Politics: The Final Frontier

[ktchong]

So, either this weekend or early next week, my wife and I will be making another round of donations to the five four progressive candidates.   The five progressives in the race are: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, Marianne Williamson, and  Andrew Yang,

I have yet to discussed this with my wife, but I have decided  I will NOT be donating any more money to Andrew Yang's campaign. 

In both of his debates, Yang had disappointed.  He is a weak debater.  Based on what I've seen, I have concluded that he will NOT be able to go head-to-head against Trump in a debate.  Trump will eat Yang alive.   I think all the progressives EXCEPT Yang will be capable of going head-to-head against - and beat - Trump in a debate.   (i.e., Bernie and Warren were particularly savage in the debate last night.) 

Unfortunately,  I can no longer support Yang even though I support his ideas and policies.  I think he will NOT be able to beat Trump in a war of words.  I want someone who will be able to beat Trump in the election AND in a debate, and Yang simply does not have the rhetoric skill to accomplish that.

So he is out.

Edited August 1, 2019 by ktchong

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, KaineParker said:

Never let facts get in the way of indignant outrage tbh.

do a board search for "seth rich."  is more than a few folks who should feel embarrassed 'bout their posts on the subject. 

HA! Good Fun!
 

[ShadySands]

The guy Hillary had taken out?

[Guard Dog]

Looks like Gabbard is getting some recognition: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455680-gabbard-the-most-searched-candidate-following-primary-debate

Same thing happened last time. I didn't watch tonight (the Rays beat the Red Sox again tonight 8-5, brooms out tomorrow) but from what I'm reading she handled herself well.  Hopefully that will translate into poll numbers and donations. She can do something no other candidate in the race can: peel off libertarian leaning and other disaffected Republicans from Trump. Plus she comes relatively free of baggage that can used against her. Very few of the other Dems can say that. 

[smjjames]

23 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Looks like Gabbard is getting some recognition: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455680-gabbard-the-most-searched-candidate-following-primary-debate

Same thing happened last time. I didn't watch tonight (the Rays beat the Red Sox again tonight 8-5, brooms out tomorrow) but from what I'm reading she handled herself well.  Hopefully that will translate into poll numbers and donations. She can do something no other candidate in the race can: peel off libertarian leaning and other disaffected Republicans from Trump. Plus she comes relatively free of baggage that can used against her. Very few of the other Dems can say that. 

Just out of curiosity, if she was the VP on a ticket, would you vote for that one? It’s probably not likely since she doesn’t really fill a strategic geographical position (though neither did Biden), but that’s just one consideration out of many. *is curious as to how many VPs came straight from the House* I’ll prob check that in the morning though  

 

57 minutes ago, ktchong said:

So, either this weekend or early next week, my wife and I will be making another round of donations to the five four progressive candidates.   The five progressives in the race are: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, Marianne Williamson, and  Andrew Yang,

I have yet to discussed this with my wife, but I have decided  I will NOT be donating any more money to Andrew Yang's campaign. 

In both of his debates, Yang had disappointed.  He is a weak debater.  Based on what I've seen, I have concluded that he will NOT be able to go head-to-head against Trump in a debate.  Trump will eat Yang alive.   I think all the progressives EXCEPT Yang will be capable of going head-to-head against - and beat - Trump in a debate.   (i.e., Bernie and Warren were particularly savage in the debate last night.) 

Unfortunately,  I can no longer support Yang even though I support his ideas and policies.  I think he will NOT be able to beat Trump in a war of words.  I want someone who will be able to beat Trump in the election AND in a debate, and Yang simply does not have the rhetoric skill to accomplish that.

So he is out.

Yang certainly has ideas galore, but they’re kind of, well, scattershot, ranging from more mundane things that would better fit into big picture stuff to regular big policy stuff. Sounded like he is willing to go for the long haul, so, maybe could be aiming for an admin position somewhere. Not sure what though. 

Edited August 1, 2019 by smjjames

[HoonDing]

" I think he will NOT be able to beat Trump in a war of words. "

A three-year-old can beat Trump in a war of words.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

8 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

No outrage, just an interesting story. They are all dishonest rats in my book. D & R alike.

It's outrage clickbait based on a loose translation of facts designed to get the audience indignantinterested enough to share it on social media or email lists. I don't think much of any politico or government employee but I don't think sharing what amounts to conspiracy theories is a good use of time, especially considering they're openly up to horrible ****.

Edited August 1, 2019 by KaineParker

[Guard Dog]

6 hours ago, smjjames said:

Just out of curiosity, if she was the VP on a ticket, would you vote for that one? It’s probably not likely since she doesn’t really fill a strategic geographical position (though neither did Biden), but that’s just one consideration out of many. *is curious as to how many VPs came straight from the House* I’ll prob check that in the morning though  

 

That would be a hard no from me. To quote John Nance Gardener "The Vice Presidency isn't worth a bucket of warm spit". I am repelled by heavy handed, authoritarian government that respects no liberty, taxes mercilessly, spends fecklessly, and staggers from one ill advised  foreign entanglement to the next. That is the Democrats in a nutshell. At least Gabbard would likely take the "ill advised foreign entanglements" off the list. She might even be OK on the "respects no liberty" part based on some of her speeches and House votes. The rest? No chance in hell.

Of course I am also repelled by heavy handed incompetent government  that mismanages economic and trade policy, respects some liberties but not others, bullies and belittles political opponents and allies alike, disrespects the country and it's citizens, spends money fecklessly, and staggers from one ill advised  foreign entanglement to the next. So I'm going to be a hard NO on Donald Trump as well. 

So it's Gabbard or 3rd party for me. Either Schultz or whichever of those three idiots the Libertarians nominate.  But I am re-registering as a Democrat before the Primary to vote for Gabbard. I'll probably feel the need for a shower after doing it though. 

[Maedhros]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

taxes mercilessly

Out of curiosity, do you dislike high taxes as a matter of principle, or because you think the money will be misspent?

Did you approve of Trump's tax cuts, even though it added to the deficit?

[Gfted1]

Im 100% for raising taxes, on "the rich" nats. Im anxious to jumpstart a socialist system in the US in time for me and my family to take advantage of it. Promise me a free mortgage, free college and free healthcare and you've got my vote for life! 

[Guard Dog]

49 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

Out of curiosity, do you dislike high taxes as a matter of principle, or because you think the money will be misspent?

Did you approve of Trump's tax cuts, even though it added to the deficit?

Tax is theft. A necessary evil perhaps, but definitely evil. The State is taking money it did not earn from people who did earn it. If I put a gun to your head and told you I'd either kill you, kidnap you, or take away everything you have unless you give me 40% of all your money? Would that be theft? Suppose I spent some of that money in a way the somewhat benefited you? Would that still be theft when it was taken under threat of force? If it's theft when the mafia does it how is it not theft when the state does it? 

And the money is absolutely misspent. As James Madison wrote "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse" . 

Now, in the real world there is no getting around it. Government is not an industry that generates a profit. I would much prefer if it received it's income in a different way, taxing consumption rather than production for example, or flat rate taxes rather than progressive, but it is what it is.

I absolutely approve of tax cuts in any form. What I do NOT approve of is spending escalations. Tax cuts are good. Spending cuts are even better. The powers that be in the US today want more power lodged in their hands, not less. And power is bought with money other people earned. So we're pretty f----d. 

 

[BruceVC]

51 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Im 100% for raising taxes, on "the rich" nats. Im anxious to jumpstart a socialist system in the US in time for me and my family to take advantage of it. Promise me a free mortgage, free college and free healthcare and you've got my vote for life! 

I think the best way to guarantee that quality of life is indeed taxes but not on the rich...thats so ...2010-2016ish and outdated nowadays. We need to find new tax targets 

You should heavily tax anyone who is in the country illegally, you dont deport anyone but you tax them. That way you will help motivate people to become citizens legally. So its a win win for everyone 

[Gfted1]

I don't care how it happens. Through pure accident of birth, we in the West are BORN with an inalienable right to food, shelter, education and medicine paid for with someone else's dime. Im at the point in my life where Im ready to cash in so we need get this ball rolling asap.

[Malcador]

Reminded of that quote from Green Mars - “That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.”

[Maedhros]

30 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Tax is theft. A necessary evil perhaps, but definitely evil. The State is taking money it did not earn from people who did earn it. If I put a gun to your head and told you I'd either kill you, kidnap you, or take away everything you have unless you give me 40% of all your money? Would that be theft? Suppose I spent some of that money in a way the somewhat benefited you? Would that still be theft when it was taken under threat of force? If it's theft when the mafia does it how is it not theft when the state does it?  

And the money is absolutely misspent. As James Madison wrote "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse" . 

Now, in the real world there is no getting around it. Government is not an industry that generates a profit. I would much prefer if it received it's income in a different way, taxing consumption rather than production for example, or flat rate taxes rather than progressive, but it is what it is.

I absolutely approve of tax cuts in any form. What I do NOT approve of is spending escalations. Tax cuts are good. Spending cuts are even better. The powers that be in the US today want more power lodged in their hands, not less. And power is bought with money other people earned. So we're pretty f----d. 

 

Thanks for clarifying.

Tax is technically theft, but to me it's still very acceptable as long as those money are spent in creating a safer and more free society where everyone has a real chance of getting education, work, decent healthcare. If the government isn't any more reliable than the mafia, your analogy works.

[Skarpen]

8 hours ago, HoonDing said:

" I think he will NOT be able to beat Trump in a war of words. "

A three-year-old can beat Trump in a war of words.

Might be so, but no Democrat comes close to the intelligence and eloquence level of the three year old, so they are in a pickle.

[Skarpen]

31 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

Thanks for clarifying.

Tax is technically theft, but to me it's still very acceptable as long as those money are spent in creating a safer and more free society where everyone has a real chance of getting education, work, decent healthcare. If the government isn't any more reliable than the mafia, your analogy works.

Safer and more free don't go together. Every time government promises more safety it's at the expense of freedom.

We already have a system where everyone has a real chance of getting education, work and decent healthcare. The problem is many people waste this chance and then claim they didn't have it in the first place. 

It would be heaven on earth if any government was half as reliable as the mafia 

[ktchong]

Saudi Arabia Admits They Spread Wahhabism Around the World at US Request and Lost Control of It

(Wahhabism is the extremist/fundamentalist/radical sect of Islam that fuels almost all of the world's Islamic terrorism today.  The original source is The Washington Post)

 

Edited August 1, 2019 by ktchong

[Maedhros]

3 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Safer and more free don't go together. Every time government promises more safety it's at the expense of freedom.

We already have a system where everyone has a real chance of getting education, work and decent healthcare. The problem is many people waste this chance and then claim they didn't have it in the first place. 

It would be heaven on earth if any government was half as reliable as the mafia 

Safety and freedom goes perfectly together. When you are safe, you are free to do whatever you want knowing that you'll always have a pillow to fall back on. When you are not safe, everything you do is a big risk, and your choices in life are more limited.

I don't believe everyone has a real chance of getting education. I mean sure, in the sense that everyone can work hard, be the best kind of man, and that kind of naive thinking - but not realistically. You don't get to choose your parents, or the environment you grow up in.

The government can be likened to a parent. If it's a good one, it's hugely beneficial to your life. If it's not...

Edited August 1, 2019 by Maedhros

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Maedhros said:

Safety and freedom goes perfectly together. When you are safe, you are free to do whatever you want knowing that you'll always have a pillow to fall back on. When you are not safe, everything you do is a big risk, and your choices in life are more limited.

I don't believe everyone has a real chance of getting education. I mean sure, in the sense that everyone can work hard, be the best kind of man, and that kind of naive thinking - but not realistically. You don't get to choose your parents, or the environment you grow up in.

The government can be likened to a parent. If it's a good one, it's hugely beneficial to your life. If it's not...

When you are safe it means you are extracted from the world. Basically you build a wall around you to separate yourself from everything, but you are also separated from everything.

I don't see much freedom when you are not free to fail and benevolent force is always picking you up. It jist mean you are a puppet for a higher power. That's not freedom, that's exact opposite.

Everyone have the chance for education. Claiming only the ones with best upbringing have this chance is insulting to millions that achieved success coming from humble beginnings. 

If you compare the government to a parent than I advise that you take the analogy all the way and realize that at a certain point in life you should leave the parents and start your life as an adult.

[Maedhros]

I don't see any walls or pupeteers. Only people willing to give more for the greater good - and more room to play in as a result.

You don't think poor people are more likely to get education if it's free/cheap? I think this is rather where the walls of seperation you speak of are. Some might be able to climb over them, but for many the walls are unneccessarily tall. But it's pointless to discuss any further if you truly believe everyone has the same chance in life. It's a de facto / de jure thing.

I'll concede that my analogy wasn't well thought out though!

On a sidenote, on parenting...currently enjoying my 15 weeks of fully paid paternity leave. Just one of many ways a state can provide freedom!

Edited August 2, 2019 by Maedhros

[Skarpen]

41 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

I don't see any walls or pupeteers. Only people willing to give more for the greater good - and more room to play in as a result.

You don't think poor people are more likely to get education if it's free/cheap? I think this is rather where the walls of seperation you speak of are. But it's pointless to discuss any further if you truly believe everyone has the same chance in life.

I'll concede that my analogy wasn't well thought out though!

In any good puppet show you don't see the puppeteer, but he's there

I don't think it's possible to give away freedom and end up with more as a result. We might have more stuff and shiny things now but we don't have more freedom then let's 100 years ago. 

I never said anything about everyone having the same chance. It's not how the world works. Everyone have a chance. Even in New Testament Matthew 25:14-30, servants are not entrusted with the same amount of talents, but the one with one talent is punished for wasting it. It's a very good parallel.

 

[ktchong]

 

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by ktchong

[Maedhros]

6 hours ago, Skarpen said:

In any good puppet show you don't see the puppeteer, but he's there

I don't think it's possible to give away freedom and end up with more as a result. We might have more stuff and shiny things now but we don't have more freedom then let's 100 years ago. 

I never said anything about everyone having the same chance. It's not how the world works. Everyone have a chance. Even in New Testament Matthew 25:14-30, servants are not entrusted with the same amount of talents, but the one with one talent is punished for wasting it. It's a very good parallel.

 

We just live in different worlds. I don't see how any puppeteer is bad for my life, as long as he's benign. Not that I belive in a puppeteer, we chose our system because we like it. If we disliked it, we'd change it.

You don't think it's possible to give away something, and then gain something in return because you define freedom as "freedom from constraints". Anything Big Brother does, takes away your freedom. I just define it differently than you. For me it's a fair exchange. I pay high taxes, in return I get safety and prosperity, and lots and lots of perks. Like my 15 weeks of paid paternity leave, my 35 days of paid holiday a year, or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

I could go on and on about the perks, but you get the point I'm sure? How is that not giving something away, and ending up with more? Of course, that's all dependent on the system being fair, which was my point in the first place. Seeing your taxes go to waste must be hell.

[BruceVC]

48 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

We just live in different worlds. I don't see how any puppeteer is bad for my life, as long as he's benign. Not that I belive in a puppeteer, we chose our system because we like it. If we disliked it, we'd change it.

You don't think it's possible to give away something, and then gain something in return because you define freedom as "freedom from constraints". Anything Big Brother does, takes away your freedom. I just define it differently than you. For me it's a fair exchange. I pay high taxes, in return I get safety and prosperity, and lots and lots of perks. Like my 15 weeks of paid paternity leave, my 35 days of paid holiday a year, or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

I could go on and on about the perks, but you get the point I'm sure? How is that not giving something away, and ending up with more? Of course, that's all dependent on the system being fair, which was my point in the first place. Seeing your taxes go to waste must be hell.

I dont buy this notion of a " puppeteer " surreptitiously controlling society, governments are elected through transparent and free and fair elections in most Democracies

You make a choice which political party you want to vote for based on there policies and there successful and or reasonable  implementation of these policies.....if you dont like your choice then you can vote for someone else

Most other things that define our societies are enshrined in Constitutions, the rule of law and order and are impacted by policies that sometimes work and sometimes fail. But there is no great secret or cover-up around how  these things work or should work....there are no  " puppet masters "  unless someone can give me practical examples of who these people   and organisations are ?