Bedarf es einer Mehrheit der Staaten also 26? Die bisher teilnehmenden Bundesstaaten haben ca. Davor allerdings meines Wissens nicht. I'm not sure what is talking about. The electoral college does not vote on constitutional amendments or any initiatives, for that matter. It was established for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president of the United States every four years. I am talking about the "National Popular Vote Compact" in which states pledge their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote.
This compact intends to get around the needed constitutional amendment by designating the electoral votes of the participating states according to the result of the popular vote. And there is some expectation that upon becoming effective the Compact might be challenged on constitutional grounds. Yes, I've heard that as well. What's interesting, though, is that there is no national, constitutional requirement as I understand it that dictates how the members of each state's electoral college vote.
The default has been that they cast their votes for the person that won their state. However, there are a couple of states that allow for their votes to be split up. Maine and Nebraska, in what is called the "Congressional District Method. Given that, I would suspect that those who challenge this new method might have a difficult time. I have no idea what the basis of such a challenge could possibly be. The United States Constitution specifies emphasis mine :.
To get back to 's question: electing a president directly would require dismantling the electoral college. And that's a constitutional amendment issue. As far as the electoral college members voting against their states' interests: that's happened before and probably will happen again.
Allerdings emfinde ich es als irgendwie ungerecht, dass das von Staat zu Staat unterschiedlich sein kann. Yes, of course. The "winner-gets-all" concept is ludicrous, imo, because it means that even if one candidate has one single vote more to use an extreme example than the other, he gets all the electoral votes.
Multiply that by several states, and you get someone like Trump. As I understand the argument, the challenge will not be about the right of the states to choose how the electoral college votes are assigned, but the legislation of the Compact which effectively forces a change of how the president is elected without going through the process of ratifying a constitutional amendment. I'm neither hbberlin nor Norbert, but to my mind, that would be very difficult to pull off.
Lots of electors would have to directly vote against their home states. In such a case: why have the electoral college in the first place? Re But as I understand it, from the limited point of view of the US Constitution the way the president is elected would not actually change. The states making changes to the selection of their electors would simply exploit the wiggle room afforded to them by the constitution. That said, I don't see any significant impetus to changing the method of selecting electors in this state.
Wenn man als Einwanderer mit dem System nicht hinreichend zufrieden ist, muss man ja nicht Amerikaner werden. Maybe, but especially in California during presidential elections, there's really no difference if you are or aren't a US citizen. Even if percent of all California voters had voted blue in the last election, it would't have mattered. Of course it's different for local elections. Also, California used to be all red just a few decades ago. Our governator was the last republican, and the state has been getting bluer ever since. And with Trump in office, even Orange County, one of the last hardcore republican counties in the state, has turned blue.
This is exactly what prompted me to apply for American citizenship. In the councilman for my district ran for mayor of San Jose, and I would have liked to support him with my vote, but alas, I was not a citizen. I managed to get naturalized in time for the presidential elections. It would potentially force the electors for one state to vote against the preference of their state if the popular vote decided for the opposing party. This undermines the intention of the electoral college. The intent of the Compact is to get as result the president elected by popular vote while circumventing the need for a constitutional amendment.
A scheme that has electors from a state voting against the will of the majority of the voters in that state might be an impossible sell in state legislatures, so a constitutional challenge seems hypothetical. Proposals to apportion electors proportionally to each party's share of the vote in a state might have a better chance of being passed into state law. Under such a scheme, California would send 34 Democratic and 11 Republican electors, for example, instead of 55 Democratic ones.
I've always thought the electoral college was useless, more so now than ever. I understand about the fear of smaller states getting lost in the shuffle and their votes not counting, but as we've seen twice in 16 years now, it can also negate the most populous states' votes entirely, with the last election seeing a huge discrepancy of almost 3 million votes that basically were flushed down the toilet. I've never seen an election like the last one, for a number of reasons, but most importantly because it literally let a minority of voters dictate to the majority, and this time with imo awful consequences.
The election was bad enough when Al Gore basically lost to a very flawed system and his election was stolen by one state, Florida, and its state courts. I think if we have one more election with similar results in the near future, there will be a constitutional amendment because I don't think people will stand for having the majority silenced like this again. At least I hope they won't. As far as the Compact goes, I don't think it's possible to circumvent a constitutional amendment in the long run.
The Compact makes little sense to me. Someone somewhere above said that the war in Afghanistan is or is about to become the longest war in US history. That is not quite true. The US never signed a peace treaty with North Korea after the Korean war and has therefore been at war with that small impoverished country ever since--and not just technically.
They've never forgiven the Koreans for handing the US colossus its first military defeat. The electoral college was written into the US constitution specifically and deliberately to avoid direct popular democratic election. The idea was the only the educated, wealthy, and propertied classes were qualified to decide who should be president, not the uneducated, boisterous, trouble-making farmers and artisans who made up the majority of the population.
That and similar objections to direct popular vote are heard in the debate today. The two poles in the debate reflect the reality of conflicting interests of social classes. The idea was the sic only the educated, wealthy, and propertied classes were qualified to decide who should be president The role of the electoral college, and the practical impact on candidates' campaigns that arise from it, are and were well known.
Parties can chose their candidates and mobilize prospective voters accordingly. From that perspective I am not sympathetic to complaints about the current system because the outcome of the most recent presidential elections was different than what some people hoped for. I am counting on Mueller's report to tell use what irregularities there might have been. I am likewise not in favor of partisan fiddling with long-standing procedural rules in Washington simply to achieve desired politically outcomes Most recently I heard of Democratic ideas to "pack the court" SCOTUS and my hair stood on end.
I am in favor of serious discussions about the inherent merits of our current election system versus any proposed alternatives, and personally wouldn't be sad if the electoral college were to disappear in due course. That was me, and I already awarded one hundred rubber points in my mind to dude for pointing out that technically, the Korean War is still going on.
What alternative phrase would you prefer: the longest active war? For anyone who might want to read it, here's a fairly interesting article about the "faithless electors":. In a nutshell, small numbers of electors have been "faithless" since the beginning of the electoral college, but so far, they have never been able to actually change an election outcome. That doesn't mean, however, it couldn't happen in the future. Just for the record: the US war against Korea has taken the form of endless war games, naval maneuvers, US troops stationed in the south, threats of nuclear annihilation, and other bellicose acts by both major parties and under all administrations.
So not exactly a peaceful history. It is to be welcomed that the US government has ended its war games and is entering into negotiations and holding out the willingness, finally, to sign a peace accord. That will be hailed in both the north and the south of that country, so long forcefully divided against the will of the people by the US government.
Last try to satisfy the quibblers: The War in Afghanistan is the longest "active shooting war" in the history of this country. So you are saying if it weren't for the US, Korea would be unified. If so, under what government? As someone whose father fled the East German dictatorship, I can tell you that I was happy that the US made sure there wasn't going to be any German reunification before the fall of communism in East Germany. It seems pretty obvious that it was the US that divided Korea and maintained the division, just as it divided Vietnam and just as the allies divided Germany and divvied up Berlin and staked out and divided up the Middle East.
I seem to recall there was quite a bit of debate in Germany on both sides of the dividing line over whether reunification and the US and Allied occupation were good things or not. Aber bei den letzten sieben Wahlen, seit , hat bekanntlich nur einmal ein Republikaner den popular vote gewonnen: Bush bei seiner Wiederwahl Dort ist ein solches Ergebnis wegen mitunter krass unterschiedlicher Stimmgewichte so wahrscheinlich, dass es nicht anders als politisch gewollt sein kann.
Ob das schon reicht? Den Vergleich mit Deutschland verstehe ich nicht; vielleicht funktioniert er auch einfach nicht. Diese Frage stellt sich im Electoral College genauso wie im Bundesrat. Wieviele stimmberechtigte Einwohner brauche ich in Wyoming bzw. In Wyoming kommen nicht mal Genauso: wieviele Einwohner brauche ich, um an einen Bundesratssitz zu kommen? In Bremen kommen auf einen Bundesratssitz ca. RE I understand what you're trying to say, but each of the members of the electoral college has an equal vote. The problem is that an elector from Wyoming etc.
The main problem as I see it is the "winner-takes-all" system that almost all states adhere to. California, for instance, has plenty of republican areas, mainly inland and away from the coast. So it's not like CA is an all-blue state, but because of the current system, the red votes don't count in the presidential election. The same and the reverse are true for all other states: they're all mixed bags. If those votes, red or blue, were represented realistically by the electoral college, I think the picture wold look a lot different.
I haven't researched the statistics, but I think if if each congressional district were represented by an individual elector according to the district's majority vote, the results would reflect the popular vote more closely. And it would avoid the seemingly unsurmountable barrier of a constitutional amendment.
Zum Vergleich: Die Verfassung Kaliforniens wurde bereits mal oder so modifiziert. Ich hatte den entsprechenden Passus aus der amerikanischen Verfassung weiter oben zitiert This is not a new development. Back in the early? There were a lot of Christian radio stations broadcasting in the area and my sister told me the same thing: Israel and the need to support the Jewish state were favorite subjects for talk shows. It was often expressed that the Second Coming couldn't be far off as long as the Jews were in Israel.
My sister and I marveled over this because throughout history Jews were considered poorly by many Christians, as a people who had "gone astray" or worse. Not to mention the centuries of persecution. But to the Bible Belters, Israel and the Jews were their bosom buddies. Go figure. Netanyahu has embraced evangelical support for his right-wing policies, and sees evangelicals as more reliable American allies of Israel than liberal American Jews.
Maybe that seems like a good idea to people who don't live in a gerrmandered state. In Trump won by a whisker. At the state level the gerrymandering is even more pronounced. In , when Democrats won more votes by. That's a good point. I wrote "or" because which model works best or might be most acceptable to voters may differ by state. Even in a gerrymandered state using the correspondence approach would result in a number of electors that is closer to the votes cast than the current winner-takes-all approach.
I take good over perfect any day when achieving a perfect solution seems unrealistic. A little birdie told me that I should mention that the gerrmandered state to which I refer is Michigan. The gerrymandering of Michigan's state legislative and congressional maps is currently a court case. Self-correction: In , they Democrats won more votes by.
Ist doch irgendwie beruhigend, dass es solche Universalexperten gibt. Ein Zitat aus dem Artikel gab mir aber doch zu denken: "But again, what the hell do I know? Also ein Fortschritt? Oh, and Trump was fortunate that his legal team kept him out of giving a deposition, because Muller had a huge collection of loose ends he wanted to clarify by talking to the man himself which likely would have gotten T rex into trouble. Dabei geht es aber nicht um Trump selbst. Was den Vorwurf der Justizbehinderung betrifft, gab es mehrfach die Aussage, dass Trump seine Mitarbeiter aufgefordert hat, Muller abzusetzen, aber die Mitarbeiter haben diese "Anweisung" nicht befolgt und Trump damit vermutlich gerettet.
Was die machen, muss also richtig sein Ist das so?
March, Peggy - als dem Jungstar die Knie zitterten | Musik | SWR4 Rheinland-Pfalz | xijejakusipa.tk
Kann das ein Grund sein, warum die Regierung gerade jetzt an einer Zunahme der Spannungen interessiert ist? Das Trumpl wird sich doch nicht die Gelegenheit entgehen lassen mit seiner Armee rumzuspielen wie andere Leute mit einer Modelleisenbahn. Noch dazu, da ihm niemand aus den Houses in den Arm fallen kann wegen der dortigen Mehrheit der Treu-Doofen. So richtig mutmachend klingt das, was Du schreibst, allerdings nicht. But you think ordinary Americans may have noticed that Bolton and Pompeo might be playing with fire by courting armed conflict in the Persian Gulf?
You think Iran might mean more to the average Trump voter, or non-voting American, than Libya? I like the idea to look forward and look for solutions to avoid a similar crazy situation again later. Let's be honest: if a country in Asia or south America had this Kind of Situation, everybody would say that this is no Democracy. But because it is America, it is OK. Not, it is not! This situation arised because one had to choose between Clinton, who represented the disliked polical continuum and an alternative - ANY alternative would do.
Of course, neither the republicans nor the democrats have any interest in opening the door to new alternatives, but it is a necessity in my opinion. That, plus the fact that the animosity between democrats and republicans is really shocking. I very often see hate, just because people don't share the same ideas!!
EUR-Lex Baza aktów prawnych Unii Europejskiej
PS: one word about electoral college vs. Das ist in den USA der Fall. Das wurde erst in den letzten Jahrzehnten aufgeweicht. Auch in Australien sprach man lange von einem faktischen Zweiparteiensystem. Wenn man weiter sucht, findet man sicherlich weitere Beispiele. Ich gehe aber nicht so weit, dass ich einem Land mit Zweiparteiensystem abspreche, eine Demokratie zu sein.
Wenn ein Partei die Ideen der Mehrheit nicht vertritt, dann muss man das Problem mit Koalitionen umgehen und das finde ich gut. Voraussetzung: ein Machtwechsel ist nicht verhindert. Wenn das Volk keine weiteren Parteien will, warum soll es dann welche geben? Ist das aus Sicht der Iraner nicht sogar irgendwie nachvollziehbar? Was ich aber mitgenommen habe, ist folgendes: Es gab vor gar nicht so langer Zeit einen Aufbruch in der iranischen Gesellschaft, es gab deutliche Fortschritte bei der individuellen Freiheit der Menschen und es herrschte Optimismus. Muss man wirklich soviel Angst vor den Amerikanern haben?
That seemed like a clever point -- except that, as deplorable and pigheaded as Bolton and Netanyahu both are, both of them at least seem barely rational enough not to gratuitously start a war. Knock wood. Die einzigen, die hier in meinen Augen einen Krieg wollen, sind die Amerikaner ev. Einfach zusehen, wie ein ganzes Volk wieder zusammengebombt werden soll. You can thank the Bush for the mess they created. Similarly, the constant struggles and restrictions at the israeli border fuels the hate of arabs and the growth of extremism.
Aber vermutlich bin ich einfach nur naiv ;-. Man sieht meist Haare und geschminkt sind sie auch.
Enhanced features in the News section
Hast Du neuere Informationen, jo-SR? Wenn nicht, dann gehe ich davon aus, dass nach aktuellem Recht ein Mindestalter von 13 Jahren gilt. Das ist auch der Eindruck, den man bekommt, wenn man iranische Filme anschaut. Da ist der Kulturschock bei Filmen z. Hier geht es rein um Ressourcen. Wie immer. Das sind zwei unterschiedliche Paar Schuhe, die man wenigstens versuchen sollte, nicht zu verwechseln!
Freilich wohnt jeder Religion ein Totalitarismus inne, gibt sie doch vor, die Wahrheit zu kennen. Das hat bei den Evangelikalen Tradition. Beide haben eine absolute Hardlineauslegung des Islam einmal Sunna und einmal Shia , die ggf. Saudi Arabien, Bahrain und v. Kurzes P. Fanatische Sikhs machten ihr ein Ende.
Oder Golda Meir in Israel. Re , Das hat aber weniger mit der Region, als vielmehr mit der Religion zu tun. Das Judentum und der Hinduismus halt deutlich weniger. Irgendwie kommen wir zwar gerade etwas vom Hauptthema ab, aber so ist LEO halt. Deshalb erlaube ich mir noch einen Kommentar zum Iran und zu Das mit den iranischen Frauen in den Wissenschaften wurde nach meiner Erinnerung schon mal hier bei LEO thematisiert, aber ich kann es gerade nicht finden. Das beschreibt auch dieser Artikel aud dem Jahr aus der Zeit:. Die letzte Frau die gegen das Trumpl antrat hatte ca.
Stimmen mehr. Ein Wahlrecht aus den Rokoko hat sie um den Sieg gebracht. Danke, traveller! Ich denke mal, dagegen ist niemand gefeit. Eine Mrs. Was sagen die Amerikaner hier im Forum, sehen sie das auch so? Und wenn, warum nicht? Warum denke ich, das eine Frau gewinnen kann? Ich zum Beispiel. BTW "einmal die Woche Vanillepudding" ist ja sowas von rassistisch, wo bleibt denn da der Schokopudding ;-. Alles Schnee von vorgestern. Das hat auch niemand gesagt. Das sehe ich, zumindest von hier aus, in den USA nicht. Es stimmt schon, Hillary Clinton war offensichtlich keine gute Kandidatin.
Das macht es Blendern einfacher, denke ich.
- Max ORell.
- IP-TV - eine neue Technologie im Fernsehmarkt (German Edition).
- JW Winco News;
- Trump-Ära III - Customs and culture: English ⇔ German Forums - xijejakusipa.tk!
- Titelseite ICC Germany-Magazin;
Andererseits ist in amerikanischen Wahlen schon mehr Fokus auf die Kandidaten als z. Das ist so neudeutsch: wer am tollsten reden kann, bekommt den Job. Er scheint weder ein Mann der Tat noch einer des Worts zu sein Unbedingte Zustimmung, was das Ernstnehmen der Warner betrifft. Trump muss sie ja auch nicht bauen, sondern nur gelegentlich ein bisschen Wirbel darum veranstalten, um als harter Bursche und Migrantenschreck dazustehen. Trumpl, Brexit, etc.
Da sind die Reporter auch in den Rustbelt und mittleren Westen gefahren und haben 'kleine Leute' interviewt. Die Frau verdiente im Jahr weniger als Ist schon witzig. Diese wurde aber laut Medienberichten aus Sicherheitsbedenken gestrichen. Am Dienstag werden bis zu CNN gibt.
See But, as the Guardian reported at the time, 21st Century Fox took it off air in the UK in because it was no longer commercially viable. Subsequently Ofcom, the media regulator, ruled that some of its programmes did not comply with UK impartiality rules". According to the official royal website, Buckingham Palace has rooms, including 52 " Royal and guest bedrooms. Ich sehe, Jenna hat es vor Stunden schon eingestellt, aber dieser ganz trauriger Oooooh Moment verdient ein zweites OOoooooooh.
Stattdessen kommen sie im Winfield House unter, einem schmucken, doch viel kleineren Palast, der dem US-Botschafter als Residenz dient. Wobei ich mich schon frage, wie man es schafft, 52 Zimmer gleichzeitig zu renovieren Zwischenzeitlich sollte ich das wahrscheinlich gewohnt sein, aber DT's Umgang mit der Wahrheit ist immer wieder erstaunlich. The big crowds, which the Corrupt Media hates to show, were those that gathered in support of the USA and me. You can search the forum without needing to register.
Comment Thanks for the new thread, Masu. It seems pretty obvious that there's likely to be scope for prosecution, or at least fines. On the other hand, in the more relative world of realpolitik, it could also be good for the Democrats if Trump could clearly receive the comforting impression that they were potentially willing to cut him some slack on issues of personal ethics, in return for more negotiating flexibility on issues of national policy.
I have wondered if something like that -- along with his sinking poll numbers, of course -- could be behind his decision not to fight over the State of the Union. A win-win would actually be for him to get his big moment on camera after a negotiated compromise. And it seems pretty clear that he had originally been perfectly willing to take the negotiated compromise in December, until he was singed by the feedback from the ultra-right-wing media firebrands. If Democrats, of all people, could offer him a little shelter from the storm, why shouldn't he accept an olive twiglet?
He is the only one who could simply speak straight out to his base and say: I'm sorry, we should have been able to pass legislation to build the wall when we had control of both houses of Congress. But we missed the opportunity because we spent our time on tax cuts for the rich and tariffs against China that hurt American farmers. Not that he would put it in exactly those words. We'll try again next time; but in the meantime, let's take the money the Democrats are offering for increasing staffing and technology on the border, since that's what will make the greatest dent in drug smuggling.
It would help even more if the hitherto spineless Texas senators Cruz and Cornyn could simply acknowledge that there is absolutely no majority in support of wall building, even in our right-wing-dominated state, which is partly why the wall bills didn't pass even under total Republican control. Our border is the river, so anywhere you build a wall, you have issues of eminent domain and federal seizure of private property, often miles away from the actual border.
That doesn't go over well with conservatives, who would formerly have fought tooth and nail to defend property rights, farms that have been in families for generations. And can I just mention the butterflies? Since you mention Clinton: yes, it could be considered rational to agree to overlook misbehavior, even illegality, that was relatively minor in the larger scheme of things -- that is, that did not itself directly threaten the constitutionality of the federal government.
As invidious as tax evasion and lying to the IRS are, and as immoral and disgusting as sexual harassment is, it could be argued that both are relatively unspectacular, and in fact not uncommon, compared with aiding and abetting a foreign government to throw a US election, or even looking the other way for reasons of personal enrichment. So yes, I could absolutely understand if the Democrats chose for tactical reasons to hold off on some of these fronts in the short term, in part to make Trump feel less under attack and hopefully more willing to consider passing legislation.
But in order for them to do that, they would need some signals from him that he was willing to be more flexible in this new environment, with a House that he needs to pass any spending measures. In the meantime, yes, the Mueller investigation is the really serious issue, including whether a full report will ever be released to the public.
Even though only a very tiny fraction of the general public seems to be following that topic at all. Trump seems right to be confident that most US citizens simply don't care. But so far, I've been a little encouraged by the impression that Mueller and his cohort, perhaps taking Comey as an example, seem to be already operating with a backup plan in place, and a backup to the backup. Their investigation probably has indeed already included a lot of financial records, and my impression is that they're sharing those records back and forth with New York prosecutors, who are the ones who might eventually take him to court on tax evasion or whatever, after he's out of office.
That New York southern district US attorney's office is no pushover. I don't see them agreeing just to drop the case. On a parallel track, there are also groups such as those affiliated with Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig that are busy accumulating evidence for possible legal cases, of the more serious kind including influence from foreign governments. I don't think those challenges are just going to go away, either. Or at least, that's the only way I can continue to feel slightly hopeful. Comment I wonder Comment At least some in the media have their eyes on that situation -- or at least something related to that.
As indicated, I've seen this somewhere, but I haven't verified it. Caveat emptor! Ich meine, ein Monatsgehalt weniger ist schon heftig, aber zwei oder gar drei? Comment Not sure if this applies, but pay periods in the US are usually two weeks, not one month. As much as I feel for the contractors, I'm not sure it's a good precedent to pay them retrospectively for not doing anything. But on the other hand, it would be good to have a record of the actual social cost of shutting down the government for a month.
Comment I, too, was a bit surprised to hear that. Comment Ola, Norbert. Not sure what the difference is between every two weeks and twice a month; at any rate, twice rather than once a month was what I was trying to get at. Comment Sorry, I didn't mean to water down your point that workers are not paid once a month, just tweak the details a bit. Comment I have no idea whether there actually is some sort of plan.
Comment As far as I am ware, no speculation required: that was the Republican's original game plan for Comment I think it's absolutely true that, while there are some responsible fiscal conservatives and moderates in both parties, many Republicans do want to use the national debt as an excuse to make drastic cuts to domestic social programs to which they are philosophically opposed -- not only 'entitlement' programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but also health and safety regulations, scientific and medical research, higher education, you name it.
If they ever appeared to be more open to cutting out-of-date-and-over-budget ultra-high-tech planes and weapons systems, subsidies to owners of large industrial farms, tax incentives to drivers of steel-heavy gas-guzzling vehicles, etc. I say not literally balanced because borrowing money isn't inherently evil; in fact, it's the way growth works in capitalism. Companies borrow money to make large capital investments, which in turn generate income at a rate sufficient to repay the loan and make a net profit.
Properly managed, government can borrow money too, and good investments in research, development, and infrastructure can then generate enough tax revenue to cover the cost of borrowing, as long as you don't cut taxes so drastically as to starve the government of revenue. Paul Krugman makes the point that as long as interest rates are relatively low, it can be cost-effective to borrow. I'm not an economist or a business expert, but that seems reasonable to me. However, I agree that Trump's spending seems impulsive, i. And his record of flirting dangerously with bankruptcy in the private sector does not speak at all well of his ability to plan and budget.
So Norbert, your point about the debt-to-GDP ratio also seems well worth paying attention to. On another front: It was interesting to me that there was actually bipartisan support for the recent resolution rebuking his impulsive foreign-policy announcement about ISIS, and there has been bipartisan outrage over the Khashoggi case and bipartisan insistence on holding the Saudis accountable.
But resolutions and outrage are cheap and easy. The prospects of passing actual legislation seem limited, with divided government and an election year looming. Watching C-Span which I do more now, thanks in no small part to Norbert's recommendation , I happened across this panel discussion on the Middle East. The experts who had recently visited Saudi Arabia were actually very encouraged by the comparatively rapid pace of social change under MBS, and reported that many Saudis they talked to felt aggrieved that the admittedly awful Khashoggi case was getting so much more media attention than the positive developments.
And that awfulnesses of the Iranian regime, such as attempts to assassinate dissidents in western Europe, had gotten almost no media coverage. One of them, Dennis Ross, was also concerned about Iran, not because of the nuclear deal, which they still seem to be adhering to, but because in place of nuclear weapons they seem to be developing other larger missiles and to be increasingly willing to deploy and test them.
He reported that Iran was consolidating its presence on Syrian army bases and that Hezbollah had moved into southern Lebanon, and that a large Iranian missile had recently been fired at an Israeli ski area Mt. In this instance the Israeli missile defense program Iron Dome had shot it down, but if Iran persisted in such attacks, Israel would be compelled to attack missile sites in Syria and elsewhere, which could quickly escalate into a full-fledged war. I can't summarize the whole discussion, but I found it quite interesting.
But I am also very sad that this type of substantive analysis is now almost completely absent on terrestrial TV, not only commercial network news NBC with its nightly shock cell-phone videos -- car crash! Charlie Rose, whatever his faults, used to at least occasionally have knowledgeable people like Ian Bremmer. Christiane Amanpour hardly ever does, or she interrupts them and cuts their clips down to the bare minimum, so as to move on to a movie star.
I thought we passed that threshold long ago. RE Yes, definitely. Well, wow, Norbert. I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, you stole my line! Comment I am curious. Comment Watt mutt, datt muitt! One can only ask, "What's next? Comment wupper That happened quite some while ago, I think? Comment Of course.
That happened quite some while ago, I think? Comment But the U. Comment We are also still at war with North Korea, at least officially, since no peace treaty was ever signed nor peace declared in an official capacity, only an armistice. Comment Yes. What about North Korea? But dude beat me to it. Comment Wars and their follow-up costs!
Comment According to forbes below - 5 Trillion. Comment I don't think it is very useful to just focus I would call it "fixate" on a certain number, like the debt-to-GDP ratio, without taking into account other factors like the structure of the debt. To get back to the original issue of the behavior of CBP and other federal agents Comment I agree one should not focus on just one number.
Comment Surely there is no one who is gung-ho about keeping high troop levels in Afghanistan indefinitely. But on the other hand, speaking so openly of pulling out, right when we are or the Afghan army is losing more and more ground, has obviously only emboldened the Taliban to try to seize yet more territory to strengthen their negotiating position and force their way back into government. In the meantime, there is at least one demographic group that is continuing to benefit from the US presence: namely, Afghan women and girls, who are at least getting some of the educational spending that we so sorely miss at home.
That's not nothing, though it's probably also not remotely enough to last if we leave prematurely. Without any history of education and development, as in Germany and Japan in the 20th century, it probably takes more than a half generation to counteract the centuries of tribal patriarchy and warlordism, which is indeed founded on the oppression and subjugation of women, just as it is throughout the Middle East. I largely agree with wupper's point that we are overdue for investment in education, not to mention health care and infrastructure.
Conservatives would say we can leave all that domestic spending to private companies, but unless companies are carefully regulated to require them to serve everyone equally, that approach has historically made the rich richer and the poor poorer. But investment in war is also not without domestic benefits -- to the military itself, in the form of a blank checkbook for indefinite expansion; to all the private 'contractors' read: mercenaries and spies doing jobs that used to be done by the military; to weapons manufacturers and dealers, including aerospace technology; and to other scientific research in areas like computers, medicine, and even clean power generation, that may later benefit civilian life.
All those parties have a stake in the continuation of war, indeed, in war as the unquestioned status quo. Some of that surely plays a role in why, even when most Americans would rather not see the US entangled in endless conflict, it becomes so hard to withdraw from it in any way that can be regarded as even moderately successful. A more rational approach would be to eventually replace US troops with peacekeepers from more neutral nations, but there's a chronic lack of funding for peacekeeping at the UN, made worse by the current administration, and a not very positive history of less than competent UN troops from smaller, less developed countries.
It's even worse when the military becomes an integral part of the government, as in Egypt and indeed Venezuela, wrapped up in the entire corrupt economy. Oliver Peltzer, Prof. Wie kann dies funktionieren? Die Wirtschaft muss auch deutlich machen, dass ihre wirtschaftlichen Gewinne zum Wohlstand der Gesellschaft beitragen. Andreas Klasen Quo vadis Freihandel?
Oliver Peltzer und Prof. Szesny Durchsuchung von Kanzleien Dr. Matthias Schlingmann und Dr. Tilman Niedermaier Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit und Energiewende Dr. Dennis Kretschmann und Dr. Internationale Handelskammer Wilhelmstr. ICC Germany: Was muss jetzt getan werden?
Nun muss die Wirtschaft — sehr viel schneller als sie es bisher getan hat — darauf reagieren. Es geht nicht darum, dass wir zu wenige Studien zur Globa- lisierung haben. Aber Protektio- nismus zahlt sich nicht aus.
News (copy 1)
Damit wurden rund 1. Diesem Vertrauensvor- schuss sollten wir gerecht werden. Sunil Mittal: Der Wandel der Welt vollzieht sich so rasant, dass nicht jeder damit Schritt halten kann. Das hat man im US-Wahlkampf oder beim Brexit gesehen. Die Projekte sind auf maximal drei Seiten mit einem detaillierten Konzeptplan, den ange- strebten Zielen, Zeitplan und gegebenenfalls weiteren relevanten Informationen auf Englisch darzustellen.
Informations- und Sensibilisierungskampagnen oder Mentoring- und Weiterbildungsangebote vorstellen. Wir sollten sie nutzen, es steht viel auf dem Spiel — ein Teil unseres Wohlstandes. Jahrhundert genutzt werden. Als Erfolg ist zu verbuchen, dass die G20 gemeinsame Worte zum Handel gefunden haben. Sie gibt einen Rahmen vor, wie gegen Dumping vorgegangen werden kann. Deutschland war mit Ausfuhren von rund Mrd. Ein Indiz: Ihr Kreis wuchs auf Mitglieder an. Streitigkeiten wurden friedlich beigelegt.
Und viele Menschen weltweit wurden aus Armut befreit. Die Auch die Chemie erwartet in Bezug auf das von uns vorgeschlagene Chemiezolleliminierungs-Abkommen keine direkten Fortschritte. Jahrhundert gesetzt werden. Wir haben keine Zeit zu verlieren. Globaler Handel und die sog. Handel mit Dienstleistungen Obwohl die Wirtschaft mehr Offenheit im Dienstleistungssektor fordert, gab es seit der Uruguay-Runde keine substanziellen Fortschritte.
Handelsbarrieren werden nicht abgebaut und nehmen in einigen Bereichen z. Dienstleistungen Auch wenn TISA nicht zum Abschluss gebracht werden konnte, innerstaatlicher Liberalisierungsschritte wurden eine Reihe eingeleitet bzw. Zukunft des Welthandels Quo vadis Freihandel? Stillstand oder neue Pfade? Heutige Verfahren umfassen zudem Themen wie den Schutz von Delfinen. Seine Forschungsschwer- punkte liegen in den Bereichen Handelspolitik und staatliche Finanzie- rungsinstrumente. Gleichzeitig erweisen sich internationale Regeln und Institutionen jedoch als erstaunlich belastbar.
Die Welthandelsorganisation hat dies in vielen Bereichen gezeigt. Ihre Herausforde- rung ist nun, den Stillstand mit einer wiedererstarkten m o c. Doch der Weg ans Ziel ist lang. Es gibt keinen Zentralserver und jeder Beteiligte hat dieselben Daten. Auf dem Konnossement sind sowohl die Ware selbst beschrieben als auch die Transportbedingungen dargelegt. Diese Wertpapiere sind nur im Original werthaltig und es kann keine Kopie eines Wertpapiers erstellt werden. Der Verfrachter bzw. Rechtliche Anpassungsnotwendigkeiten Die rechtliche Einordnung der Blockchain-Technologie steht allerdings noch am Anfang.
Wenn es zu einem Datenver- lust in einer Blockchain kommt, stellt sich die bisher unbeantwortete Frage nach der zivilrechtlichen Verantwortlichkeit aller involvierten Mitglieder von Blockchains. Damit werden aber alle Effizienzvorteile der Blockchain-Technologie aufgehoben. Mit Blockchains sind Marktteilnehmer nun in der Lage, die Grundvor- aussetzungen von Wertpapieren, u. Es bedarf aber auch der rechtlichen Einordnung, die nur durch einen Gesetz- geber erfolgen kann.
Nationale Gesetzgeber sind aufgerufen, sich der zahlreichen offenen Rechtsfragen zu widmen. Sind Sie interessiert und haben gute Ideen? Thomas Probst: Blockchain kann die Transaktions- zeiten von Tagen bis zu einer Angelegenheit von Sekunden reduzieren und beseitigt die verschiedenen Overhead- und Zwischenkosten, die den aktuellen Dokumentenhandel mit Waren belasten. Hier kann etwa eine Bank bei der Sammlung erster Erfahrungen hilfreich sein.
Thomas Probst: Verschiedene Banken, u. Dem Mustervertrag liegt die Annahme zugrunde, dass die Vertragsparteien beide Formularteile, also konkrete Vertragsbestim- mungen und allgemeine Vertragsbestimmungen, nutzen, da jeweils der eine Teil zugleich im Hinblick auch auf den anderen Teil formuliert wird. ISBN: , , ca. Tobias Eckardt, E-Mail: eckardt ahlers-vogel. Attraktiv sind Finanztransfers in Offshore-Jurisdiktionen, die sich durch laxere strafrechtliche, kapitalmarkt- und bankauf- sichtsrechtliche Regulierung, liberale steuerliche Rahmenbedingungen sowie ein strenges Bank- geheimnis auszeichnen.
Mit dem am Mai ABl. Zu erfassen sind z. Diese Daten sind zu dokumentieren und auf dem aktuellen Stand zu halten. The theme of finding out who you are is evident in each of the different narrators on the chapters o The title caught my eye. It seems like a good idea for someone starting low carb to have a menu and Love love love this series!
Overall a pretty good book. First chapter of the book is dedicated to talking about the wardrobe bas Peggy Bird has done a wonderful job bringing her characters to life in and around the art scene of P Unfortunately, this story begins with Clay and Elliott Cooper standing over Matt's grave.