Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, death tribble said:

Guys,

 

take it down a notch. Simon patrols this thread thoroughly and consistently and you could be disciplined.

I've been banned from forums for being "too liberal" and "too conservative". I've been banned for being " a Zionist" and for being ”a fascist". I've been banned for being "a misognyst" and for being a feminist. Icve beennbanned for being an atheost and for being too religious. It happens. 

 

One thing I've noticed is that contrary to the idea that the intrawabz were going to facilitate discussion and cm Monica at I on it tends to create a million little echo chambers where only certain views are allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Institutional disobedience isn't a relevant term when applied broadly to state and local government in relation to the Federal government. Neither state nor local governments have any direct responsibility to obey "directions" from the Federal in a "chain of command". That's not how our system of government works. 

 

I work in local government, I do not work for the Federal (or even state) government. If given a direction by the executive branch, I'd laugh and refer them to our counsel. But I wouldn't "obey" it under this administration or the previous one. 

 

That's not how any of this works. Jurisdictions and authority are limited. Courts can expand or restrict authority. Contracts between parties define roles (such as County contracts with the State, and State contracts with the Fed - Medicaid is a great example of this from County to DHCS to HHS).

 

Everyone should take a breath. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Simon said:

Hey, TP...remind me:  have I mentioned cutting the histrionics?  I'm pretty sure I have.  Did I also mention familiarizing oneself with the rules of the thread?

Hey simon, is calling it how you see it histrionics now? Look go ahead and ban me, I kinda like this board but obviously ICM gonna get banned sooner or later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tech priest support said:

This is a question for British people: how is that brexit thing going? What's the current status on it? How do people feel about it now in Britain?

 

Badly. The Conservatives could not organise a drinking party in the brewery. They are riddled with infighting and as a result they are having trouble coming up with anything coherent.

Then the Irish MPs that the Conservatives need to hold on to power scuppered a European deal that favoured Northern ireland at the expense of the rest of the UK. One thing that the rest of Europe does not want are border crossings between Northern Ireland and Eire and neither do the people as it will significantly constrain trade. So enter the DUP.

However the rest of Europe are now satisified that enough progress has been made that talks can enter the next stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Tech priest support said:

We're had some institution disobedience to the current regime. Clifornia has practiced the sanctuary city doctrine in open defiance of orders to cease it. Likewise we had institutional disobedience from the right when a judge defied the supreme court and placed a religious monument on court grounds.

 

And if they are found to be in violation of a lawful order, they will be fined and have to pay penalties.

If the judge you're referring to is Roy Moore, that act of defiance cost him his job at the time, and the beliefs behinds that act cost him the recent election.  If there's another case, please provide a fact checked citation.

 

 

49 minutes ago, Tech priest support said:

Sheriff Arpaio famously defied federal court orders and maintained racially based harassment of Hispanics.

 

And it got him jailed and the ensuing presidential pardon doesn't provide relief form further legal actions (last I saw, anyway).  And the entity has stopped all actions that lead to his arrest.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Tech priest support said:

I don't talk about some of the things you talk about because they didn't happen in the universe I live in. Some of those things only happened in the "alternate fact" based universe. You know, the one where Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim and Hillary willfully caused the deaths of the behn ghazi staff because reasons. Those things didn't happen in my reality. The democrat party may ave steered things in favor of Hillary, So be it. Recent supreme court decisions allowing unlimited big business finances of campaigns have made political campaigns a rigged game anyway.

 

Then you don't read the same liberal pundits or dissections of what wrong that I do.  Shrug.  You're entitled to ignore facts, but you should know what The New York Time, or The Washington Post at least, at saying in several different analysis and think pieces about where the party went wrong. That is reality, not Kenya or Benghazi nonsense, ignore it at your risk.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tech priest support said:

I've been banned from forums for being "too liberal" and "too conservative". I've been banned for being " a Zionist" and for being ”a fascist". I've been banned for being "a misognyst" and for being a feminist. Icve beennbanned for being an atheost and for being too religious. It happens. 

I have barely been banned ever, yet I am still making conversation here.

It is not a mater with you being to political. It is a mater with you being to bannable. That is a property of your personality you can work on.

 

Doing stuff that get's you banned only results in entrenching people agaisnt your position. So it is not even like you archeive anything for your goal.

 

On 16.12.2017 at 1:25 PM, Lord Liaden said:

 

I suspect that a lot of people who were thinking, "I won't vote for a lesser of two evils" before Trump's election, have reconsidered.

Looking from across the ocean, I do not understand how anyone could ever think Trump was the "lesser" of anything.

What would have needed to do for those people to get this. Actually murder someone on 5th Street? He was winked with teh lamppost so energetically, he was about you busts someoens head in. And you still elected him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Christopher said:

And you still elected him.

Ahem. In fact "we" all didn't, but yes he was elected. He is the POTUS. I just don't particularly care for that fact, and look forward to the end of his term. And the inevitable "deconstruction of everything Donald Trump accomplished" to parallel his efforts re: Obama. 

 

Essentially, I foresee a cycle of this barring some unusual change in direction for the nation. Both ideological positions being espoused are antithetical to the opposing one. Compromise is presently not an option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2017 at 4:25 AM, Lord Liaden said:

 

I suspect that a lot of people who were thinking, "I won't vote for a lesser of two evils" before Trump's election, have reconsidered.

Until that election I didn't know we could run a presidential candidate that I would consider a greater evil than her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eyocum said:

You're entitled to ignore facts, but you should know what The New York Time, or The Washington Post at least, at saying in several different analysis and think pieces about where the party went wrong.

Admitting when you or people you supported did something wrong is my literal definiton of a reliable source. When people cite a retraction or correction as "proof" the publicion is flawed, all they do is proof that it is reliable enough to admit a mistake.

 

Everyone can spout verbal diareah with a sockpuppet or throwaway account on Social Media. That only needs the intelligency for installing a Eliza bot.

 

4 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

Essentially, I foresee a cycle of this barring some unusual change in direction for the nation. Both ideological positions being espoused are antithetical to the opposing one. Compromise is presently not an option. 

Then the nations should go and fix that shit already.

Use the primaries to get electable candidates onto the balot. Start with people that oppose gerrymandering. A lot of change can flow from abolishing that part alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Christopher said:

Then the nations should go and fix that shit already.

Use the primaries to get electable candidates onto the balot. Start with people that oppose gerrymandering. A lot of change can flow from abolishing that part alone.

No doubt that would be a reasonable first step I absolutely support. Harder than it sounds though, as the individuals tasked with drawing districts are inherently opposed to such change. Still, nobody promised democracy was easy...

 

There are more than a couple other logical items that enjoy broad support which are equally impacted by this phenomenon. 

 

Right now we are very divided as a nation. While our shared beliefs continue to outweigh our differences, a major urban vs rural divide has been expanded by a focus on divisive near-tribal political affiliations. 

 

Makes everything harder when it is "us against them" as opposed to "one nation indivisable"... but the ideological separation is real. And the disagreement around issues as fundamental as the role of government is sharp.

 

I hope we work this out. And will continue to participate in the process in line with that hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15.12.2017 at 5:02 PM, Sociotard said:

Donald Trump vows to rebuild the FBI

 

Ousted FBI agent in Mueller probe softened language in Clinton email case

 

This is bad.  There really was partisanship in the FBI, and now the Republicans will feel completely justified forcing their own partisans into the agency "because they do it too".

 

It is like the Filibuster. Each time the Senate flipped party control, the new minority used it more than the previous, over and over, until the rule had to be given more exceptions to let work get done.  Now, each time we get a new party in the Presidency, there will be more ideological purges. Dogmatism and corruption will increase, while competency will diminish.

I think I figured out what hte issue with diehard Republicans and swingvoters is: They are egoistical to a unhealthy degree. And they can not fathom a world were not everyone else is as egoistical as them.

 

Womens march against Trump? Conspiracy!

Negative things about

The only way they can explain why so many people are against repealing the ACA all of a sudden? Protesters beign shipped in from out of state (when they themself are from out of state) of course!

People for removing the ACA? "Finnally I get to keep more of MY money"

People against usefull Weapons Regulations? "Do not take away MY gun"

The reason so many people in Federal agencies are moderate to demicratic? Egosim, of course : "Schultz, the Hamline professor, said “self-preservation”— particularly for workers engaged in public sector unions — probably motivates their political giving.

“This means support for their jobs,” he said. “Clinton, for the most part, is going to be probably a continuation of more or less what Obama is.”

Federal government employees, he said, are likely “more willing to give to somebody who would be more predictable in terms of supporting their livelihood, their jobs, as opposed to somebody who might be less predictable.”"

 

Federal Agency Workers? Longtime Democratic Voters? Protests agaisnt Trump?

All happens because people care for their society as a whole, not just their little corner.

Do you really think people work in Federal agencies for the Money and Power? The money and power that does not exist?

 

Obama had to basically force the ACA onto Republican Voters. Now their brains realised: Shit that is good for me. Suddenly their Egoism starts being used productively at defending it! Republican Voters have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a better world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So we've had disobedience on both sides.

 

So we have. The conservatives have defied the law in order to harm minorities and disadvantaged people, and the liberals have defied the law to HELP minorities and disadvantaged people. Not exactly equivalent, in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They both have more nuts than a family sized jar of Skippy's Extra Crunchy Peanut Butter.  They both have silky smooth milk chocolate made in a factory that doesn't use nuts in any of its products.

 

The biggest problem appears to be that the peanut butter jars are the ones being vocal enough to appear to direct the narrative.

 

I truly believe that's what needs to change - the silent majority needs to speak - but it's hard to do, politically, without descending into tribalism and risking falling into one of the peanut butter churning vats at the factory yourself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

I would say that it is less egoism and more tribalism.

Tribalism is jsut Egoism that includes teh surrounding Tribe.

Someoen can be egoistical and still care for their Family. Maybe even their neighbourhood. But they do not care for society as a whole.

 

You could propably sell the ACA and Gun Control to these people by saying: "You are less likely to die."

 

6 hours ago, DasBroot said:

They both have more nuts than a family sized jar of Skippy's Extra Crunchy Peanut Butter.  They both have silky smooth milk chocolate made in a factory that doesn't use nuts in any of its products.

 

The biggest problem appears to be that the peanut butter jars are the ones being vocal enough to appear to direct the narrative.

I only ever hear of those "Insane Democrats". I never actually saw one.

 

Every single time there appeared to be an issue within the party, they quickly reacted sensibly to the issue:

One guy wrote anti-Trump political message? Out of the Russia Probe team and investigating his activity during Hillaries Email probe.

Candidate suspected of sexual predatory behavior? Dropped after the evidence became clear.

One guy saying something nonsensical about gun control? Nobody even cares about that opinion but republicans who will bring that guy up 2 years after he is no longer with the party.

 

Every piece of evidecne thus far indicates that the Democrats are teh mature, grown ups.

And every piece of Evidence thus far indicates that the Republicans and large parts of their supporters are between Childish and bordrline insane (see people making shit up about the legality of Hillaries Emails in this very thread).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Old Man said:

The joint Committee on Taxation has determined how much the GOP tax bill will change taxes for Americans at each income level:

 

GOPTaxBillRAISESYourTaxes.png?1513648406

 

Notice I said "change", not "reduce".

 

This chart is a good look at how the tax bill would effect income groups collectively, but I was curious what it would do to average individual tax bills.  Unfortunately, the Joint Committee on Taxation's report didn't have a chart addressing individual average tax payers.  However, it did have all the information that I needed to make my own.

 

Here it is.

 

Change to Taxes by Income.jpg

 

Notice that while there are some nice take breaks in the beginning, nobody is coming all that far ahead by 2027.  If you are making over a million dollars a year, that $13,506 tax break is going to be virtually unnoticeable.  On the other hand, if you are earning between $10,000 and $20,000 that $318 dollar tax increase is going to devastating.  People making between $10,000 and $20,000 are usually watching every dime and don't have an extra $318 laying around.

 

Really, this bill is a huge amount of pain for very little gain, and is going to add over a trillion dollars to our national debt.  Just a colossal turd sandwich no matter how you look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the GOP sees the debt increase as a feature, since it will serve as their justification for taking away all our Social Security money and Medicare.

 

Even this chart doesn't factor in the changes to the mortgage deduction.  I doubt the supposed reduction in middle class taxes is going to be seen by the average homeowner.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×