Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Old Man]

So far, it seems like legal immigrants are the main focus of the administration and nuts, despite months of claims otherwise.

No, the main focus of the administration and Congress is the demolition of the federal government (as shown by today's announcement of drastic cuts to every department that isn't the DOD). This immigration and racism stuff is just a cruel distraction.

[Lord Liaden]

I'm reading quite a few rumblings about Republican pushback against the upcoming budget. The cuts to domestic discretionary spending being floated by the White House in advance of the budget announcement are more extreme than even most Republicans have been asking for. But if Trump wants to keep his promise not to cut Social Security and Medicare, while also heavily boosting military spending, it's the only place he can try to wring savings from.

[Lord Liaden]

(sigh)  Ah, for the good ol' days of the George W. Bush administration....

Words I never thought I would say, and mean them.

 

Just what I was thinking while watching a recent clip of George W. Bush on the Today Show.

 

I've had much the same thoughts in my mind lately, even before W's interview. The worst thing I could ever sincerely say about Bush is that he was an inept President. It would bring the Wrath of Dan down on my head to say some of the things I think of Trump.

 

I will say this: I believe that GWB's faith, submitting himself to something greater than himself, played a significant role in keeping him relatively humble. I strongly doubt Donald Trump can imagine something greater than himself.

[Old Man]

I'm reading quite a few rumblings about Republican pushback against the upcoming budget.

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

The cuts to domestic discretionary spending being floated by the White House in advance of the budget announcement are more extreme than even most Republicans have been asking for. But if Trump wants to keep his promise not to cut Social Security and Medicare, while also heavily boosting military spending, it's the only place he can try to wring savings from.

According to GOP Shock Doctrine® bankrupting the government is a good thing because it forces the termination of unpleasant things like retirement benefits, union contracts, and functional government agencies. Just ask anyone in Wisconsin or Flint, Michigan.

[Old Man]

House GOP votes en masse to keep Trump's tax returns secret

[Joe Walsh]

According to GOP Shock Doctrine® bankrupting the government is a good thing because it forces the termination of unpleasant things like retirement benefits, union contracts, and functional government agencies. Just ask anyone in Wisconsin or Flint, Michigan.

 

Kansas, too. That's where the GOP true believers have had the freest hand to put their policies in place. I wish more attention was paid to that in the national media, and to the real-world outcome.

[Michael Hopcroft]

I've had much the same thoughts in my mind lately, even before W's interview. The worst thing I could ever sincerely say about Bush is that he was an inept President. It would bring the Wrath of Dan down on my head to say some of the things I think of Trump.

 

I will say this: I believe that GWB's faith, submitting himself to something greater than himself, played a significant role in keeping him relatively humble. I strongly doubt Donald Trump can imagine something greater than himself.

GWB would have been a decent President had he not listened to the wrong people. Naming Dick Cheney as his running mate was a disastrous choice, because Cheney was able to disguise his self-interest as ideology. The war in Iraq, disastrous though it was, did make various people he liked very, very rich -- at an enormous cost in human suffering. Bush wasn't callous, at least not at first, but those he listened to were.

 

Donald Trump only listens to those who say what he wants to hear, which is an alarming trait for the leader of a democracy.

[Old Man]

[Sociotard]

Yes, while Republicans talk a good game for reducing deficits, the best option for that is Divided government.  Just look at the first derivative of the deficit (that is, whether it gets bigger or smaller year to year) for Republican, Democrat, and Divided (in Constant 2009 dollars)

 

 

  First Derivative

All, Deficit Constant; United, Deficit Constant; Opposed, Deficit Constant; D Only Deficit Constant; R Only Deficit Constant

Count; 76; 28; 35; 21; 7

Min; -953.2; -346.3; -292.8; -330.8; -346.3;

20%; -87.8; -79.6; -89.6; -74.6; -289.6

40%; -21.6; -29.2; -13.0; -27.1; -41.8

Median; 2.5; -18.3; 5.5; -14.1; -28.8

Mean; -11.4; -18.1; 14.0; -4.3; -59.5

60%; 41.6; 3.2; 41.9; 18.5; 7.0

80%; 93.9; 81.0; 98.7; 74.1; 79.1

 

In some related charts, you can see that United Republican governments really do value smaller government with lighter taxes (measured by smaller revenues and less spending), while United Democratic governments do go for more taxes and bigger governments. But, the Republicans don't cut spending enough to accommodate the cuts in taxes, so their deficits are bigger.

 

EDIT: That ended poorly.

 

[Old Man]

Where are you getting these numbers from?

[Tom]

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

 

According to GOP Shock Doctrine® bankrupting the government is a good thing because it forces the termination of unpleasant things like retirement benefits, union contracts, and functional government agencies. Just ask anyone in Wisconsin or Flint, Michigan.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39123281

 

Top Republican says Trump's budget plan 'dead on arrival'

 

Well, we've 'seen' it -- however it is the end result that matters.

[megaplayboy]

Our fate is in the hands of CLIVEs, Casual Low Information Voter, Equivocals.

[Sociotard]

Step one, got the deficit numbers from the White House website. Step two, made an excel sheet that made the 'derivative'. Should I just put up the whole sheet?

[Michael Hopcroft]

Donald Trump, Donald Trump, talking up a storm

Donald Trump, Donald Trump, blowing his own horn

He robs from the poor, and gives to the rich!

Donald Trump, Donald Trump -- stupid git!

[Old Man]

Step one, got the deficit numbers from the White House website. Step two, made an excel sheet that made the 'derivative'. Should I just put up the whole sheet?

I wonder how accurate White House data is nowadays.

[Iuz the Evil]

Hey, they have data to distort. Baby steps.

[Kaspar Hauser]

Back to automation: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/automation-jobs-canada-computers-white-collar-1.3982466

 

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/jobs/what-risk-does-automation-pose-to-your-job/article30434394/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

 

You know, in The Legion of Superheroes a computer selected Earth's president from a database of the most qualified people every few years. Just saying.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Back to automation: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/automation-jobs-canada-computers-white-collar-1.3982466

 

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/jobs/what-risk-does-automation-pose-to-your-job/article30434394/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

 

You know, in The Legion of Superheroes a computer selected Earth's president from a database of the most qualified people every few years. Just saying.

And they portrayed that Earth (and several other planets IIRC) as a utopia. Which was common in science fiction at the time.

 

Today, utopias are hard to find in literary, cinematic, and TV science fiction. Ever the Federation of Star Trek has lost its luster -- it's most apparent in the films, but we were seeing cracks in the façade as far back as Deep Space Nine (Bajor needed and got help, but wanted no part of actually being incorporated into the Federation. They preferred to be independent and keep their religion and culture -- even if it meant that the largely-atheist Federation would look down on and even pity them.)

 

I'm not sure when writers became so cynical, or when readers and viewers stopped being interested in utopian fiction.

[Lord Liaden]

Even the Federation of Star Trek has lost its luster -- it's most apparent in the films, but we were seeing cracks in the façade as far back as Deep Space Nine (Bajor needed and got help, but wanted no part of actually being incorporated into the Federation. They preferred to be independent and keep their religion and culture -- even if it meant that the largely-atheist Federation would look down on and even pity them.)

 

I'm not sure when writers became so cynical, or when readers and viewers stopped being interested in utopian fiction.

 

Don't forget the ST universe's version of the Maquis -- Star Fleet officers teaming with Bajorans to terrorize the Cardassians, because they disagreed with their government's attempt to appease them. Not to mention the Federation agreeing to deceive the Romulans about Dominion treachery toward them, to draw Romulus to their side in the Dominion war. And that secret black-ops group within Star Fleet intelligence (whose name escapes me ATM).

 

I'm not sure when it started either, but I've definitely seen it progress over the lifetime of the baby-boomers. In their youth they were filled with hope and optimism that society would continue to evolve toward enlightenment, technology would increasingly enrich our lives, and so on. The last six decades have delivered repeated and severe shocks to those notions.

 

But these trends in thought tend to come in pendular cycles, swinging between extremes. The recent era is far from the first time a great many people thought the world was heading for doom, and understandably so. Hopefully we'll live to see the next upswing.

[Sociotard]

Worth watching on the subject

[Doc Shadow]

To paraphrase George Carlin: "The world just fine. It's the people who are screwed!"

[wcw43921]

I think this monologue by Hugh Laurie's character from the criminally underappreciated movie Tomorrowland says it better.  (Bolding is mine)

 

Nix: "Let's imagine... if you glimpsed the future, you were frightened by what you saw, what would you do with that information? You would go to... the politicians, captains of industry? And how would you convince them? Data? Facts? Good luck! The only facts they won't challenge are the ones that keep the wheels greased and the dollars rolling in. But what if... what if there was a way of skipping the middle man and putting the critical news directly into everyone's head? The probability of wide-spread annihilation kept going up. The only way to stop it was to show it. To scare people straight. Because, what reasonable human being wouldn't be galvanized by the potential destruction of everything they've ever known or loved? To save civilization, I would show its collapse.

 

"But, how do you think this vision was received? How do you think people responded to the prospect of imminent doom? They gobbled it up like a chocolate eclair! They didn't fear their demise, they re-packaged it. It could be enjoyed as video-games, as TV shows, books, movies, the entire world wholeheartedly embraced the apocalypse and sprinted towards it with gleeful abandon. Meanwhile, your Earth was crumbling all around you. You've got simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation. Explain that one! Bees and butterflies start to disappear, the glaciers melt, algae blooms. All around you the coal mine canaries are dropping dead and you won't take the hint! In every moment there's the possibility of a better future, but you people won't believe it. And because you won't believe it you won't do what is necessary to make it a reality. So, you dwell on this terrible future. You resign yourselves to it for one reason, because *that* future does not ask anything of you today. So yes, we saw the iceberg and warned the Titanic. But you all just steered for it anyway, full steam ahead. Why? Because you want to sink! You gave up! That's not the monitor's fault. That's yours."

 

Now I think the latest Star Trek movies have been generally more positive than most SF offerings of late, much in keeping with the original series.  (The opening scene of Yorktown station in Star Trek: Beyond was, to my mind, a brilliant example of the idealized future Roddenberry had in mind for Star Trek, and reminded me a great deal of Tomorrowland.)  But to anyone who was paying attention, the villains of the three movies--Nero, Khan, Krall--were all warmongers  And the big question of Star Trek: Into Darkness was--do we go out and explore the galaxy, or wage war upon it?  The movies--and Star Trek in general--favor the former answer.  But there are more than a few people in science fiction fandom who favor the latter.

 

And there are people in real life who would favor the latter answer with regards to the world.  They are the ones, I think, who voted for Donald Trump, and support his plan to massively increase defense spending at the expense of all other government services.  As I said in my post in this thread immediately following the election, their idea of when America was last great was during and after World War II, when we had just defeated the Axis and were everyone's heroes--more or less.  That is what they want to re-create in this country--but what they fail to understand, I think, is what history teaches us about what ultimately happens to warmongers.

 

Those are my thoughts on the subject--take them as you will.

[DShomshak]

Well, my own hypothesis is the conflict between our Paleolithic brains and our modern circumstances. For most of hominid history, we lived in tiny communities with scarce resources. Every other band was a competitor. It was *rational* to fear that everyone outside the band was hostile, because they probably watching for a chance to massacre your group and take your stuff. Just like you watched for chances to do the same to them. And in such perpetual danger, group cohesion mattered more than just about anything.

 

The world is very different now. It is provable that organizing in larger groups, trading instead of raiding, and skeptical debate and analysis leads to greater safety and material abundance. But our hindbrains don't know that. It takes training to think that way. Some people get more practice than others; notably city folk, who must interact peacefully with numerous strangers every day. (I think it's worth noting how the precinct-by-precinct map of the election results shows bubbles of blue -- the big American cities -- in a sea of rural red, regardless of state.) Moreover, success in a complex and changeable urban society depends on standing out, looking for the new opportunity, at least as much as showing you're a loyal follower of tradition.

 

The rational, globalized world *works* in a way the alder, parochial world does not. But a lot of people still want the security of a small, tradition-bound society; the modern world genuinely terrifies and revolts them. The backlash is not confined to any one country.

 

I don't know what I could possibly do to counter the tribalist Revolt Against Reason.

 

I can believe in future societies that have achieved some decencies we currently lack, but there will still be vicious criminalities, stupidities and prejudices as long as we are still biologically human.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Old Man]

AG Sessions lied under oath about meetings with Russian ambassador during campaign

[Pattern Ghost]

It wasn't a lie, it was just a poor recollection.