were considered a fairly safe investment, though no
investment is perfectly safe.
A lot of ordinary people had retirement funds invested in GM bonds
that had a guaranteed rate of return.
NOTE the word "guaranteed".
Normally in the Chapter 11 process, these people owning bonds would
basically be at the front of the line as GM’s assets were evaluated and
payments made to creditors.
They essentially did own part of the company.
That is what a bond is, a contract where the bondholder invests in
the company, buying into its assets.
As the company was reorganized (with "help" from Obama), the US govt.
was awarded 50% of the company and an obligation for GM to repay $20
billion in loans.
The UAW was given a 39% share of the company in return for forgiving
$10 billion that GM owed to the healthcare fund.
The bondholder got only 10% of the company, a fraction of the money
originally invested by them.
People who had invested a good portion of their savings in GM
received only pennies on the dollar in the settlement.
In a NORMAL Chapter 11 settlement without government involvement,
they would have done far better, but the Obama administration
prioritized the UAW, which had NO ownership stake in GM, over the people
who invested their money in GM.

Outright theft.

Put that in your smoke and pipe it.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Robert Baer]

Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:32:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 8:29:05 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 4:57:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:
Rick C wrote:

Of course. You also make big noise about voting fraud to advance political advantages. Politics is politics. I would like to at least not have the constitution working against the will of the people.

Really?
With all of those elected officials subverting and/or ignoring the
Constitution and the law? And still doing that?

One rather nasty example is when Obama bypassed legal contracts
(theft of millions of dollars in bonds) from owners, turning the value
over to the union(s) running GM.

And to be polite, NOBODY did a goddamn thing about it.

Sorry, I don't know exactly which rant this one is. I don't recall hearing about this particular destruction of the Constitution by Obama. Care to explain it so a normal person can understand?

Robert Baer is channeling James Arthur. When GM folded after the global financial crisis, the government intervention that kept the company running didn't give the share-holders as much compensation as James Arthur thought that they should have got.

Quite why the share-holders (who elected the board of directors who'd run GM so badly that they'd folded) deserved any compensation is a question that you'd have to raise with James Arthur, who is a higher class of right-wing nitwit than Robert Baer, though still not worth paying attention to.

Technically, GM went through bankruptcy, no? When that happens, the shareholders get diddly. Car owners also lost their warranties I believe although they may have done something for partial compensation. So Baer is complaining that he lost money on bonds? Yeah, that happens. That's why the value of bonds goes up and down, at least in part. It is a factor of current interest rates and the perceived risk the bonds will be paid. The rest of his post seems to be a bit of a rant about the Constitution and unions.

SHAREHOLDERS get little or nothing.
BONDHOLDERS are first in line, as they OWNED a part of GM; the bonds
being the LEGAL CONTRACT.

Oh, why did the unions get into the act?
Because Obama owed them for political support (look it up).



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 2:15:18 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:

Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:32:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 8:29:05 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 4:57:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:
Rick C wrote:

Of course. You also make big noise about voting fraud to advance political advantages. Politics is politics. I would like to at least not have the constitution working against the will of the people.

Really?
With all of those elected officials subverting and/or ignoring the
Constitution and the law? And still doing that?

One rather nasty example is when Obama bypassed legal contracts
(theft of millions of dollars in bonds) from owners, turning the value
over to the union(s) running GM.

And to be polite, NOBODY did a goddamn thing about it.

Sorry, I don't know exactly which rant this one is. I don't recall hearing about this particular destruction of the Constitution by Obama. Care to explain it so a normal person can understand?

Robert Baer is channeling James Arthur. When GM folded after the global financial crisis, the government intervention that kept the company running didn't give the share-holders as much compensation as James Arthur thought that they should have got.

Quite why the share-holders (who elected the board of directors who'd run GM so badly that they'd folded) deserved any compensation is a question that you'd have to raise with James Arthur, who is a higher class of right-wing nitwit than Robert Baer, though still not worth paying attention to.

Technically, GM went through bankruptcy, no? When that happens, the shareholders get diddly. Car owners also lost their warranties I believe although they may have done something for partial compensation. So Baer is complaining that he lost money on bonds? Yeah, that happens. That's why the value of bonds goes up and down, at least in part. It is a factor of current interest rates and the perceived risk the bonds will be paid. The rest of his post seems to be a bit of a rant about the Constitution and unions.

SHAREHOLDERS get little or nothing.
BONDHOLDERS are first in line, as they OWNED a part of GM; the bonds
being the LEGAL CONTRACT.

Oh, why did the unions get into the act?
Because Obama owed them for political support (look it up).

Uh, did you read your own post? What did it say on the topic?

--

Rick C.

-+-+- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 12:09:54 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:32:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 8:29:05 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 4:57:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:
Rick C wrote:

Of course. You also make big noise about voting fraud to advance political advantages. Politics is politics. I would like to at least not have the constitution working against the will of the people.

Really?
With all of those elected officials subverting and/or ignoring the
Constitution and the law? And still doing that?

One rather nasty example is when Obama bypassed legal contracts
(theft of millions of dollars in bonds) from owners, turning the value
over to the union(s) running GM.

And to be polite, NOBODY did a goddamn thing about it.

Sorry, I don't know exactly which rant this one is. I don't recall hearing about this particular destruction of the Constitution by Obama. Care to explain it so a normal person can understand?

Robert Baer is channeling James Arthur. When GM folded after the global financial crisis, the government intervention that kept the company running didn't give the share-holders as much compensation as James Arthur thought that they should have got.

Quite why the share-holders (who elected the board of directors who'd run GM so badly that they'd folded) deserved any compensation is a question that you'd have to raise with James Arthur, who is a higher class of right-wing nitwit than Robert Baer, though still not worth paying attention to.

Technically, GM went through bankruptcy, no? When that happens, the shareholders get diddly. Car owners also lost their warranties I believe although they may have done something for partial compensation. So Baer is complaining that he lost money on bonds? Yeah, that happens. That's why the value of bonds goes up and down, at least in part. It is a factor of current interest rates and the perceived risk the bonds will be paid. The rest of his post seems to be a bit of a rant about the Constitution and unions.

--

Rick C.

-+--+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The Federal Government did not follow the procedures of bankruptcy.

Dan

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 2:23:26 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 12:09:54 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:32:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 8:29:05 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 4:57:34 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:
Rick C wrote:

Of course. You also make big noise about voting fraud to advance political advantages. Politics is politics. I would like to at least not have the constitution working against the will of the people.

Really?
With all of those elected officials subverting and/or ignoring the
Constitution and the law? And still doing that?

One rather nasty example is when Obama bypassed legal contracts
(theft of millions of dollars in bonds) from owners, turning the value
over to the union(s) running GM.

And to be polite, NOBODY did a goddamn thing about it.

Sorry, I don't know exactly which rant this one is. I don't recall hearing about this particular destruction of the Constitution by Obama. Care to explain it so a normal person can understand?

Robert Baer is channeling James Arthur. When GM folded after the global financial crisis, the government intervention that kept the company running didn't give the share-holders as much compensation as James Arthur thought that they should have got.

Quite why the share-holders (who elected the board of directors who'd run GM so badly that they'd folded) deserved any compensation is a question that you'd have to raise with James Arthur, who is a higher class of right-wing nitwit than Robert Baer, though still not worth paying attention to.

Technically, GM went through bankruptcy, no? When that happens, the shareholders get diddly. Car owners also lost their warranties I believe although they may have done something for partial compensation. So Baer is complaining that he lost money on bonds? Yeah, that happens. That's why the value of bonds goes up and down, at least in part. It is a factor of current interest rates and the perceived risk the bonds will be paid. The rest of his post seems to be a bit of a rant about the Constitution and unions.

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say if they did anything improper or not. But the obvious question is if they did break the law, why did no one challenge it? If the courts sided with it being all legit, then how can anyone say it was not? In particular you need to be a loon to say it was unconstitutional.

The complaint seems to be that the unions were compensated for the healthcare fund. As I said, I don't know the law on this, but doesn't it make sense if the healthcare fund has priority over the bond holders, etc.?

--

Rick C.

-+-++ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:23:26 AM UTC-7, dca...@krl.org wrote:

> The Federal Government did not follow the procedures of bankruptcy.

Well, not the usual leave-it-up-to-the-court procedure. What they
did instead, was use eminent domain to force a sale, and became investors in
the 'new' company.

Using public money to keep the factories open is NOT 'the procedures
of bankruptcy', but the bank crisis at the same time, made a lot of options
unavailable to bankruptcy court.