Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Old Man]

2 hours ago, Vondy said:

 

But... unless you have a paintbrush the size of the Titanic, they aren't as dedicated, influential, numerous, or relevant as their opponents seem to want them to be. 

 

The ones in Congress and the White House seem to be influential enough.  As are the 62 million Americans who put them there.

[Hermit]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/17/super-pacs-hidden-donors-disclosures-741795

 

By the time voters know, it won't matter...

 

 

[Cygnia]

America’s prisoners are going on strike in at least 17 states

[RDU Neil]

29 minutes ago, Cygnia said:

America’s prisoners are going on strike in at least 17 states

 

Here's to being on the side of desperate men. For whatever acts they may have committed (or not) to get them incarcerated, the use of what amounts to slave labor should be completely unacceptable.

[Hermit]

2 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Here's to being on the side of desperate men. For whatever acts they may have committed (or not) to get them incarcerated, the use of what amounts to slave labor should be completely unacceptable.

 

A-fricking-men

[Armitage]

Following his tantrum over not getting his big military ego stroking parade, it's being reported that Trump is looking into the possibility of a private military force that will report to him.

 

Quote

President Donald Trump is increasingly venting frustration to his national security team about the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and showing renewed interest in a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince to privatize the war, current and former senior administration officials said.

Prince's idea, which first surfaced last year during the president's Afghanistan strategy review, envisions replacing troops with private military contractors who would work for a special U.S. envoy for the war who would report directly to the president.

"I know he's frustrated," Blackwater founder Prince said of the president. "He gave the Pentagon what they wanted. And they haven't delivered."

 

How long until he starts strutting around in a faux-military uniform with lots of gold braid?

[Lord Liaden]

I can't decide if Trump is genuinely cunning and sinister, or just oblivious to the implications of what he says and does. I mean, there's much evidence that he's not the genius he claims, but could a man who's lived so long and seen so much really be that thick?

[st barbara]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

I can't decide if Trump is genuinely cunning and sinister, or just oblivious to the implications of what he says and does. I mean, there's much evidence that he's not the genius he claims, but could a man who's lived so long and seen so much really be that thick?

It is a conundrum. But then again, if Trump IS that thick, how much thicker are the people who believe his lies ?

[Old Man]

He knows the implications, he just doesn't believe they apply to him.  Societal norms, decency, laws, these are all for the proletariat, not Randian "producers" like himself.

[archer]

3 hours ago, Old Man said:

He knows the implications, he just doesn't believe they apply to him.  Societal norms, decency, laws, these are all for the proletariat, not Randian "producers" like himself.

 

You are giving him far too much credit if you think he has any idea who Rand is.

[Iuz the Evil]

6 hours ago, archer said:

 

You are giving him far too much credit if you think he has any idea who Rand is.

"...Rand Paul, right? Squirrelly little guy, nowhere near the big deal I am, but he's okay."

[Old Man]

9 hours ago, archer said:

 

You are giving him far too much credit if you think he has any idea who Rand is.

 

He doesn't need to know Rand to believe he's inherently better than us.

[DShomshak]

Which, according to a biography my brother read in Rolling Stone. he does. Or at least that's what his father told him: That he is genetically superior to the people around him.

 

Keep in mind, this is my recollection of what my brother said he read. So, not the most reliable source. Someone with better internet connection and time than I have could try to check this.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Iuz the Evil]

Really liked the better angels of our nature. Just saw this: https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2018/02/24/steven-pinkers-case-for-optimism

 

Ordered it. Fascinating stuff. Very politically relevant, so I put it in this thread.

[Lord Liaden]

4 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Which, according to a biography my brother read in Rolling Stone. he does. Or at least that's what his father told him: That he is genetically superior to the people around him.

 

Keep in mind, this is my recollection of what my brother said he read. So, not the most reliable source. Someone with better internet connection and time than I have could try to check this.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Given his diet, by this point half his genetic material is probably trans fat.

[Sociotard]

Giuliani, explaining why Trump shouldn't talk to investigators lest he be caught in perjury or a PR gotcha, said, and I quote "the truth isn't the truth"

 

Is there a word for the opposite of a tautology?

 

I mean, I kind of get where he's coming from. Trump's foot is permanently attached to his upper palate, and he's so immersed in the world of unnecessary superlatives, hyperbole, and sales talk (and lying), that he probably would get in trouble.  And yes, honest, true statements can be twisted, like Hillary's "deplorable" comment got trimmed to make it sound like all Republicans were deplorable.

 

Just . . . it was a very maladroit way to say that, especially from a lawyer. If he'd used Richelieu's "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him" bit, it would have conveyed the problem and sounded elegant (yes the quote is maybe fake)

 

Still, aren't lawyers supposed to be like surgeons for argument? good words and all that?

[Sociotard]

6 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Which, according to a biography my brother read in Rolling Stone. he does. Or at least that's what his father told him: That he is genetically superior to the people around him.

 

Keep in mind, this is my recollection of what my brother said he read. So, not the most reliable source. Someone with better internet connection and time than I have could try to check this.

 

Dean Shomshak

I couldn't find an interview quite like that, but I did find a Rolling Stone article that referenced the Independent, and it has a biographer that claims this is what Trump believes. The thing is, the Biographer didn't say Trump claimed to be genetically superior, not quite. He did pull a clip where Trump claims he has genes that make him driven, which is not quite the same thing.

[unclevlad]

The opposite of a tautology is doublespeak.

 

Anyone else read Marc Stiegler's Brain Trust books?  Politically not as much of a reach as one might fear.  

 

Trump sees the world through blinders, and thinks no one can do anything to retaliate.  What scares me more, tho, is that his approval ratings remain so high.  And THIS is why the whole alt-right aspect is scary.  Perhaps they don't have the public support...but they have the climate planted, watered, weeded, and maintained by Trump working in their favor to grow behind the scenes, like any other noxious and toxic weed.

 

 

[dmjalund]

1 hour ago, Sociotard said:

Is there a word for the opposite of a tautology?

the word you are looking for is oxymoron

[L. Marcus]

An antology.

[st barbara]

23 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Giuliani, explaining why Trump shouldn't talk to investigators lest he be caught in perjury or a PR gotcha, said, and I quote "the truth isn't the truth"

 

Is there a word for the opposite of a tautology?

 

I mean, I kind of get where he's coming from. Trump's foot is permanently attached to his upper palate, and he's so immersed in the world of unnecessary superlatives, hyperbole, and sales talk (and lying), that he probably would get in trouble.  And yes, honest, true statements can be twisted, like Hillary's "deplorable" comment got trimmed to make it sound like all Republicans were deplorable.

 

Just . . . it was a very maladroit way to say that, especially from a lawyer. If he'd used Richelieu's "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him" bit, it would have conveyed the problem and sounded elegant (yes the quote is maybe fake)

 

Still, aren't lawyers supposed to be like surgeons for argument? good words and all that?

Very Orwellian isn't it !

[Ternaugh]

8 minutes ago, st barbara said:

Very Orwellian isn't it !

 

More Marx Brothers to me.

[Lord Liaden]

And people used to think Joe Biden's mouth was problematic. Guess it's all relative.

[Sociotard]

I read Matthew Yglesias at Vox, Elizabeth Warren has a plan to save capitalism.

• The subject is Elizabeth Warren's proposal to change corporate governance
• All corporations with more than 1 billion in revenues would have to get a federal charter
• The charter would expand the kinds of stakeholders that corporations consider in their decisions, from just shareholders to also employees, and even customers and surrounding communities. 
  • To that end, companies would have to allow employees to elect 40% of the boards of directors.
• Also, if companies pay with shares, the shares can't be sold until five years after they were issued and three years after the last company stock buyback
• Any political activity would have to be approved by 75% of both shareholders and board members (and again, some of those would be employee-elected)
  • I'm not sure this would pass a 1st amendment challenge?
• This is meant partly to counter Freidman's directive to maximize shareholder profits (within the limits of the law)
  • Of course, that means corporations lobby heavily to change what "limits of the law" are. See the line about requirements for approving political activity.
• It is hoped this will help encourage reinvestment, reduce executive compensation, and improve corporate behavior, using Capitalist methods, not socialist redistributive ones.

Then, I found a couple of responses at National Review, with Samuel Hammond's Elizabeth Warren’s Corporate Catastrophe

• Don't do that; it will turn the corporate unicorns into glitter glue (his imagery, not mine)
• Yes, Germany has similar requirements, and they manage to be the economic powerhouse of Europe, but they haven't produced as many unicorns as the US has
• the labor share problem is best explained with real estate prices
• Wage stagnation is best explained as resulting from a decline in productivity
  • (I was under the impression that productivity was up?)
• Fiduciary Duty is not really the primary driver it is claimed to be.
• Volkswagen had board members partly chosen by employees, and they still managed to be an old-boy network doing naughty favors. Employees helping choose board members didn't fix the problem. 

and Kevin Williamson's Elizabeth Warren’s Batty Plan to Nationalize . . . Everything

This one is batty itself. and doesn't seem accurate. The main argument was that if we put annoying restrictions on our big corporations, they'll go away and take their moneymaking with them.

 

I'm still working through Reason Magazine's response:

https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/20/elizabeth-warrens-corporate-buttinskyism

 

 

Sorry about the long post. Doing little summaries sometimes helps me understand complex proposals.

 

[Old Man]

Regarding the productivity question: