Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Toxxus]

Discovering this thread was like time travel back through the 2016 election cycle. 

 

So much drama and despair and ridiculous statements from both sides of the aisle.

 

I think one of the pinnacle moments was some guy wearing a "Punch a Nazi" t-shirt to my home D&D game.  My wife, who is Mexican, voted for Trump (I didn't) and suddenly white-hipster-man came face to face with reality.

 

You can't call everyone who disagrees with you (either direction) some variation of evil without considering their personal motivations for making their decisions.

 

Hers was that her family immigrated legally and it was BS that millions of people were coming in illegally and ruining it for everyone who played by the rules.  She also supports the wall - big time.  Reminder - she's Mexican.

 

I, like many, felt that I couldn't in good conscience vote for Hillary or Trump and gave my vote to the Libertarians.  Both of them had major problems as candidates for me and I just couldn't do it.  I might as well have voted for Giant Meteor.

 

This was just the mental reset I needed before I start this next bit of code. 

[Doc Democracy]

My problem with the whole “punch a nazi” meme is that most people are not equipped to punch a Nazi and the idea that you physically assault someone just because you judge their motivations to be suspect, is in itself, suspect.

 

Doc

[Pariah]

Violence directed against evil is still violence.

 

Sometimes it can't be helped. I'm pragmatic enough to understand that. But it sure would be nice if there were a better way.

[Starlord]

What's wrong with punching Nazis? - Steve Rogers

[Pattern Ghost]

24 minutes ago, Pariah said:

Violence

 

Sometimes necessary, and should always be applied judiciously.

 

As for punching Nazis, sometimes it's necessary:

 

 

And sometimes not so much:

 

(The second is Richard Spencer getting sucker punched.)

 

I think you could make an argument that hate speech, and inciting violence are forms of violence, but you shouldn't be applying physical violence unless there's an immediate threat. No matter how satifsying it may be.

 

 

 

[Pattern Ghost]

2 minutes ago, Starlord said:

What's wrong with punching Nazis? - Steve Rogers

 

Got scooped while doing a longer version of the same gag.

[DShomshak]

One of the most important requirements for a decent society is a central authority that is willing and able to assert its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Some very nice people don't like to hear that, but it's true. Because when you lack such a monopoly, you don't get peace and harmony. You get entrepreneurs of violence: gangs, bandits, warlords, clan vendettas, etc. For evidence, there are plenty of Third World hellholes and a lot of history.

 

And so, emotionally satisfying though it might be to see Richard Spence get punched in the face, I must regretfully condemn it as wrong. But I hope the FBI watches him like a hawk, ready to swoop down and nab him the moment he can be linked to a specific violent act.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Pattern Ghost]

18 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

One of the most important requirements for a decent society is a central authority that is willing and able to assert its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence

 

By "monopoly" do you mean that only agents of the state use violence, or that the state determines what the acceptable use of violence is among the citizenry (whether self-defense, medical necessity or otherwise)?

[DShomshak]

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 2:19 PM, Pattern Ghost said:

 

By "monopoly" do you mean that only agents of the state use violence, or that the state determines what the acceptable use of violence is among the citizenry (whether self-defense, medical necessity or otherwise)?

Well, the dictum comes from sociologist Max Weber. I've never read his original explanation, but I assume he meant the former most of the time, with the latter included for special cases. Hence the inclusion of the word "legitimate." The former alone would be merely a monopoly of violence. Adding "legitimate" means the state can permit private violence -- but only in the modes and for purposes that it defines.

 

The monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is not sufficient for a decent society. (As per your sig, states can abuse that monopoly -- and too often do so.) But it is necessary, in that very few other social benefits are possible if other people can decide to kill you without fear of consequence.

 

Dean Shomshak

[csyphrett]

Would you believe some genius at the SSA wants to make sure handicapped people are handicapped by reading their Facebook posts? Somebody posted the story up and  essentially people think that's going to reduce the fraud by old people. Remember  when the landlady would just put people in the ground and keep their SSA checks? That's going away forever.

CES

[IndianaJoe3]

1 hour ago, csyphrett said:

Would you believe some genius at the SSA wants to make sure handicapped people are handicapped by reading their Facebook posts? Somebody posted the story up and  essentially people think that's going to reduce the fraud by old people.

 

There is a recurring myth in some political circles that a large portion of the people that receive disability payments are, "faking it," so the government needs to monitor their activities and gather evidence of this.

[Toxxus]

5 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

There is a recurring myth in some political circles that a large portion of the people that receive disability payments are, "faking it," so the government needs to monitor their activities and gather evidence of this.

 

Medicare fraud is clocking in at around 25% compared to 3% for private insurance so maybe a little extra scrutiny applied to verifying people who claim the need have the need isn't unwarranted.

 

Alternately, I really need all your money and only embracing fascist evil would make you hesitate to hand it over. 

 

If we're being serious though - I had a family member who was legitimately in need of disability payments.  They applied twice, got shot down twice and had to sue.  15 months before the need started and the money started.  Not a fun ride at all.

 

I balance that with also knowing someone on welfare who claimed to not know who the father of her children was so that he could get paid to babysit them at home.

 

There are no easy answers to this stuff.

[Ternaugh]

19 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

 

Medicare fraud is clocking in at around 25% compared to 3% for private insurance so maybe a little extra scrutiny applied to verifying people who claim the need have the need isn't unwarranted.

 

Alternately, I really need all your money and only embracing fascist evil would make you hesitate to hand it over. 

 

If we're being serious though - I had a family member who was legitimately in need of disability payments.  They applied twice, got shot down twice and had to sue.  15 months before the need started and the money started.  Not a fun ride at all.

 

I balance that with also knowing someone on welfare who claimed to not know who the father of her children was so that he could get paid to babysit them at home.

 

There are no easy answers to this stuff.

 

OMB had it pegged at closer to 10% for Medicare fraud in 2010, but most of the fraud involves shenanigans with patient billing. For example, Wikipedia notes:

 

Quote

The Columbia/HCA fraud case is one of the largest examples of Medicare fraud in U.S. history. Numerous New York Times stories, beginning in 1996, began scrutinizing Columbia/HCA's business and Medicare billing practices. These culminated in the company being raided by Federal agents searching for documents and eventually the ousting of the corporation's CEO, Rick Scott, by the board of directors.^[17] Among the crimes uncovered were doctors being offered financial incentives to bring in patients, falsifying diagnostic codes to increase reimbursements from Medicare and other government programs, and billing the government for unnecessary lab tests,^[18] though Scott personally was never charged with any wrongdoing. HCA wound up pleading guilty to more than a dozen criminal and civil charges and paying fines totaling $1.7 billion. In 1999, Columbia/HCA changed its name back to HCA, Inc.

In 2001, HCA reached a plea agreement with the U.S. government that avoided criminal charges against the company and included $95 million in fines.^[19] In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims.^[20] In all, civil lawsuits cost HCA more than $1.7 billion to settle, including more than $500 million paid in 2003 to two whistleblowers.^[19]

 

By the way, the Rick Scott mentioned as the former CEO of Columbia/HCA is currently the Republican junior Senator from Florida, and previously held the position of Governor of Florida.

[IndianaJoe3]

30 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

 

Medicare fraud is clocking in at around 25% compared to 3% for private insurance so maybe a little extra scrutiny applied to verifying people who claim the need have the need isn't unwarranted.

 

SSA Disability and Medicare are not the same system. I don't think anyone is claiming they could find Medicare fraud by reading people's social media posts.

 

In theory, you might see someone receiving disability payments posting about activities that their disability would seem to preclude. In practice, you're more likely to see posts about engaging in normal activities (on a good day), or complaining that they can't. (I have a number of FB friends with disabilities, so I'm familiar with the topic.)

[Old Man]

Mueller has delivered his report to AG Barr. EVERYBODY FREAK OUT NOW

[Starlord]

Boom.

 

Is it time for boom now?

[Ternaugh]

1 hour ago, Starlord said:

Boom.

 

Is it time for boom now?

 

 

[Badger]

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 12:37 PM, Toxxus said:

Discovering this thread was like time travel back through the 2016 election cycle. 

 

So much drama and despair and ridiculous statements from both sides of the aisle.

 

I think one of the pinnacle moments was some guy wearing a "Punch a Nazi" t-shirt to my home D&D game.  My wife, who is Mexican, voted for Trump (I didn't) and suddenly white-hipster-man came face to face with reality.

 

You can't call everyone who disagrees with you (either direction) some variation of evil without considering their personal motivations for making their decisions.

 

Hers was that her family immigrated legally and it was BS that millions of people were coming in illegally and ruining it for everyone who played by the rules.  She also supports the wall - big time.  Reminder - she's Mexican.

 

I, like many, felt that I couldn't in good conscience vote for Hillary or Trump and gave my vote to the Libertarians.  Both of them had major problems as candidates for me and I just couldn't do it.  I might as well have voted for Giant Meteor.

 

This was just the mental reset I needed before I start this next bit of code. 

 

Yeah, I left the 2016 Presidential blank on my screen, myself.  While, I do have some libertarian tendencies, there are a couple of issues here and there where I consider dangerously naïve at best, so I can never bring myself to side with the party.  And the Green is.....eh?!

 

And, interestingly, the most anti-illegal immigration people I have met are LEGAL immigrants.  As much time and bureaucracy they have to cut through, I can see why illegal immigration can be offensive to them  (at least one guy last I saw-circa 2014- was still trying to get family over the legal way, nearly a decade after he had come here)

 

 

[Badger]

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 3:28 PM, Pariah said:

Violence directed against evil is still violence.

 

Sometimes it can't be helped. I'm pragmatic enough to understand that. But it sure would be nice if there were a better way.

 

Yeah, I am pro-violence at times.  But, I believe always make sure you really are fighting evil truly, and not a demonized projection you've put on those whom you disagree with.  I find that latter has been too common since 2016.

[Badger]

4 hours ago, Old Man said:

Mueller has delivered his report to AG Barr. EVERYBODY FREAK OUT NOW

 

I thought they'd milk that till December 2020.  

 

If nothing comes of it, the Dems get hurt.  I figured the Dems wanted Russia collusion in the news through the next election.  

[Sociotard]

The Dems can keep milking it, by keeping the report secret until 2020. Slow trickle here and there.

 

The nice thing is, Mueller genuinely did have much independence. The Dems couldn't really dictate his schedule. 

[Badger]

Yeah, good point, if nothing came of it.  I suspect much trickling of information that could be "interepreted" as collusion but extremely vague, that would turn into seepage in June of 2020, and into flowing by mid-September.

[csyphrett]

Mueller says he has no more indictments rolling out other than the 30+ he has already filed. He has also asked for Rick Gates's sentencing to be delayed for a bit more. And Roger Stone is heading into the court under the judge that gave Manfort his second sentence.

 

Muller's report might be done, but there are still 20-25 court cases that have to be gone over.

CES

[archer]

23 hours ago, csyphrett said:

Would you believe some genius at the SSA wants to make sure handicapped people are handicapped by reading their Facebook posts? Somebody posted the story up and  essentially people think that's going to reduce the fraud by old people.

CES

 

Back when Dateline, 20/20, and the rest of the similar evening news shows covered things other than lurid crime stories, each used to do an undercover segment or two a year showing hidden camera footage of supposedly disabled people who were doing hours of unrestricted hard manual labor. Then they'd move in and bust the "disabled" person on camera, asking him how he's able to do all of this work. Later they'd show the footage to officials at the Social Security Administration to get their reaction and wrap up by telling what the resolution to the story was. Usually the person who was defrauding the system at the very least had their benefits cut off, though some were having to pay back money or were facing trial for fraud.

 

Looking at their Facebook isn't the worst idea if they have a reason to suspect someone of fraud. If you're posting pictures of yourself skiing in Aspen when you supposedly can barely walk....

[archer]

21 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

There is a recurring myth in some political circles that a large portion of the people that receive disability payments are, "faking it," so the government needs to monitor their activities and gather evidence of this.

 

There's supposedly been a skyrocketing number of people going onto disability in the US for more than the last 15 years so it is somewhat understandable that people may suspect there's a reason for it. The increase has been faster than what could be explained by an aging population (or at least it was when last I looked at it over a decade ago).

 

 

I put myself through a lot more hell than I should have in order to keep working literally as long as I possibly could. And my employer worked with me admirably for the last few years in order to keep me despite my health problems (until the last two months when I got a new boss but that's a very messy story).

 

Not everyone is willing to put themselves through hell in order to keep a job and not everyone has an employer who is willing to work with employees who are obviously ill and suffering.

 

But when I was finally forced to attempt to get on to disability, I had a four to five inch thick sheathe of medical records with years of testing data from various specialists to explain why I needed to go on disability. I got cleared for disability payments faster than anyone else my case worker had ever seen, according to her, despite the local office twice screwing up by putting the wrong codes on my paperwork.