October 2019 revolution - What would be the perfect outcome?

Danny Z

Danny Z

Legendary Member
Exactly... I think they have too much at stake to pack up and leave... now I also read that it’s for 1 year only which doesn’t make sense...
If this is truly the case then it’s like a one time settlement or discount...
they said they want 3 billion of them, I am not sure what their profits are, the public numbers of debt entertainment should be available, also not sure how much of it is debt to local banks and debt to international banks, international banks will not pay more, why should they and how can they force them and they actually do not have a big stake in Lebanon anyway but local banks might be over their head, these numbers are not readily available to know if they can get 3 billion in one year and then what, privatize and sell the cellphone companies to get more money, what is the wrong term plans, innou he pulled a rabbit in 72 hours, I am not sure they looked at long term options.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Mistletos

    Mistletos

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    they said they want 3 billion of them, I am not sure what their profits are, the public numbers of debt entertainment should be available, also not sure how much of it is debt to local banks and debt to international banks, international banks will not pay more, why should they and how can they force them and they actually do not have a big stake in Lebanon anyway but local banks might be over their head, these numbers are not readily available to know if they can get 3 billion in one year and then what, privatize and sell the cellphone companies to get more money, what is the wrong term plans, innou he pulled a rabbit in 72 hours, I am not sure they looked at long term options.
    Most of our debt (80% is the top of mind number) is owned by local banks... the 3 billion can be a write off for the service of the debt for 1 year... the privatisation I think is the wrong long term solution - but that’s just me... in term of long term stuff, electricity stands out: if they finalise the bloody process and get a fast 24/7 solution (aka ships) then it is very possible to write off c. 2billion In increased debt each year. The cutting of 50% of income to current and previous ministers and MPs also. Finally, to a smaller scale, cancelling 70% of the budgets of the majeliss, some wizarat etc... can be long term but depend very much on who comes next...
     
    Danny Z

    Danny Z

    Legendary Member
    Most of our debt (80% is the top of mind number) is owned by local banks... the 3 billion can be a write off for the service of the debt for 1 year... the privatisation I think is the wrong long term solution - but that’s just me... in term of long term stuff, electricity stands out: if they finalise the bloody process and get a fast 24/7 solution (aka ships) then it is very possible to write off c. 2billion In increased debt each year. The cutting of 50% of income to current and previous ministers and MPs also. Finally, to a smaller scale, cancelling 70% of the budgets of the majeliss, some wizarat etc... can be long term but depend very much on who comes next...

    The cutting of salaries is nothing, how many people are earning salaries as past majeless and wizarat? the same are coming back anyway, so let's assume 500 x100,000$ a year, that's 500k USA let's say 1,000,000, this is six zeroes, a billion is 9 zeroes, the whole GDP is 51 billion, its debt is 86 billion 151% expected to be 176% in 2020. Canceling budgets, majeles w wizarat and cutting those who run them can bring a better outcome, they can keep their salaries but they should not be managing them.
     
    Mistletos

    Mistletos

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The cutting of salaries is nothing, how many people are earning salaries as past majeless and wizarat? the same are coming back anyway, so let's assume 500 x100,000$ a year, that's 500k USA let's say 1,000,000, this is six zeroes, a billion is 9 zeroes, the whole GDP is 51 billion, its debt is 86 billion 151% expected to be 176% in 2020. Canceling budgets, majeles w wizarat and cutting those who run them can bring a better outcome, they can keep their salaries but they should not be managing them.
    Every little counts! :) but as I said in other threads, and you probably already know, it will take us decades to get out of this debt... assuming good governance and some help from gas fields in the Mediterranean
     
    AtheistForJesus

    AtheistForJesus

    Well-Known Member
    I think the ideal scenario is a government only made up of LF ministers with Sethrida as president. They're the only non-corrupt politicians and only ones capable of standing up to Hizbu-el-huthala and the Iranian project. Aounists made Lebanon part of the Iranian axis.
     
    Mrsrxmas

    Mrsrxmas

    Somehow a Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I think the ideal scenario is a government only made up of LF ministers with Sethrida as president. They're the only non-corrupt politicians and only ones capable of standing up to Hizbu-el-huthala and the Iranian project. Aounists made Lebanon part of the Iranian axis.
    I am willing to make a human sacrifice for this to happen...unfortunately atheist jesus told me it has to be you!...this has to be done sorry
     
    I

    illusion84

    New Member
    According to al-akhbar BDL simply will print the money! If true that is very bad to the economic situation.
     
    Orange Patriot

    Orange Patriot

    Well-Known Member
    The perfect outcome?

    I don’t think the Lebanese people are either ready to or courageous enough.
    1. Remove. Nabih. Berri.
    2. Remove. Nabih. Berri.
    3. Remove. Nabih. Berri.
    4. Take care of jumblatt and LF afterwards.
    In the rabbid energy of these protests, there seems to be a sudden and collective amnesia that Berri has been the lynchpin of all the failures of progress of the last decade.
    • Revolutionizing the election law (which would have freed us from this motherfucking system in the first place)
    • Starting our emancipation from energy den dance (which will start decimating our national debt)
    • Ruthless investigation into corruption (which would have stemmed the bleeding of our debt)
    Every single one of the above campaigns spearheaded by GMA and FPM was sabotaged by many different parties depending on the campaign, but the constant was Berri. All the legacy politicians of the civil war have come and gone in positions of power, but Berri was the Constant. The kids these days like to joke about Aoun being stuck to the chair...wa...wa...wa... It’s only been a handful of years! Berri has literally been sitting on the same goddamn chair for decades! Some perspective people!

    He is so goddamn corrupt that every other corrupt politician lays on such a wide spectrum of corruption.

    In a perfect outcome, he is removed first and foremost. Because he is the constant. Because he is on a whole other level of corruption.

    Then comes WJ, SG, And Murr.

    Bassil? Whatever we may think of him, surely, is moot compared to the above.

    The kids these days like to joke about Aoun being stuck to the chair...wa...wa...wa... It’s only been a handful of years! Berri has literally been sitting on the same goddamn chair for decades!

    Some perspective people!
     
    F

    feng

    New Member
    There is alot of things that need to be done in the country.
    Exactly, so people need to go home, roads opened, so that these issues can be tackled one by one.
    Nobody can reform the country when they are worried for the future and starved.
     
    ignis

    ignis

    New Member
    The quickest, most effective and least damaging way out of this current situation is for FPM to publicly campaign and eventually enact the 'open justice' principle regarding 'state accountability'; turning the table on the current lords and their progeny, definitively. I am also confident that this will contribute in large part in putting Lebanon on the first-world map.

    ---

    This is a conditional principle rather than an absolute one. It can be applied and adjusted in so far as to fulfill the specified purpose that it is enacted for originally. In short, the cloak of anonymity must remain for the part of information where releasing or revealing it would defeat the object of the judiciary process in principle or the purpose of enacting the 'open justice' principle; for example, where a) disclosing a specific info would harm (or not protect) the person and the reputation of one of the uncharged parties in a particular case, b) the specific info involves uncontentious information unrelated to public issues, c) it involves matters relating to national security (e.g. terrorism)

    ---

    [' Open justice is a legal principle describing legal processes characterized by openness and transparency.[1] The term has particular emphasis in legal systems based on British law, such as in the United Kingdom, Commonwealth countries such as South Africa and Canada and Australia, and former British colonies such as the United States. The term has several closely related meanings: it is seen as a fundamental right guaranteeing liberty;[1][2] it describes guidelines for how courts can be more transparent;[3] and it sometimes identifies an ideal situation.[3][4] In a courtroom, it means steps to promote transparency such as letting the public see and hear trials as they happen in real time,[5] televising trials as they happen, videotaping proceedings for later viewing,[5] publishing the content and documents of court files,[5] providing transcripts of statements, making past decisions available for review in an easy-to-access format,[5][6] publishing decisions, and giving reporters full access to files and participants so they can report what happens. The principle includes efforts to try to make what happens in the court understandable to the public and the press.[7]

    Today the concept is so widely accepted that there is a general presumption that there should be judicial openness, such that openness is the rule, with secret or obscured proceedings being considered as exceptions needing to be justified.[7] The rise of social media websites such as Facebook has opened new ways for court cases to be made public; for example, in Australia, courts have considered having websites with live videos as well as blogs by retired judges to "preserve the concepts of open justice" in the digital age.[9]
    In recent years, when governments try to cope with thorny problems such as terrorism, there are concerns that the principle of open justice can be undermined relatively easily by national security concerns.[10] There are concerns that if new secrecy guidelines harden into precedents, that it might be hard to restore the "centuries old system of open justice".[10]

    Proponents of open justice assert numerous benefits. An overarching benefit is that it keeps courts behaving properly.[5] Openness acts as a safeguard for the proper administration of justice.[8] According to philosopher Jeremy Bentham, open justice is the "keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity."[8] Knowledge that court trials are regularly public encourages further attendance by the public.[6] Further, openness can mean more accurate decisions during a trial; for example, the proceedings can spur a witness to come forth, or encourage others to submit new evidence or dispute publicized statements.[5] Openness reduces the chance that the judgment is a mistake or that a case might have to be re-tried because of a subsequent sanction of contempt.[5] Proponents argue that open justice benefits democracy in a general sense because citizens can see how particular laws affect particular people, and therefore citizens are in a better position to advise lawmakers about such laws.[6] It helps ensure public confidence in legal decision-making, according to proponents.[2] Proponents of open justice have argued that public scrutiny permits those interested to "tap into the collective wisdom of what passes for fairness in similar cases".[6] It facilitates a comparison of cases.[6]

    "This is the reason it is so important not to forget why proceedings are required to be subjected to the full glare of a public hearing. It is necessary because the public nature of proceedings deters inappropriate behaviour on the part of the court. It also maintains the public's confidence in the administration of justice. It enables the public to know that justice is being administered impartially. It can result in evidence becoming available which would not become available if the proceedings were conducted behind closed doors or with one or more of the parties' or witnesses' identity concealed. It makes uninformed and inaccurate comment about the proceedings less likely. If secrecy is restricted to those situations where justice would be frustrated if the cloak of anonymity is not provided, this reduces the risk of the sanction of contempt having to be invoked, with the expense and the interference with the administration of justice which this can involve." — Judge Woolf in
    R v Legal Aid[5]


    Still, practical considerations often mean that the ideal of open justice must be weighed against other values such as privacy and cost and national security.[2]

    There are other factors which sometimes must be balanced against the need for open justice. For example, there are situations in which the release of confidential information such as private financial records might harm the reputation of one of the parties.[5] In other situations, it may be necessary to protect the privacy of a minor.[5] A further case in which openness is seen as unnecessary are when legal matters involve uncontentious information unrelated to public issues, such as the financial division of an estate after a death.[5] Another factor sometimes working against the ideal of open justice is complexity;[10] according to one view, court proceedings over time "have evolved into a complex system that is hard for outsiders to understand."[7]

    In the aftermath of the Bridgegate scandal in New Jersey, an appellate judge ruled against releasing the identities of some persons involved in the scandal, on the grounds of being "sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third parties"; that is, releasing names to the media might unfairly tarnish reputations without a trial.[15]

    Another judge commented on tradeoffs which sometimes work against openness:

    "A hearing, or any part of it, may be in private if publicity would defeat the object of the hearing; it involves matters relating to national security; it involves confidential information (including information relating to personal financial matters) and publicity would damage that confidentiality; a private hearing is necessary to protect the interests of any child or protected party; it is a hearing of an application made without notice and it would be unjust to any respondent for there to be a public hearing; it involves uncontentious matters arising in the administration of trusts or in the administration of a deceased person’s estate; or the court considers this to be necessary, in the interests of justice." — Justice Tugendhat in a legal opinion.[5]


    There is an Open Justice Initiative within the legal community to make justice more transparent. ']
     
    Last edited:
    Red Phoenix

    Red Phoenix

    Legendary Member
    perfect outcome?

    hmm

    immigration out of this shithole country filled with inbred imbeciles
     
    I

    illusion84

    New Member
    A few months ago I got an EU passport; but I am not willing to leave everything and leave.

    In 5 years I made more money in lebanon than a 10 years in EU (hala' after the lira collapse bikouno raho kilon)

    But going back to Europe is not an option for me; getting a home ; finding a job; even starting a business is not an option as the money is in the banks.

    Immigration is not an option for middle aged person ; and for the young people it full of hardship at the beginning.
     
    Top