Suppression in Belarus

[tadmjones]

34 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

The US government has a lot wrong with it, but it is much more rights-respecting than the Belarus regime.  They are not equivalent.

MAGA consists of people who have let the lying demagogue Trump stir up their emotions to dangerous levels.

 

You are right in that I should have said analogous instead of equivalent, that darn blind emotionalism.

Did you read the report where it says one of their objectives is to get Belarus to adopt ,basically, a digital central bank coin scheme. What's good for Belarus is good for liberal democracy , so it should be good here too yeah ? Nothing says rights respecting like electronic programmable money.

[Doug Morris]

19 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

What's good for Belarus is good for liberal democracy

Who says this?

 

[DavidOdden]

I disagree at the level of fact here. A prelude to an agency writing a regulation is that the agency must first be created by Congress, and be given a location under the executive branch. Without specific empowering legislation, the agency has no power to interpret laws and find someone to be in violation of that law. Everything that the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of State does is an interpretation of a law passed by Congress, and in fact the laws upon which the EPA calls on in a regulation are cited in the Federal Register when the rule is proposed, modified and finalized.

It is a question of fact whether laws passed by Congress are more often prohibitions or allowances / commands: individuals are prohibited from…, the government is allowed / commanded to… Here is what has been passed this year. No new agencies have been created, lots of spending has been authorized, parts of the government have been commanded to do or refrain from doing.

There is a bottom line in Chevron Deference that Congress has to have actually commanded specific action or inaction, it is insufficient that an agency be created “to protect the environment”. Chevron Deference arose because Congress passed a law (42 USC Ch. 85) that purports to prohibited pollution by burdening the “source” of pollution, but failed to define what constitutes being a “source” (radically simplified, read the ruling here). Congress acted and prohibited, and commanded the EPA, and the EPA was only following orders (at the end of the Carter administration, probably not causally related to his subsequent electoral defeat).

I think I will go out on a limb a bit here and claim that no federal agency has ever been created without there also being specific commanded actions, perhaps the Dept. of Foreign Affairs and the Sec'y of State position, created before the Constitution and Congress existed, was sufficiently unspecific. I invite you to identify an Congressional act creating an agency without a specific empowerment. Pretty much by definition, an "agency" can only do what a superior commands them to do. Sure, "State" has been around forever, likewise "Defense" (name changes don't count).

We can easily identify agencies that can be wholesale eliminated. State, Treasury, Defense and Justice are the only legitimate executive branches, Homeland Security is redundant, and the rest simply should not exist at all.

[tadmjones]

2 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Who says this?

 

The State Dept, no ? Shouldn't we assume their objectives involved in Belarus are objectives that will lead to the betterment of the people of Belarus?

[Doug Morris]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

Did you read the report where it says one of their objectives is to get Belarus to adopt ,basically, a digital central bank coin scheme

Where did you see this?

 

[tadmjones]

58 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Where did you see this?

 

Page 14

Objectives 3.1 Linkages

[Doug Morris]

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Objectives 3.1 Linkages

That sentence says "Specifically, it supports Strategic Objective 3.2 and 3.3 on developing coalitions to counter non-market coercive economic practices and collaborating with Europe to create a Transatlantic digital economy."

How did you make the leap from "a Transatlantic digital economy" to "basically, a digital central bank coin scheme"?

 

[Doug Morris]

I googled Transatlantic digital economy and found the following:

With a wave of digital advancements, new security risks and vulnerabilities in critical technologies will continue to emerge, especially given current geopolitical instabilities. The technology may be digital, but the effects are real – the way governments regulate these risks is important. Who will design the rules for this new world, and for whose benefit? How can the EU and the US work together to regulate new technologies and deliver resilience to an increasingly digitalised society?

This does not sound to me like it has anything to do with "basically, a digital central bank coin scheme" or "electronic programmable money".

 

[tadmjones]

11 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

That sentence says "Specifically, it supports Strategic Objective 3.2 and 3.3 on developing coalitions to counter non-market coercive economic practices and collaborating with Europe to create a Transatlantic digital economy."

How did you make the leap from "a Transatlantic digital economy" to "basically, a digital central bank coin scheme"?

 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/money-and-payments-20220120.pdf

[Doug Morris]

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/money-and-payments-20220120.pdf

That document refers to central bank digital currency as something being studied, not something planned.

 

[Doug Morris]

The statism shown in the digital economy quote I posted and in fiat money, including central bank digital currency, is bad, but it is not in the same category as the suppression going on in Belarus.  A government can be guilty of any or all of the former and still be more rights-respecting than one guilty of the latter.

 

[tadmjones]

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

The statism shown in the digital economy quote I posted and in fiat money, including central bank digital currency, is bad, but it is not in the same category as the suppression going on in Belarus.  A government can be guilty of any or all of the former and still be more rights-respecting than one guilty of the latter.

 

So you agree that there is no difference in kind, just degree. That was my point up thread re the Stone arrest. The heavy handed nature of the arrest, the TV coverage live, ect are tools of the regime to frighten and discourage dissent.

Stone was ultimately pardoned after being convicted by the "Mueller investigation" into Trump campaign collusion with Russia, which itself was a proven false charge. There was no collusion and Stone was indicted and convicted on basically process crimes(lying to investigators) as a consequence of the fraud perpetrated on the public by the regime of the permanent state that Trump's election disrupted.

The State Dept report is basically blaming Belarus for doing what we have done domestically, targeting and imprisoning political opponents and dissidents on bogus charges.("J6ers").

The DOJ and the intelligence community lied about Hunter's laptop and coerced private companies into suppressing the information in order to give Biden political advantage in the 2020 cycle.

Biden has labelled Trump supporters as 'extremists', for saying the DOJ and the intelligence community rigged the election in Biden's favor.

 

Edited March 4 by tadmjones

[Doug Morris]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

So you agree that there is no difference in kind, just degree.

There is a difference in kind with respect to which rights are being violated.

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

The State Dept report is basically blaming Belarus for doing what we have done domestically, targeting and imprisoning political opponents and dissidents on bogus charges.("J6ers").

The "J6ers" were insurrectionists trying to interfere with legitimate election certification and orderly transfer of power.  They were guilty of very serious crimes.

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

Biden has labelled Trump supporters as 'extremists', for saying the DOJ and the intelligence community rigged the election in Biden's favor.

Trump and his people made arbitrary assertions, without evidence, of a stolen election.  They knew they were lying.  People who fell for this deserve harsh criticism.  

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

The DOJ and the intelligence community lied about Hunter's laptop and coerced private companies into suppressing the information in order to give Biden political advantage in the 2020 cycle.

What evidence do you have to back this up?

 

[tadmjones]

Voting by mail allows for too many opportunities of 'breaking chain of custody' structures that can be exploited and make fraud harder to prove. At least 37 states changed their voting laws in 2020 in response to covid to allow for wide spread mail in balloting. Worse than arbitrary are the statements from officialdom that claimed the election was the freest, fairest and most transparent election in at least the recent past. One may wonder, objectively ,how many of the court cases that were not allowed to be heard were based on rulings and precedent stemming from past times where in those jurisdictions the historic tabulations were of in person same day voting procedures. Not that the situation proves there was results altering fraud, but strains credulity to suggest that not one instance maybe came close. But if one were allowed to be discovered well.. and what all the swing states stopped counting and then resumed for... reasons..?

$400 +million Zuckbucks financed ballot harvesting occurred and legislation has been passed in most locations where it happened that makes that activity by private monies illegal, going forward. Zuckerberg admits the FBI told him there would be a story close to the election that should be suppressed so he did. We know the FBI told Twitter which people and which stories to suppress during covid and the election and they banned the NY Post for the coverage of the laptop. At the last presidential debate , Biden held up a letter and said :
"Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that
what this, [President Trump’s] accusing me of is a Russian plan.
They have said this this has all the characteristics—four—five
former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a
bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend
Rudy Giuliani."
and major media outlets reported that the emails were most likely Russian disinformation based on the letter. Blinken , who organized and prepared the letter was then appointed Sec of State, do you think the soon to be Sec of State thought the emails on the laptop were fake? It isn't possible for him to think that right ? They are admittedly real , why did he involve himself in such a scheme, what calculation was he making that lead to his decision to participate in such a fraud, if Biden didn't win he'd be in a world of shit from a stunt like that , no ? I know, I know, I'm conspiratorially  minded, but still what a gamble! I hope in Trump's second term he nominates Catherine Austin Fitts for Sec of State , I doubt she would be push even more centralized banking control or CBDCs, lol.

 

 

[Boydstun]

 

Emigration of Belarusian and Russian Academics and Institutions