Hillary won more votes for President

gimmesometruth27 said:

g under p said:

You know lawyers they look out for each other.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/27/hillary-clinton-loves-idea-obama-supreme-court/

Peace

i for one would welcome this appointment.

that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

g under p said:

You know lawyers they look out for each other.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/27/hillary-clinton-loves-idea-obama-supreme-court/

Peace

i for one would welcome this appointment.

that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.

I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

1. So, analysts set a forecasted profit margin and the stock price is set for that ... so, corporations are beholden to meet those margins ... so, what do they do in order to try and meet them? ... they cut costs (could be labour, could be screwing over partners, could be using cheaper materials, could be sourcing from suspect suppliers) ... think about it for a second ... nowhere in that stock price is the consideration of protecting our natural resources, ensuring fair wages, ensuring human rights ... it is indeed fucked up ... the system is extremely fucked up ...

2. I know about these ... they are a joke ... they represent a nano fraction of the investment community and even that - most of these funds are laden with unsustainable companies ...

That's an interesting paradox. You want there to be some valuation for social responsibility, but you deride those companies that try to achieve that as unsustainable.

it's not a paradox whatsoever ... do you own any of these funds!? ... do a semi-deep dive and look at the companies ...

ultimately, it's not about these funds or any other ... it's about an economic and societal system that factors in externalities that currently are not factored into the equation ... you can't operate within a model that is both dependent on our natural resources but not yet factor in the preservation of those resources ... right now - we are supposed to believe that things are great if an oil company can produce as much oil as possible for as little as possible ... nothing in that valuation considers the impacts of pollution, global warming, destroyed ecosystems or the like ... how is that a good model?

Well that's the beauty of a fund. It's not about the individual company and you have a money manager for that. But I'm surprised you are down on the SRI's when all the evidence I can find and the analysis shows that they have performed almost identically to the S&P in the long term. Here is a 'consumer friendly' read on it: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/socially-responsible-investing-has-beaten-the-sp-500-for-decades-2015-05-21 and here is a more detailed analysis http://www.ussif.org/performance

As far as your chief complaint, here is the great thing about America... if you really care about the environment, employee relations, charitable work, etc., there is information and FREEDOM to invest in the companies that best represent your value system. The information is available for you. I would guess you would never invest in Exxon regardless of what its P/E ratio is. By contrast, if you don't give a shit about those things, you have the option to invest purely based on PE, beta, ROI, EPS, whatever metric you want.

But if enough people care about it and start making it a factor in their investment decisions, and this manifests into decisions by institutional investors, who by far are the ones that move the market, then every company will start incorporating this information into their investment calls. That's how it happens.

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

g under p said:

You know lawyers they look out for each other.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/27/hillary-clinton-loves-idea-obama-supreme-court/

Peace

i for one would welcome this appointment.

that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.

I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

Me too, but it seems to be a moot point. Obama already said that he's not interested in being a judge after his presidency.

He is going to fulfill his dream of being a cage fighter.

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

g under p said:

You know lawyers they look out for each other.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/27/hillary-clinton-loves-idea-obama-supreme-court/

Peace

i for one would welcome this appointment.

that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.

I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

1. So, analysts set a forecasted profit margin and the stock price is set for that ... so, corporations are beholden to meet those margins ... so, what do they do in order to try and meet them? ... they cut costs (could be labour, could be screwing over partners, could be using cheaper materials, could be sourcing from suspect suppliers) ... think about it for a second ... nowhere in that stock price is the consideration of protecting our natural resources, ensuring fair wages, ensuring human rights ... it is indeed fucked up ... the system is extremely fucked up ...

2. I know about these ... they are a joke ... they represent a nano fraction of the investment community and even that - most of these funds are laden with unsustainable companies ...

That's an interesting paradox. You want there to be some valuation for social responsibility, but you deride those companies that try to achieve that as unsustainable.

it's not a paradox whatsoever ... do you own any of these funds!? ... do a semi-deep dive and look at the companies ...

ultimately, it's not about these funds or any other ... it's about an economic and societal system that factors in externalities that currently are not factored into the equation ... you can't operate within a model that is both dependent on our natural resources but not yet factor in the preservation of those resources ... right now - we are supposed to believe that things are great if an oil company can produce as much oil as possible for as little as possible ... nothing in that valuation considers the impacts of pollution, global warming, destroyed ecosystems or the like ... how is that a good model?

Well that's the beauty of a fund. It's not about the individual company and you have a money manager for that. But I'm surprised you are down on the SRI's when all the evidence I can find and the analysis shows that they have performed almost identically to the S&P in the long term. Here is a 'consumer friendly' read on it: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/socially-responsible-investing-has-beaten-the-sp-500-for-decades-2015-05-21 and here is a more detailed analysis http://www.ussif.org/performance

As far as your chief complaint, here is the great thing about America... if you really care about the environment, employee relations, charitable work, etc., there is information and FREEDOM to invest in the companies that best represent your value system. The information is available for you. I would guess you would never invest in Exxon regardless of what its P/E ratio is. By contrast, if you don't give a shit about those things, you have the option to invest purely based on PE, beta, ROI, EPS, whatever metric you want.

But if enough people care about it and start making it a factor in their investment decisions, and this manifests into decisions by institutional investors, who by far are the ones that move the market, then every company will start incorporating this information into their investment calls. That's how it happens.

well ... firstly, you completely missed my point on your socially responsible funds ... it isn't their performance - it's actually which companies qualify in these funds ... mining, oil and gas ... the criteria is loose and it's all based on self-reporting and we all know corporations cannot be trusted to be truthful ... it's essentially buying diet soda ... you may think it's good for you but in reality it's crap ...

secondly, I've mentioned in other threads that our true medium for change is not gov't but in fact our choices with our consumer spending ... so, I'm already doing that ... but I also have the luxury of being able to afford the choices I make in that regard for my necessities ...

lastly - all of the above doesn't change the fact that not only is the game rigged ... it's objective is faulty ... the current game is based on people exploiting and sacrificing other people in order to get to the top of a mountain no one needs to be on ... when really the game's objective is that we all can live in peace in perpetuity ...

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

g under p said:

You know lawyers they look out for each other.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/27/hillary-clinton-loves-idea-obama-supreme-court/

Peace

i for one would welcome this appointment.

that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.

I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.

I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).

Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.

Right, and at least half the time, those voted in are not qualified to do the job.

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

g under p said:

You know lawyers they look out for each other.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/27/hillary-clinton-loves-idea-obama-supreme-court/

Peace

i for one would welcome this appointment.

that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.

I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.

I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).

Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.

Right, and at least half the time, those voted in are not qualified to do the job.

Which ones?

All of the ones who vote not in line with the Constiution, but in line with their own personal beliefs based on bigotry and religion. Take you pick. Let's start with Scalia.

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

g under p said:

You know lawyers they look out for each other.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/27/hillary-clinton-loves-idea-obama-supreme-court/

Peace

i for one would welcome this appointment.

that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.

I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.

I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).

Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.

Right, and at least half the time, those voted in are not qualified to do the job.

Which ones?

All of the ones who vote not in line with the Constiution, but in line with their own personal beliefs based on bigotry and religion. Take you pick. Let's start with Scalia.

Scalia is a strict constructionist. I don't think this is a fair assessment. Most progressives and liberals do not believe in this legal theory but it's actually more in line with the Constitution.

Not his votes. Not others either, sometimes. I.e. some of them want to let the public vote on certain human rights issues and try to claim that such things are not in the constitutional realm. That's fucking sick, and I consider that they are not doing their jobs properly if that is their attitude. If that's how they think, I consider them unqualified to be SCOTUS justices.

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJ_Soul said:

Degeneratefk said:

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

g under p said:

You know lawyers they look out for each other.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/27/hillary-clinton-loves-idea-obama-supreme-court/

Peace

i for one would welcome this appointment.

that would be amazing. one of the smartest and most progressive presidents in recent history. perfect.

I'd like to see him earn his stripes on the Federal Circuit for a bit. He's a smart guy, but I have no idea what kind of judicial chops he's got. He's book smart, he's got wisdom and experience. He should do well. But I'd like to see him render some opinions, see how his rulings stand up to appeal, etc... before he gets appointed to the highest seat in the land. I get the cult of personality around him, and much of it is well deserved, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

I agree. I'm not so sure that just because you're a president, that you are qualified to be a SCJ. Yes, I know he's a lawyer, but he's never been a judge, to my knowledge.

I don't actually see how that matters. Since when we're people so concerned about a SCOTUS judge being qualified?? Half of them just rely on their subjective, biased opinions and religious beliefs when making decisions anyway. Doesn't seem to me like them being qualified to do the job right has even occurred to most people, or they were selected precisely because they weren't going to do the job right. Compared to some of the a-holes sitting on that bench now, Obama is more than qualified to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. (But again, he clearly stated just recently that he has no interest in doing so).

Since when we're people concerned about qualifications? Every time one is nominated. Every time one is nominated, they have to be voted in by congress.

Right, and at least half the time, those voted in are not qualified to do the job.

Which ones?

All of the ones who vote not in line with the Constiution, but in line with their own personal beliefs based on bigotry and religion. Take you pick. Let's start with Scalia.

Scalia is a strict constructionist. I don't think this is a fair assessment. Most progressives and liberals do not believe in this legal theory but it's actually more in line with the Constitution.

Not his votes. Not others either, sometimes. I.e. some of them want to let the public vote on certain human rights issues and try to claim that such things are not in the constitutional realm. That's fucking sick, and I consider that they are not doing their jobs properly if that is their attitude. If that's how they think, I consider them unqualified to be SCOTUS justices.

I guess I was thinking about it in more black & white terms rather than whether you agree with their jurisprudence. For example, Ivanka Trump would be wholly unqualified to be the Surgeon General. Someone who has never been to law school would be unqualified in my mind for the SCOTUS (although I think it has happened before).

Oh, yes, sorry. I didn't mean they aren't technically qualified, as in their resumes are missing law degrees and whatnot, haha. I do think that they should be very well educated in law. I meant unqualified as far as their ideas about how to do that job go. I consider that a purposeful miscarriage of justice, which I think makes them unqualified to do the job.