Politics Thread - Ka-tet of 19

[Gfted1]

Florida seems to be quite accepting towards retirees who get their pension from foreign pension funds. Like for example there are 25000 Finnish retirees with permament residence without need to seek USA citizenship (which would cut their right to get pension from Finland's pension funds). Of course such retairees are somewhat special case of immigrants as they not only bring money with them but also create local jobs.

They must be here under visa or green card. I don't think one can simply walk into Mordor land in Miami international airport and chill out for the rest of their lives.

[Elerond]

 

Florida seems to be quite accepting towards retirees who get their pension from foreign pension funds. Like for example there are 25000 Finnish retirees with permament residence without need to seek USA citizenship (which would cut their right to get pension from Finland's pension funds). Of course such retairees are somewhat special case of immigrants as they not only bring money with them but also create local jobs.

They must be here under visa or green card. I don't think one can simply walk into Mordor land in Miami international airport and chill out for the rest of their lives.

 

 

That is true, but it is quite easy to find services that help apply long stay visas and green card or some other permanent visas. In case of Finnish retirees there are even some cities in Florida where you can find those services in Finnish like for example Lake Worth. Although these days Florida has lost its popularity as first choice of retairement destination to Portugal and Spain which both offer ten years of tax free living (with certain conditions) for retairees from other countries.

[Gfted1]

Although these days Florida has lost its popularity as first choice of retairement destination to Portugal and Spain which both offer ten years of tax free living (with certain conditions) for retairees from other countries.

Interesting. Besides the climate, I believe Florida is a retirement destination for two reasons; 1) No state income tax 2) a $25000 homestead exemption.

[smjjames]

Socialists rejoice! (lol), Rep. Joe Crowley (the #4 top Dem in the House) just got booted out by a card carrying member of Democratic Socialists of America, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/26/17506970/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-crowley-primary-new-york His major missteps like sending a surrogate to a debate and even skipping some, certainly didn't help though.

 

While she sounds about as socialist as Bernie Sanders, I don't think she's 'European Socialist' as while the ones mentioned there are pretty up there, they don't sound like they'd be far left by any measure, except the US anyway.

[Volourn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTISqHn6jx8

 

Before commenting, is this true?

[Katphood]

Thanks to these scumbags, I can't buy vidgy games anymore.

 

[Guard Dog]

 

Gromnir said: actually we do have faith in human nature.  better angels o' our nature is what finally resulted in the Civil Rights Movement.  our better angels, after much inevitable fail and pointless bloodshed, realize the need for such stuff as the Bill o' Rights and equal employment legislation.  our better angels make the hard choice, the wise choice, and willingly and voluntarily place limits 'pon our selves and our brothers.  abandon such limits in favor o' a blissful hope for a locke state o' nature as 'posed to hobbes?  if you is genuine thinking that after thousands o' years o' the repetitive and predictable narrative o' human nature playing out again and again and again with discrimination and bigotry being common themes in the story human, the savage drama will be altered and rewritten to finally achieve a happy ending thanks to yelp, then...

 

The Bill of Rights does not place limits on us, but on government. Yes, I know you know that. Probably better than anyone. Just sayin'. And I also won't argue that affirmative action, EE, ADA, and other such things were needed remedies for things happening in their time. Maybe human nature won't change without prodding. But it DOES change. The problem is the limits that prod change never go away. Indeed they become more and more restrictive over time. Sooner or later the kids grow up you know. They can stay out after dark. And I'd much prefer the hope for Locke's ideas of a marriage between liberty and tolerance over the certainty of Hobbes. His notion of the social contract is a fantasy. What it really is is an agreement to which no one has consented to allow and elite group of people to take whatever they wish from, and do whatever they wish to whomever they wish in the interest of serving some nebulous goal of "social justice" or the good of "society" as only they define it.

 

 

Gromnir also said: ps give us a moment to enjoy the irony o' gd, perhaps the most vocal defender o' the second amendment on this board, indulging in a hand wringing plea for us embrace the goodness o' our fellow man. perhaps gd has had a change o' heart and no longer sees need for firearms to protect himself from his fellow men, the ubiquitous lurking stormtroopers and hooligans who is a constant threat to his personal liberties?  maybe the real threat is grizzlies as 'posed to humans?

Let's not forget the paper targets I've been waging a successful campaign against. My steady marksmanship has ensured not one has advanced past my 50 meter range post  in all these years. You know it's a curious thing about a "right". No explanation is owed as to why you want it or what you mean to do with it. Except this one. No one asks "Why do you need to be secure in your person or property? What do you have to hide?" Or "Why do you want to criticize your government? Don't you love your country?" But with this one, advocacy comes hand in hand with inquiry. Has that ever struck you as odd? Of course my reasons for advocacy are many and already well known to you so I won't rehash them here. But I have always had faith in the decency of "people" while still guarding me and mine from the ill-intent of a "person". 

[Enoch]

 

 

Let's not forget the paper targets I've been waging a successful campaign against. My steady marksmanship has ensured not one has advanced past my 50 meter range post  in all these years. You know it's a curious thing about a "right". No explanation is owed as to why you want it or what you mean to do with it. Except this one. No one asks "Why do you need to be secure in your person or property? What do you have to hide?" Or "Why do you want to criticize your government? Don't you love your country?" But with this one, advocacy comes hand in hand with inquiry. Has that ever struck you as odd? Of course my reasons for advocacy are many and already well known to you so I won't rehash them here. But I have always had faith in the decency of "people" while still guarding me and mine from the ill-intent of a "person".

 

Take a look at the arguments of folks who speak out against flag burning, or of law-enforcement types who want to outlaw strong cryptography.  Or folks who object to state actions that they see as Establishment Clause violations.

 

Anyhow, the answer to your question is that gun-rights advocates are sometimes met with a raised eyebrow because many people simply doubt that this particular legally-granted right merits such treatment.  Everybody expresses themselves, has stuff they want private, and doesn't want to be thrown in jail.  Not everybody sees the need to own devices designed to make holes in human beings. 

 

 

Aside, as a practical matter, this is really the more promising way to change American gun culture than legal restraints.  Eventually, we'll get to where folks who own/carry a handgun are viewed in the same way as folks who own/carry a katana, and it'll make for a safer place to live. 

[Guard Dog]

 

Let's not forget the paper targets I've been waging a successful campaign against. My steady marksmanship has ensured not one has advanced past my 50 meter range post  in all these years. You know it's a curious thing about a "right". No explanation is owed as to why you want it or what you mean to do with it. Except this one. No one asks "Why do you need to be secure in your person or property? What do you have to hide?" Or "Why do you want to criticize your government? Don't you love your country?" But with this one, advocacy comes hand in hand with inquiry. Has that ever struck you as odd? Of course my reasons for advocacy are many and already well known to you so I won't rehash them here. But I have always had faith in the decency of "people" while still guarding me and mine from the ill-intent of a "person".

 

Take a look at the arguments of folks who speak out against flag burning, or of law-enforcement types who want to outlaw strong cryptography.  Or folks who object to state actions that they see as Establishment Clause violations.

 

Anyhow, the answer to your question is that gun-rights advocates are sometimes met with a raised eyebrow because many people simply doubt that this particular legally-granted right merits such treatment.  Everybody expresses themselves, has stuff they want private, and doesn't want to be thrown in jail.  Not everybody sees the need to own devices designed to make holes in human beings. 

 

 

Aside, as a practical matter, this is really the more promising way to change American gun culture than legal restraints.  Eventually, we'll get to where folks who own/carry a handgun are viewed in the same way as folks who own/carry a katana, and it'll make for a safer place to live. 

 

You of all people know I hold gun control and anti-flag burning nonsense in equal contempt. Evil begins when one person thinks they know better how another person should be living. Whether you think the right to bear arms should even be a right at all is a discussion this country has been having for a long time. But it IS a right. If you want it changed all you have to do is change the Constitution. I think you know how likely that is. It's not an unlimited right for sure. And even I don't think it should be.

 

edit: damned auto correct

 

edit to the edit: Perhaps you are right Enoch. Perhaps the days will come when the attitude of society will change. People will not buy or own firearms and over the years the 2nd Amendment will go the way of the 3rd. I'd be fine with that. I will not change. No doubt in my mind about that. But, speaking of Hobbes, most folks these days seem to just accept that the "collective will" of the people embodied by the state has supremacy over the individual. By coming to this board and elsewhere talking about things like "individual rights" I'm already showing what a dinosaur I am.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Enoch]

My first paragraph was merely a response to your assertion that second amendment rights were unique in how advocates have their motivations questioned.  Flag burning and the others were the first examples I could think of where I remembered that happening.  Wasn't addressing the substance of their discussions. 

[Hurlshort]

We could definitely do with a change in the gun culture of the US. It's strange because I grew up with realistic looking toy guns and no one I knew was really all that interested in the real thing, and now all the toys look ridiculous and people people are super gung-ho about owning firearms. Probably not all that related, but still.

 

I'd love to see an actual movement to establish legitimate militias that aren't filled with whack jobs and are focused on gun safety. 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Hurlshot

[Guard Dog]

That is sort of how the NRA got started. Minus the militia part. That was before they found out there was big money in political agitation.

[Gromnir]

one o' these days, gd is gonna recognize how "The Government" in the USA is not insular and discreet from The People.  is the people who pass gun laws.  the people, by overwhelming majorities, passed the sedition laws o' the 1920s and +80 years o' jim crow laws and the far more recent patriot act.  the bill of rights is a bar 'pon excess o' The People... the unchecked mob needs limits and The People has been wise enough to realize democracy cannot be trusted with fundamental rights. perhaps you think Obamacare were violating liberty rights?  Obamacare is a misnomer.  is the patient protection and affordable care act, passed by Congress.

 

go ahead and type "mosque violence" into google.  

 

is not a past problem.  

 

when jackbooted stormtroopers breakdown gd's doors to take his precious guns from him, it will be 'cause The People passed laws which demand such.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

"Which part?"

 

Both.

 

Is it true that the Red Hen and other business are suffering bigly?  Isn't this a small town so I doubt there is a lot of choice in regards to restaurants?

 

Did the owner  actually resign from being part of that business organization?

 

Was she really a dip**** that she started harassing the restaurant that ended up serving Sanders? That really is  dickish and is contrary about all this talk about how 'polite' she was? I have doubts on this part because I'm sure Sanders would havementioned it but they had the other owner on talking about it.

 

Too much FAKE NEWS.

[Elerond]

"Which part?"

 

Both.

 

Is it true that the Red Hen and other business are suffering bigly?  Isn't this a small town so I doubt there is a lot of choice in regards to restaurants?

 

Did the owner  actually resign from being part of that business organization?

 

Was she really a dip**** that she started harassing the restaurant that ended up serving Sanders? That really is  dickish and is contrary about all this talk about how 'polite' she was? I have doubts on this part because I'm sure Sanders would havementioned it but they had the other owner on talking about it.

 

Too much FAKE NEWS.

 

It is difficult to say if Red Hen that started the uproar is suffering as they are closed until July 5, as they seem to have schedulled summer break, but some media outlets say that they have longer break than usually, but can't say if that is true.

 

Other restaurants in USA that are also named as Red Hen have faced protests, even though there is no Red Hen franchise they are just private business that by change have same name.

 

There are protesters in Lexington, that mostly support Trump who have caused road blocks and thrown chicken **** over Red Hen and caused other kinds of disturbance in Lexington.

 

There are no reliable sources that restaurant owner or its employeers started to harash Sanders after she was asked to leave, all the mentions about it are days later of initial news, but after Fox news mentioned it, claims are repeated so many times that it issue has become so muddy that there isn't really way to tell what is real and what has been invented by media outlets and social media users.

 

Red Hen's owner did resign from her position in bussiness group that focuses to promote Lexington's downtown area because she felt that news about her, Red Hen, Sanders and Trump's tweets would compromise said bussiness group's efforts to promote Lexington and she felt that it isn't right that other bussiness owners suffer because of her actions.

[Guard Dog]

Gromnir. No, not entirely insular. But hard to argue it's not trending that way. Especially when you look at the lengths the D & R go to keep other parties off the ballots, out of the debates, etc. The things I found most entertaining about Trump & Sanders, as unacceptable as I found them as candidates, is how much the "establishment" didn't want them. That does give me some hope. Too bad the "anti-establishment" types turn out to be dumpster fires.

 

Did the ACA violate liberty (as I understand the word)? An emphatic yes. I don't like the notion of the government telling me I HAVE to buy something and they get to pick WHO I have to buy it from. Did it violate the law? Was it a tax, was it a fee? Well, I guess not. Not that it did more to me than drive up my health care costs such as they are and vet bills. Affordable? Maybe to some folks. Not so much for others. Not something I have to worry about now anyway. But I had a problem with it on principle. Not so much I was willing to "refuse my poll taxes" over it so there is that.

 

In the unlikely event of the jackbooted thugs kicking down my door to get my guns it might well be my fellow citizens that sent them. But I do not have to acquiesce. What I do that day will be my own version of civil disobedience. Or un-civil disobedience. The armed citizen will be the only real free man left then. They cannot compel me to obey. All they can do is shoot back.

 

Anyway, that will not likely happen. Collecting +300M guns from Americans, many of whom would rather start a Civil War than hand them over is beyond a nightmare scenario despite what Wayne LaPierre e-mails me every 5 minutes.

 

You might wonder if I really am a "true believer". Do I really think there will be no racist or homophobic refusal of service if all the protections against such were to disappear tomorrow,? Of course there will be. There is more than a few SOBs running around. But I absolutely don't think for a second it will look anything like the 1950's. Not even in the same ballpark. The people who actually saw that with their own eyes are elderly today and were very young then. Most folks today would recoil in disgust if they heard what people were shouting at Jackie Robinson or saw an Alabama State cop shoot Jimmie Lee Jackson. Too many people didn't see anything wrong with it then. That is not the case today.

 

Perhaps you are unrepentantly pessimistic about our capacity for unforced tolerance and decency. Maybe I'm unrealistically optimistic. We won't find out because it's not going to happen. The trend is less liberty not more. More limits not fewer. I am under no illusions that eventually electing a libertarian or two to congress or a state office will suddenly lead to a libertarian awakening. Or even an ascendancy of the LP as a national force. But right now neither major party could be described as a champions of liberty by any means. Under both the government gets bigger, more intrusive, and yes more insular because the lines between Democrats & Republicans are getting blurrier. Republican democracies are not free because they can choose their leaders. They are free because their leaders are not all powerful. But they are getting closer election by election it seems. My best hope is eventually the LP, flawed as it is, might slow it down. And maybe just maybe get people to think about what their relationship with the government actually is or should be.

[smjjames]

OOOH, Justice Kennedy just announced his retirement, http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/393357-kennedy-announces-retirement-from-supreme-court MASSIVE SCOTUS nominee fight coming up and the Democrats will definetly rally in order to take the Senate to try and control SCOTUS.

[HoonDing]

WINNING

[injurai]

Fitting that the Reagan appointment would be replaced by Trump.

[ktchong]

OOOH, Justice Kennedy just announced his retirement, http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/393357-kennedy-announces-retirement-from-supreme-court MASSIVE SCOTUS nominee fight coming up and the Democrats will definetly rally in order to take the Senate to try and control SCOTUS.

 

It will already be too late by then.  Kennedy will retire by the end of July.  The vacancy will be filled, quickly, within a couple months at most -  before the November midterm election.

 

Personally, I do not care about Roe vs. Wade.  I think it is over:  Roe vs. Wade will be repealed, and abortion will become a state issue again.   It is a forgone conclusion at this point.  I do not care about Roe vs. Wade because it is fundamentally unfair to men.  I do not think it is fair that only women can get to decide if they want to keep the babies.   If a woman decides she wants to keep the baby but the man decides he does not want the baby, he does not get a say but he will be forced to be financially responsible for the baby - for the decision made by the woman against his will.  If I as a man do not get to decide, then why should I be financially responsible for someone else's decision?  Since the fundamentals of Roe vs. Wade is gonna be unfair anyway, might as well get rid of it and burn everything down.

 

LGBTQ rights will also be gone, which I also do not care about.  Frankly, I think the whole LGBTQ thingy has gone a bit too far.   Maybe a decade ago gays and lesbians needed protection, but nowadays they are just rubbing everything on everyone else's faces.  It's at the point where if a straight man decides that he does not want to date or have sex with a trans-woman, he is now a "bigot".  Now everyone else is being forced and shamed into accepting LGBTQ lifestyle or he is a bigot.  So, yeah, let's scale that back a bit.

 

Affirmative action will be banned. Frankly, as Asian I want it to be repealed.  Asians are the biggest losers of affirmative action, so no.

 

DACA will be repealed - as Dotard Joffrey Drumpf should have had the authority to do. I don't like him, but he is the President, and he should have the power to cancel an executive action. DACA was NOT a law passed by the Congress. It was supposed to be an executive order by a President, so another President should have been able to cancel or withdraw that executive action. Yet DACA is being litigated into a law. That sets a dangerous precedence because that means any President can use an executive order to bypass the Congress and effectively make a law, and that executive action will continue to stay in effect after the President leaves office - so it effectively becoming a law without the approval of the Congress.

 

Everyone is losing their ****s over the Supreme Court's ruling on the travel ban right now.   IMO the  Supreme Court ruling is constitutional because the Constitution does give the President plenary authority to control and regulate immigration - including the authority to deny entry to any alien or class of aliens whom he deems detrimental to U.S. interests.  The President can be a bigot and ban Muslims from entering the country - but he still has the plenary authority to do so.  The only thing we could have done is to not elect a bigot as the President.

 

IMO, RBG is gonna kick the bucket soon, which could happen before 2020.  So, that'll be another Justice filled by Trump.

Edited June 28, 2018 by ktchong

[Hurlshort]

Thanks for sharing, I guess?

 

[injurai]

"The future is already here - it's just not very evenly distributed yet."

 

Not just true of technology, but of rights and representation.

 

Roe v. Wade is important. Woman deserve control over their bodies and rights to medical privacy, if you want to provide more protection to the fetus, there are other avenues forward. Plenty of woman's lives are controlled by the men around them with regards to the risk of pregnancy and their need for financial support of bringing a child to term. Obtaining more rights for men in regards to custody and child support can be done without interfering with a woman's control over her health & body.

 

LGBT rights should be the same as everyone's rights. I disagree with the sort of compelled speech laws with regards to identity that some propagate as part of a majority rule, minority rights philosophy. But, if we are being honest most of the world is not trying to be accepting of even civil LGBTQ folks in the social sphere. Plenty of people will take the opportunity to let them know they are unwelcome in public space if given the chance. Not every corner of this country operates like a progressive neighborhood in a liberal college town. LGBT rights shouldn't place them above anyone else, but the lack of specific rights shouldn't put them below anyone else. Sometimes you just need to be explicit when stating rights extend to all peoples.

 

Affirmative action has it's place, but only in a patchwork sense. Applied broadly it overwhelming does more harm than good, and more now than every given the diversity of the modern global world. It allows for aid for the under-served to be disbursed by collegiate institutions, instead of investing in minority or economically impoverished communities. All the while creating unfair conditions in colleges for people who have worked so hard to get there. Everyone at college is coming from drastically different life circumstances and economics conditions anyways. Those considerations should be far bigger considerations than merely something as abstract as race. We should recover the notion of the individual by economic means.

 

Of course any executive order can be proposed as legislation and become law is it movies through the proper means of becoming so. There is not establishing new precedence here.

 

I would agree the presidents travel ban was constitutional, however Trump had made numerous comments during his campaign that suggest the ban had a racist motive. People do not like any sort of conniving or moving of goal-posts that smuggles in racist policy under a guise. Given this country has a history with radical Islamic terrorism and Trump is a blundering idiot. I think the ban in relation to nationals from countries from which radical cells operate makes sense, and is totally justifiable. But, the well has been poisoned because someone like Trump does not think straight, nor act straight. The defense and intelligence sector already does a lot of work screening people, so I'm not sure we really needed an executive order on top of what we already do. All Trump has done is stirred up the heavy particulates at the bottom of the well.

 

The reason I like the founders of the US is because they are riding towards a horizon of enlightenment liberalism. I find conservatives tend not to believe in those things in the same manner, but since the founding documents are so well written, they sometimes manage to hold down the fort. Progressives I feel have their eye on the prize, but often don't have a sense to guard the systemic principles that drive emergent liberal values, so they put the very systems that mean to guide them at risk. Since law is an exercise in articulations I want my Justices to embody the law in a manner that is contingent on the written understanding, so that it may be preserved and acted out by all those that follow. I find a moderate conservative or classically liberal Judge would best fill such a responsibility. Unfortunately I also feel the Republican base is tinged in a bias against progress which will defend the system over the people who the system is meant to defend. I fear the courts will become too conservative and will hinder this country. This country often tries to play to it's strengths, which is in economic prowess. All too often conservatives forget this is a result of a massive debt economy and you have to take care of people to make them productive and flourishing, there is a reason the left as been amassing at the borders.

[Pidesco]

I'm really curious to know what Guard Dog thinks of the GOP getting an ultraconservative judge in the Supreme Court.

[Guard Dog]

I'm really curious to know what Guard Dog thinks of the GOP getting an ultraconservative judge in the Supreme Court.

Well right now there is only one. Alito. When he makes a pick then I'll comment. The conservative and liberal labels don't really apply to judges they way they do politicians. A justice should look at an issue and ask "Ii this legal?" And that is it. Far too often people want their justices to ask "Is this moral?" One is subjective. The other isn't. But a lot of people think subjective standards are OK as long as they like the standard. I don't.

 

Sotomayor has become a consistent champion of the 4th Amendment. In the American definition of the word liberal (meaning deferring to the State over the citizen) that is an illiberal position. Alito in the same cases tends to favor the state position on the 4th Amendment. In the American political definition of Conservative that is an un-conservative position. They all tend to speckle the spray chart on different issues. Alito, Kagan, and Breyer are the most consistent in one orthodoxy or the other.

 

Heck just last week in Pereira v. Sessions they went 8-1 against a government position on immigration. Most notably refusing to apply the "Chevron Deference" (short definition is when the law, in application of a regulatory agency, is ambiguous the court defers to the agency's interpretation of that law). Now, I don't know what was in the minds of the 8 who decided against the government but deferring to the power of regulatory agencies is a decidedly statist and liberal position but all four "liberals" went to other way and the one "conservative" Alito dissented.

 

The point being, the political labels just don't apply real well to judges. You really have to look at their background and history ans even then you don't know.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Pidesco]

Clarence Thomas is certainly more conservative than Alito.

 

In any case, thanks for the input.