When you realize you’re wrong, let us know, willya? Save some typing in the meanwhile.
As I explained, by ruling in an unconstitutional fashion. There is more to democracy than voting for a President. If the other branches are rendered powerless by the executive, that’s not democracy, that’s fascism.
But a foreign-sponsored military dictatorship, now that’s ruling constitutionally!
Damn, son …
More specifically. Contards say that about Obama, after all, it’s meaningless without more. Please find and quote something in that Wiki article that I helpfully linked for your perusal, that constitutes “ruling in an unconstitutional fashion,” in terms of Chile’s constitution at the time.
The judical branch said he was, unanimously. The Chamber said he was and called on the military to restore order. The country was in chaos. I’m not sure what other evidence you need.
I need specific acts on his part and cites for their illegality.
I’m not going to cite you Chilean law from 1972. Now you’re just filibustering. This is what the Chamber said in its resolution:
The resolution declared that the Allende Government sought “. . . to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the State . . . [with] the goal of establishing a totalitarian system”, claiming it had made “violations of the Constitution . . . a permanent system of conduct.” Essentially, most of the accusations were about the Socialist Government disregarding the separation of powers, and arrogating legislative and judicial prerogatives to the executive branch of government. Finally, the resolution condemned the creation and development of government-protected armed groups, which . . . are headed towards a confrontation with the armed forces. President Allende’s efforts to re-organize the military and the police forces were characterised as notorious attempts to use the armed and police forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks.
Now you can choose to disbelieve the elected legislature’s allegations if you want, but at the same time, you are obligated to be just as skeptical of Allende’s.
I got the idea last week when I received a campaign donation solicitation from her. I returned the form sans $ and wrote on it that I was for Liz Warren for POTUS, with HRC for veep.
Today I got a solicitation from Al Franken, the latest recipient of the list with my name and address on it. I have given up all pol contributions except for the checkoff on my tax return(s).
Her new book reads like a campaign platform, too.
As for now, she certainly isn’t *not *running.
Hopefully she does run. Clinton’s polling great and I’m sure Republicans are as unhappy to face her as many Democrats are to run her. Warren can beat Clinton, because, well, anyone to her left can beat her in a primary. She just doesn’t seem to know how to make the case, all she knows how to do is play not to lose.
That might be enough if she gets through the primaries. The Republicans seem to pull every trick in the book trying to lose – they really know how to make the case that people should be afraid of them being President.
Here’s some Warren-news: Senate Pubs having filibustered her student-loan reform bill, Elizabeth Warren is thinking of going to Kentucky to campaign for Alison Lundergan Grimes to unseat McConnell.
That bill is not reform, nor does it side with the billionaires. Wow she’s getting Bachmann-crazy.
Reform is not making debt easier to get and easier to shoulder. That’ll just cause even more problems and cost the taxpayers money when those chickens come home to roost.
Secondly, the government took over the student loan industry. So if anything, the Republicans sided with the government against students, or more accurately, with the taxpayers against students.
Warren could get past the Cherokee thing and claim to be the Last Daughter of Krypton and she’d be barely one percent as crazy as Bachmann.
If much lower interest rates are available on the Holy Free Market, which they are, then yes, it is. Aren’t you guys supposed to be in favor of that stuff?
And meanwhile college grads have a chance of paying off those loans before they die. Certainly *they *would call it reform.
Yes, always with dividing people and pitting one group against another, isn’t it, with them? Students (actually graduates would be a much more accurate term, you might get your facts straight) ARE taxpayers, and many, many taxpayers ARE graduates and students.
But, it’s a Democratic-sponsored bill, with majority support, so naturally it has to be blocked like any other, hmm? Sad, as always, sad.
In a free market, students would be charged higher debt, especially the ones not likely to pay it back.
Does the bill only apply to graduates? How about graduates with useless degrees who don’t make any money? And it’s Warren dividing people, in this case making up a group as opposing the bill when there’s no evidence that billionaires care about this issue one way or the other.
Again, she just made stuff up to foster division. That’s what crazy people do.
It’s looting the taxpayers. True reform would be to allow students(and taxpayers) to clear their debt through bankruptcy. Debts to the government should not receive special consideration. All should be dischargeable if the person is truly unable to pay.
No, the Republicans are siding against the taxpayers, here. The government does have an obligation to taxpayers, but that obligation is not to make taxes as low as possible. Rather, their obligation is to make sure tax dollars are spent as wisely as possible, and there are few ways to spend tax dollars wiser than helping people get educations.
I would hope you’d be able to see the problem with letting fresh graduates simply shed their debt load and have a clear credit rating before they’d even need one. Who wouldn’t do that? Nobody would ever pay for school again.
It’s also puzzling that you don’t think paying nothing via bankruptcy would be “looting the taxpayers”, while paying them only market-rate interest would be. It’s almost as if you don’t quite think any of these things out before posting them.
Yes, well, the reason it’s not that way is that (1) Congress (i.e., the government/creditor) makes those rules and (2) letting people discharge debts to the government through bankruptcy is also “looting the taxpayers.” Think about it.
It’s the same thing with sovereign immunity, the doctrine that the state cannot be sued for liability claims in its own courts, or, as they say in the British common-law system, “Wrongs do not run against the King.” In most states sovereign immunity has been to some degree abrogated by legislation (but there’s usually a statutory cap on recoverable damages). Some (including my colleagues in the plaintiffs’ personal-injury bar, who sometimes handle cases where the tortfeasor is a public agency) say SI should be abolished entirely, it has no legitimate place in a democratic system, “We do not have a king!” But, if that seems like a no-brainer, consider that to sue the state is ultimately to sue the taxpayers, which is to sue the voters; so it’s not exactly an easy sell politically.