Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bonefish who wrote (954769)	8/7/2016 2:06:12 PM
From: Broken_Clock	1 Recommendation Recommended By locogringo Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575422

The courts seem confused. If a business owner says no to a gay wedding cake he is punished. If a business owner says no to free speech it's OK.+++++++ Once Again, Libertarian and Green Parties are Denied Participation in Presidential Debates Published: August 7, 2016 Share \| Print This Source: All Gov. A federal judge on Friday shot down the Libertarian and Green parties' claim that they have a legal right to participate in this year's presidential debates. The Libertarian National Committee and the Green Party — and their respective presidential nominees, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein — sued the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee, as well as the Commission on Presidential Debates, or CPD, a nonprofit corporation founded by the RNC and DNC. The minor parties tried to get invited to the privately-sponsored presidential debates in 2012, but were unsuccessful. Johnson sued over his exclusion in October 2012. This time around, the Libertarian and Green Parties claimed that the rules barring their participation in the debates violate antitrust law. U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer disagreed in a 27-page ruling filed Friday morning dismissing the case. "Because plaintiffs have no standing and because antitrust laws govern commercial markets and not political activity, those claims fail as a matter of well-established law," Collyer wrote. "Plaintiffs also allege violations of the First Amendment, but those claims must be dismissed because the First Amendment guarantees freedom from government infringement and defendants here are private parties." The judge said the minor parties' "alleged injuries are wholly speculative and are dependent entirely on media coverage decisions." "The alleged injuries——failure to receive media coverage and to garner votes, federal matching funds, and campaign contributions—were caused by the lack of popular support of the candidates and their parties sufficient to attract media attention," Collyer said. Green Party spokesman Scott McLarty said the party is disappointed with Friday's ruling. "Any candidate who has ballot lines in enough states to win, if enough voters voted for him or her, should be admitted to the debates," he said via email. "That should be the qualification. In 2012, Green nominee Jill Stein was on the ballot in 37 states, enabling 82 percent of voters to vote for her if they chose to do so." McLarty added, "Greens are challenging supporters of Bernie's political revolution to join the demand to allow the Green nominee into the debates. No movement can survive if it participates in the censorship of its own agenda." Ron Nielson, Johnson's campaign manager, also expressed disappointment with the ruling and said, "From an initial look, our legal counsel sees several serious flaws in the court's basis and reasoning." "We are exploring our options, with the firm resolve that this case and the larger issue of fair debates are too important to simply allow such an arbitrary dismissal," Nielson said in a statement. "At the same time, with Gov. Johnson consistently polling in double-digits, we continue to believe that the CPD should make the right and fair decision to invite him to participate in the upcoming debates. There is clearly an unprecedented desire for alternatives to the Republican and Democratic nominees, and voters deserve an opportunity to see and hear that there are, in fact, other credible, serious choices."

To: Bonefish who wrote (954769)	8/7/2016 2:09:26 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575422

Published on Friday, August 05, 2016 by Common Dreams Ex-CIA Chief and Torture Defender Endorses Clinton—Why Are Democrats Cheering? 'Whose endorsement would Democrats not treat as a benefit, at this point? How bad of an actor does someone need to be?' by Nika Knight, staff writer Michael Morell swears in prior to testifying in front of the House Select Intelligence Committee in 2014. (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images) In a New York Times op-ed, former CIA head Michael Morell on Friday endorsed Hillary Clinton by arguing that the former secretary of state is "highly qualified to be commander in chief" because "she will deliver on the most important duty of a president—keeping our nation safe." Morell went on to praise Clinton's "more aggressive approach" to the conflict in Syria and to accuse Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump of being an "unwitting agent of Putin." (Morell doesn't disclose that he currently works for a PR consulting firm run by longtime Clinton ally Phillippe Reines.) Morell has in the past defended torture, most publicly in a book published as a retort to the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the CIA's torture program during George W. Bush's presidency. And while many in the mainstream media have focused uncritically on the op-ed's Putin-phobia, progressives have expressed alarm that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party are not only celebrating an endorsement from a defender of torture, they are actually using such praise from neocons and war hawks to promote Clinton's candidacy: Democrats today will celebrate that ex-CIA Director accuses their opponent of being "an unwitting agent" of Russia t.co — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) August 5, 2016 Democrats LAST WEEK you celebrated yourselves for defending Muslims. Today you champion a man who surveilled, tortured, and imprisoned them. — HR-Compliant Freddie (@freddiedeboer) August 5, 2016 Whose endorsement would Democrats not treat as a benefit, at this point? Dick Cheney? How bad of an actor does someone need to be? — HR-Compliant Freddie (@freddiedeboer) August 5, 2016 Heads of spy agencies, captains of industries, architects of war uniting behind Clinton seems little more fascist than troll scam artist man — Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) August 5, 2016 CIA director endorsement is ok. But as a #HenryOrBuster, l won't vote for Clinton until Kissinger tells me to. t.co — Katie Halper (@kthalps) August 5, 2016 Indeed, earlier this week, the Clinton campaign released an ad in which neoconservatives describe why they will be voting for the former secretary of state in November. Watch: