TrickstaPriest

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I err on the side of trusting our special operations commanders. I was in DLI with a ton of these guys from officers to NCOs, and I trust their judgement. (Obviously not Trump's.)

 

Edit: I'm not entirely ruling out the possibility that you and Old Man are right. but I'm erring on the side of our SEALs until I hear something concrete about the unit being compromised.

I do appreciate the discretion over valor... especially given the news we've already had over Syria.  I'll take what good(?) news I can get.

Agreed on it being unconstitutional, but I also kind of agree on them not being paid?

28 minutes ago, Hermit said:

I dropped out. Friends and family, not a crisis, but enough that I lost an entire week early on and after that was just 'ah #@## it"

  Been sick for the entirety of the month.  I didn't even get a chance to start.

But I did do some drafting.  In my head.  That counts, right?

7 hours ago, csyphrett said:

There has been some talk that this is a grandstand move with no real way to get voted on. It's hard to say how much traction this thing will actually get before it's struck if it ever even gets voted on.

 

It does show that some people will always want to tell others what to do even when it's none of their business.

CES  

Grandstanding today is application tomorrow.  Though who knows how far this could actually go.

Unfortunately grandstanding is a great way to test the viability of a movement in order to see if a politician can ride it into power (or to stay in power).

For now, all we can do is tell them it's terrible and to stop.  Anything that's going to happen will probably be years down the pipeline...

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

 

No, that sounds exactly like a Trump appointee.  Those actions would have high deniability and low visibility.  And it's exactly how Trumps boys are gutting, for example, the EPA.

Gutting the investigation is political.  Which some claim is neutral, but I will not.

However gutting the EPA is purely evil.  Welcome to the race to the bottom on a worldwide scale.

By the by, you'll be happy to know I know a HERO gamer seriously considering buying a tiny, cheap lake in Canada.  As long as the water stays fresh...

Yep.  Been wondering about the repercussions of all of that.  While I hate how politically motivated the investigation could have seemed, I frankly think it was on the right track.  Putin said quite openly that he had been working with Trump before the election, so...  Yeah.

Voted.  Took over an hour just to get started because the printers died barely an hour after the polling station opened.

Aren't caravans kind of easy to spot?  I don't know why anyone would build a whole wall to keep a caravan out when a couple dozen people could do the same.

The problem with walls is they lock people in.  Not just out.

This is great thoughts on climate change, and it's nice to see climate change discussed on the thread.

At the cost of sounding hysteric, and to be blunt, far above heat related deaths are the loss of food, water, and the associated government crackdowns that will happen over it.

Food shortages and economic downturn are likely going to mean a marked rise in despotic leadership, military overtures, and more.  It simply isn't practical to maintain a democracy if the leadership is dealing with dire problems they cannot actually address.  The use of technology to remove or replace opposition will become very common, the urgency to replace people even more so.

And no.  There are no measures that are going to fix the current situation other than an alien species or apocalyptic event bailing us out.  There's no 'measured approach' that will fix this.  Yes, it will take decades to get there.  But people are already acting based on their fears of this now (even those that likely suggest in public that climate change does not exist).

You'll be happy to know I have family who joined a research commission to discuss solutions to difficult problems in the world.  The most common question they have received from a multitude of potential millionaire investors tersely amounts to "How difficult is it to build and maintain a bunker in Canada".

I will now lighten the mood with a dour artificially humorous statement engineered to prevent protest to my suggestions and ideas:   "I need some alcohol." >_>

eh, deleted

15 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

I'm still amazed and ashamed that he hasn't been removed already.  Nixon was forced to resign over a B&E.  Clinton was impeached for lying about a BJ.  Trump has admitted to sexual assault on tape and obstruction of justice on live TV.  There is also no reasonable doubt that he didn't pay off at least two former lovers (ew) to silence them before the election.  The man should have been impeached and removed ages ago, but the congressional GOP finds it expedient to cover for his crimes, and is therefore complicit.

It's mostly the blatant disinterest in the basics of the integrity of our legal system that disturb me.  But frankly Trump's willing admission of obstruction of justice SHOULD be enough to impeach him.  It shows you just how far our government is willing to politically 'forgive' him of all faults, just because of how divided our government has become.

This more than anything else is showing just how big of a fight for "control" of the government is going on.  Anything is forgivable, anything is forgettable, just let "us" be on top so that if everything begins to burn down "we'll" be in control of what's left.

19 hours ago, Pariah said:

 

"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

Your quote, or from something entertaining that I should read?

I've been too busy to follow up on... anything, but I'm vaguely interested in this apparent education bill?  On taxes, income, and public schools?

3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

With all the concerns over hacking the computer voting system, I wonder if it would be practical to return to paper ballots for the upcoming November elections?

This is what computer security people have been screaming about for like a decade.

My field:

https://xkcd.com/2030/

5 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

I have stayed away from the hero boards, ngd, and this thread in particular for a while.   Mostly I have simply followed certain news developments closely, and the Mueller investigation in particular.   

 

"May you live in interesting times..."

Wow I think I'm totally unprepared for this potential job change.  And now terribly confused.

26 minutes ago, Vondy said:

That is gracious of you, but not really necessary

I am nothing if not gracious.

You don't need to apologize, though you were off re: 'party behavior'.  But I know I've applied the same razor poorly myself.

Re: trump, we do have fairly big disagreements there, but we are applying our own hammers.  Economics pain vs political pain.  ie- to load it less, a huge concern in my eyes is the evolution of political tactics after the Trump era.

In terms of conversation... I'll get back to you.   I'm scrambling to cover something work related.

9 minutes ago, Vondy said:

But which is lesser and why is a subjective personal assessment. As is whether there is a lesser to begin with. Treating personal political preferences as black and white objective facts is why this conversation repeatedly turns nasty.

  

 Good people. Moral people. Intelligent people. They can disagree.

Unfortunately, there is a heavy 'false equivalence' to assume or imply there is no 'lesser'.  It's a common way to dodge responsibility in politics, and to ignore real issues, the assumption that 'the other person/alternative is just as bad'.  Not that this is your meaning, but it's where so much of this comes from.

The tribalism is a problem, but it's very easy to see why politics goes in this direction.  People are deeply invested in protecting their politics, but this protection appears when the language and ideas of the platform they are fighting against are referenced.  Not the political body itself.

34 minutes ago, Vondy said:

This is you responding to common republican rhetoric and not to anything I said. As a result, why is it here?

My apologies.

34 minutes ago, Vondy said:

Well, we know there are lots of dead people on many states rolls. And many states do absolutely nothing to verify eligibility.

There isn't much I have on this.  Although I don't know if any of those people voted.  It could be being overlooked as such, but perhaps this is where conversation on rolls should go?  I don't know how much impact this has, but it should be discussed politically alongside gerrymandering.

I brought up gerrymandering to begin with as a means of toning down the... tone of the dialogue.

34 minutes ago, Vondy said:

But, you see, this is where we have a real and pointed disagreement. I regard the democrats current set of policies and the direction they want to take us to be just as lethal to our national well-being and freedoms in the long-term as the republicans

34 minutes ago, Vondy said:

Bad economics does make my hair go white. So does sovereign debt and politicians who don't care if they bankrupt our nation tomorrow in exchange for votes today.

The reason the GOP platform keeps on coming up in my dialogue is because I'm given little choice in the matter... not from you, I'm talking from the prospective of an eligible voter.  I did not mean for it to come across as me conflating GOP ideals into your arguments, just that this is the wall I am dealing with when informing my own decisions.

Is it a healthy opinion to have in the long term?  As you say, they (the democrats) aren't thinking their policies through.  That is a source of serious frustration for me.

34 minutes ago, Vondy said:

Go back and read what I wrote in context.. I did not refer to personalities in my discrete response to your comments on global warming and our environmental policy. I referred to them in response to Trumps behavior such as "gas-lighting," etc.

Ah.  My apologies then, again.

26 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Pushing the Overton Window to the left is not going to happen overnight

You are right.  I should stop getting bristled.

34 minutes ago, Vondy said:

With respect, that has not been my experience in this thread.

I'm sorry I reacted so poorly.  As people have said, things are desperate 'right now', so proposing their struggle to make things easier 'right now' is just as bad as the alternative's behavior is not...  great messaging?

But that does not have to be your concern.

34 minutes ago, Vondy said:

And, I do suggest you read the book. Its extremely well researched and cogently written by - gasp - a liberal!

Shockingly, I did not vote liberal in the last election.  And well before that, I would have probably voted for McCain if he hadn't gone... well off the rails.

Comment aside, I will look for it.

So our misbehavior has brought us to a meaningless conflict, as Old Man has said.  My misbehavior more than yours, mostly.

My apologies.  And to express, the GOP platform is figuratively crushing the life out of my coworkers.  It comes up not as a comparison to what you are saying, but as what I have to fight tooth and nail against just to breathe again.  That, and the fact that I didn't move back to the US until 10 years ago, has me very "left" of common policy in the US.  The fact that people are arguing poorly on this thread is not a great stamp of pride, though the desperation is real.

3 hours ago, Vondy said:

Until the dems (and you) stop making it about the man and return to a focus on the nation all I hear is Charlie Brown's teacher. When you do make it about our nation and our values, then we'll have something to talk about. Of course, I may still find your proposals anathema, but I'll at least hear them out. In the meantime, I'mpointedly voting libertarian with a clear conscience and wagging my ballot in your face.

Ah, I misread the earlier post and didn't even catch the comment of wagging a ballot at me.  Which is just funny.  I did not think Trump could have possibly won the last election, and certainly did not cooperate in the two party system in that vote. 

Yes, a minority government, as you described.

18 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

And yes, scarcity is real and there is never enough to go around... but I will always support policies that attempt to give more to those who have less, over policies that encourage the consolidation of wealth and power for the few.

Yes, capital gains tax being at a substantial high, 60-70%, is a possible solution.  And if you ran a platform on it, and I believed you could pass it, it would shift the balance of power in this country a lot.  But to get to that point, power in both parties has to become much more fragmented.  People thought that was Trump 'sweeping in' to break the establishment, but... let's say obviously that wasn't the case.  And unfortunately I've wondered how practical the marginal income tax rate of Eisenhower's day really was.

There was a brief breakdown on the new taxation laws and their estimated cost per person on this thread that was... disheartening.  Largely because of what we paid for it.

3 hours ago, Vondy said:

People in power who espouse "leftists ideas" are specifically targeting their opponents money and power. They are not targeting their own money and power, and especially not the money and power of the administrative state. I am opposed to an intrusive and ever-growing administrative state that sees the pocket-books of the common man as a blank check for politicians balkanized partisan agendas - be they right or left.  

I am not disagreeing.  But the 'leftist' "messaging" is far from 'poor people are lazy'.  It is extremely easy to run a campaign that attacks 'big money', but (as we've seen with the progressive shift) it undermines itself.  I would much rather have a rhetoric that doesn't bank on undermining poor, because that makes itself more powerful (and historically, is even more dangerous than just undermining political opponents).

And yes, it is still pretty painful to see.

3 hours ago, Vondy said:

I agree the GOP isn't interested in fixing gerrymandering. By that same token, the DNC isn't interested in taking reasonable steps to clean up voter rolls or verify eligibility. I'm not a partisan the way you are.

I did just post a financial article that outlined how Obama increased the deficit the most out of recent history.  Of course, he did inherit two wars and a "banking crisis".  I think some of the estimation took this into account, but I would need hard data and methodology information.

Are the voter rolls unclean?  Is eligibility a major issue in the voting polls?  So far there's nothing to indicate that it is.  If you have any information otherwise I would be very interested.   As I said, I've already re-evaluated my thoughts on medicare vs military cost (and before, on gun control) based on this very long thread.

With gerrymandering, though.  There's a rather... impressive history with gerrymandering, and there is an interesting discussion from Extra Credits on how gerrymandering may be raising extremism in politics.  We can see a clear, discernable impact from it.  If there is a huge problem with bad voter rolls, then we should definitely fix that.  But is there?

3 hours ago, Vondy said:

Dear God. Really? More straw men and conflations. I am talking about high-level political ideals and you are arguing personalities

3 hours ago, Vondy said:

I want us to set a responsible environmental policy and, I agree, this administration isn't doing that. But, whatever we do, has to be smart, effective, and conserve our economic well-being in the process. I do believe that's possible. It is not, however, what I have seen to date.

I'm not talking about personalities.  We literally have a political party who's ingrained in the belief that global warming isn't real.  Not even as personal belief, as political message.  That political message is then broadcast on the most popular news network in the country, and spread to conspiracy theorist radio talk show hosts where it is further reinforced.

We are the only modern country.  In the world.  That treats global warming this way.  So yes, I compare it to someone saying "your cancer isn't real".  Yes, it was rhetoric, and I apologize over being livid on that topic.

If we want reasonable, real policy, we need a country that actually talks about it.  This isn't a personality issue, it's that no one is going to create practical policies until we are well past the stage of climate change being political.  Sure, I hate the democrats for making it this way, but they aren't the ones who need to give in over that.

2 hours ago, Vondy said:

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winna!

The democratic party needs to be broken up, and I'm hoping the recent changes in politics may change that.  But bad economics aside, that's not what's making my hair go white.  The reason you are getting so much opposition is the problem not of comparing two crap sandwiches, it's comparing a bad flu to an ultimately lethal disease, or what people perceive to be.  There is some illegitimate fear mongering, but nothing makes me sicker than hearing that "people are too entitled" when working with coworkers who work 3-4 jobs.  If you want to talk to people and convince them of your position, then, let's talk about the current financial situation.

3 hours ago, Vondy said:

Economics is power. Taxes are control. This is so basic that I don't need to argue it. Indeed, if you think politics doesn't boil down to the control of the the people's treasure you don't know the first thing about power.

If we want to talk about taxes and not high-level political ideals, I'm fine with that.  The current financial system isn't helping the working class.  If you think that can be fixed by lowering taxes across the board, I'd be interested in knowing how.  The "treasury" is not just what is held by the government, but what is siphoned off by the second estate (or the merchant class). 

The past-super-rich are being outstripped financially by a new generation of them.  It's understandable companies like Apple and Amazon are taking heat in politics now.  But the way Amazon workers, Tesla workers, and even Google employees are treated is not good.  I honestly do not know how to regulate the power of the new era of corporations other than higher taxes and greater regulation.  How would you go about this?  All I got in my hand for this is taxes and regulations.

(If I could vote a party that I believed would help with global warming, I probably would give "little a damn" what party they were.  But I might have second thoughts if they espoused dialogue that made me think "you know, maybe they actually do hate most other people.  why should I trust them with the fate of the people?")

Vondy, I may have been cruel here, however.  Who knows if a government like what you propose could work. 

But I do know someone like 'Thomas Sowell' is gaslighting if he's saying "leftist countries don't exist".

I don't really care if people talk about Republicans and Democrats.  I've heard well reasoned arguments from either.

"I think" the real problem is that modern economics is not working.  It's almost like we've stopped regulating Wall Street, regulating major companies, preventing monopolies, and started accepting unlimited bribes in politics.  That system didn't work well in Russia, either...

To ask a question of Thomas Sowell:  "Why should anyone with power espouse 'leftist ideas' or 'populist ideas' when those ideas suggest weakening the money and power of those people?"  This is why the Republican party will never address 'Gerrymandering', despite it's obvious and blatant corruptive politics.

This isn't about economics.  It's about power.  It never was about anything else.

If you want to reduce spending, an earlier comment on this thread suggested minority governments spend less than majority governments, historically.

If we are talking about democrats being fiscally poor decision makers, well:

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Me.  I would like a government that acknowledged that Global Climate Change isn't a fantasy, and that it could potentially end our civilization if not curtailed?  You know, like every other country in the world is doing?  Imagine the way the world might look if we hadn't had politicians and 'news entertainers' literally accepting cash for our future.  If 30-40 years ago we had congressmen who actually said "yeah that sounds bad we should look into this"?

If you want to talk about finding politicians unpleasant, how about people who essentially say "nah your kid don't got cancer" and who block every attempt to research, analyze, and cure that condition.  Who devote substantial resources to gaslight you and make it sound buffoonish, ridiculous, or "unpatriotic".  "Your kid doesn't got cancer, I have a doctor who will say so!"

I do appreciate the perspective Vondy.

8 hours ago, Vondy said:

 

The thing is, I don't think our traditional definitions of "Right" and "Left" remain useful. "

The GOP has embraced the administrative state, blank check spending, and conservative social authoritarianism.

From a high-level view,, I don't see our present "right" as being meaningfully different than the radical progressive "left."

Sure, the specific policies and sensibilities differ, but both are all too willing to trample on liberty to legislate their morality while bankrupting us. 

8 hours ago, Hermit said:

 

Both parties latch onto the corporate teat way too much for my liking as well.

I think both parties just voted in our new military bill too

Thanks for the non-insane summary.

Also. I am finally home for the day.  Yaaaay...