Politics, local-national-global-galactic

[ktchong]

 

34 minutes ago, ktchong said:

YIKES.    This happened just last night.  Joe Biden showed clear signs of Alzheimer's.

 

 

"One of things I'm proudest of... is getting passed the Paris Climate Accord. I'm the guy who came back after meeting with Deng Xiaoping..."

Deng Xiaoping left office in 1992 and has been dead for 28 years, long before climate change became an issue.

 

"My name is Joe Biden. I'm a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate. Look me over. If not, vote for the other Biden."

He forgot he was running for President and against Bernie Sanders!

 

 This is getting really sad...

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by ktchong

[Zoraptor]

12 hours ago, Skarpen said:

I don't think feeding themselves is about individuals physically incapable of doing so. Rather it's that as a country there is something missing there. Look at Zimbabwe they chased away white farmers and claimed their land and farms, so they have all the infrastructure to feed themselves, yet they now are bringing farmers back because they are starving. The farmers are not bringing anything new besides themselves, infrastructure is there. So what gives?

Zimbabwe's fundamental problem was that they took well run and efficient large farms and split them up into thousands of inefficient small farms often farmed by people with zero experience. That was done because it was electorally popular and because the ZanuPF elite could seize most of the good land for themselves. It does have to be said that the land was 'stolen' in the first place by the British, but in terms of economics and food security the move was an easily predictable disaster. Except for the ZanuPF elites who had seized large farms and could sell their agriculture at inflated prices due to the shortage, of course.

They'd have been far better off with a work to own or co-operative type approach including the existing farmers being properly compensated and sharing their expertise, but Mugabe needed a demon to fight against and a way to reward his most ardent and militant followers so good sense went out the window.

[Elerond]

3 hours ago, Amentep said:

I thought that Elrond is referring to recent incidents in India where elements of the government seem to want to marginalize the muslim population (including trying to change historical fact, like who created the Taj Mahal), but I could be wrong.

Those, plus India's actions in Kashmir, 

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/INDIA935.PDF

https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/sca/154480.htm

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/For-the-first-time-securitymen-kill-more-civilians-than-terrorists-in-JK/articleshow/6508298.cms?referral=PM

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/INDIA-2018.pdf

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/01/17/india-failing-kashmiri-human-rights

And how nice India's current prime minister has been in past

https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/modi-us-relations-on-track-but-frosty/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/06/from-pariah-to-capitol-hill-narendra-modis-extraordinary-rise/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/aatish-taseer-modi-oci-time-magazine-article-father-pakistan-india-a9194771.html

And India's nice informal justice system that is still in power in many parts

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/india-village-gang-rape-violence-poverty-illiteracy-west-bengal

And other things

[Gfted1]

After raucous welcome in India, Trump clinches $3 billion military equipment sale.

[Zoraptor]

4 minutes ago, Elerond said:

lots of links

I can recommend John Oliver's Last Week Tonight segments on Modi. I'm not massively keen on Oliver's style most of the time but it's a lot more palatable when skewering someone I dislike.

Might not be able to find the latest one though, BJP stans have been running around the internet trying to copyright strike or label it as objectionable for the last day.

[ShadySands]

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Gromnir]

9 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

is also linked on page 24 o' this thread.

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

Dunno about anywhere else, but that video is definitely unavailable here.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

aside: disney is censoring the oliver video in india.

is actual hotstar, which is owned by disney, doing the censoring. regardless, multiple sources reporting.

am unable to confirm accuracy.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[ComradeYellow]

3 hours ago, ktchong said:

He forgot he was running for President and against Bernie Sanders!

Who is also a Democrat.  The whole Party simply sucks and real progressives want no part of it.

[213374U]

 

47 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Dunno about anywhere else, but that video is definitely unavailable here.

That's hilarious, considering that the content doesn't seem to be blocked for India. Is that distributed by some subscription service or other in NZ?

Spoiler

 

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by 213374U

[Bartimaeus]

Nope, no good in New Zealand. How silly. Don't have a server for India, so I can't say for that.

(e): Doesn't work in Australia, either. What's going on down there, guys?

Edited February 25, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[ComradeYellow]

Probably an HBO copyright claim.  John Oliver is a dip**** liberal anyway, wgaf.

[Gorth]

3 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

After raucous welcome in India, Trump clinches $3 billion military equipment sale.

Which is what it was all about...

[Zoraptor]

Funny thing being that 3 billion is by no means a big deal, even tiddly little NZ has spent nearly that much on US hardware this year.

5 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Nope, no good in New Zealand. How silly. Don't have a server for India, so I can't say for that.

(e): Doesn't work in Australia, either. What's going on down there, guys?

Nothing, nothing at all. Coincidentally I'm off to learn the words to our new national anthem: "Krishna Bharat and Modi"

As numbersman implied, it's because we don't have 'native' HBO here, HBO is exclusive to Sky TV so all their stuff is on Sky's subscription service and associated app. For the next year, at least, until that deal runs out or Sky goes bankrupt. Presumably it's the same in Australia. It's far more fun to pretend that it's due to butthurt Hindu nationalists though.

[Gfted1]

Appeals court rules Trump administration can withhold grants from 'sanctuary cities'.

[Malcador]

That debate was terrible to watch.  Funniest part was one moderator prematurely thinking it had ended .

[Katphood]

Gotta love China...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tChyASUwxh4

 

 

[Gromnir]

The Sixty Trillion Dollar Man

HA! Good Fun!

[Elerond]

57 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

The Sixty Trillion Dollar Man

HA! Good Fun!

I don't understand these big questions how presidential candidates plan to pay their plans to redistribute wealth in USA.  As that should be quite plainly obvious, if candidates have any actual will to enact their promises. They will  either tax people and share those taxes to people according to their plan and then they tax people again and again they will share those taxes to people according to their plan. Or use more popular option and take more debt which has been quite popular quite long time, because it illusion that government don't use people's money. Both options will kill economy if overdone. Although it is much easier to lower taxes and than pay back debt that you can't afford.

[Bartimaeus]

Virtually none of his grand domestic policies would pass even a 51-49-controlled Democratic Congress anyways, so does it really matter? Has any president's pre-election plans mattered in recent history? Obama got Obamacare, Trump got his tax breaks...that's about all I can think of. There's probably more, but honestly, I'm really not that concerned. Well, I am concerned about the deficit's growth on a long-term basis, but no president will ever willingly deal with it because it'd be too unpopular to do so...so everyone will go on ignoring it.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

I don't understand these big questions how presidential candidates plan to pay their plans to redistribute wealth in USA.  As that should be quite plainly obvious, if candidates have any actual will to enact their promises. They will  either tax people and share those taxes to people according to their plan and then they tax people again and again they will share those taxes to people according to their plan. Or use more popular option and take more debt which has been quite popular quite long time, because it illusion that government don't use people's money. Both options will kill economy if overdone. Although it is much easier to lower taxes and than pay back debt that you can't afford.

you are thinking parliamentary perhaps? will o' the President to tax is a secondary issue at best. 

this misunderstanding is part o' the big problem not being talked 'bout enough. yeah, sixty trillion is not possible by implementing a "modest tax on wall street," or even going after billionaires with pitchforks and torches. $60 trillion w/o a practical plan for how to redistribute necessarily means more debt on a brobdingnagian scale, but this misses a fundamental point exemplified by the mistaken concern with Presidential candidates and their will to tax.

the US has big problems it needs face: medical coverage, income inequality, homeless veterans, national debt, infrastructure obsolescence, education, etc. however, the last two administrations has either failed to work with a sympathetic Congress to create meaningful legislation, or it has attempted to bypass constitutional limits by means o' executive orders and other shadier means. meanwhile, abdicating their own responsibilities, Congress has altered norms to make it more likely current and future Presidents will bypass Congress.

mitch mcconnell abandoned pretense o' integrity in favor o' a mercenary fixation with preserving party and personal power. nevertheless, mitch were not wrong when he predicted how democrats would regret more than a few o' their actions once republicans were no longer the minority party. self-fulfilling prophecy from mitch doesn't deserve much credit insofar as foresight is concerned, but am hearing same talk from democrats: republicans will rue once democrats take back senate and Presidency.

so bass ackwards. 

is not 'bout will of the President. should not be 'bout will o' the President. understandable from europeans more familiar with parliamentary elections. fact we have americans talking that way is disheartening.

HA! Good Fun!

ps keep in mind, we believe it is important for a guy like bernie to be part of the national dialogue. bernie is talking 'bout increasing vital issues. medicare for all and green new deal, regardless o' practical issues, is important. college tuition costs and infrastructure overhauls is deserving more attention than they get. tragedy o' vets and people with mental health problems who are homeless. disturbing number o' homeless people... period.

bernie issues should be everybody issues. 

pps bartimaeus kinda beat us to the punch w/o the verbosity.

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Gromnir
ps

[Bartimaeus]

What you said is exactly why he's my preferred candidate. I am not near knowledgeable (or probably smart) enough to know whether his exact plans would work, but Bernie consistently hits on the issues that I think are important, and he does it with obvious passion and conviction - you know these issues are obviously important to him, he's not saying stuff just because he thinks it'll be popular with the particular crowd he has at any given moment*. I think being the type of candidate that talks about those things, and talks directly about them is probably the more important bit of motivating the other powers that be to actually do something about it, even if it's not in the exact way that the candidate envisioned (see: Obamacare). Considering the candidacy of someone like Buttigieg makes me want to shoot myself in comparison: the man is completely devoid of passion and speaks in endless generalities and empty platitudes - when he decides to address anything in particular at all, that is. Bernie might not have the details ironed out, and it's quite possible that for some things he won't ever, but at least his mind is obviously occupied by the important matters and exactly where he'd like to see them go.

*The closest he's gotten to this is probably gun control, which he is notably weaker on than other Democratic candidates, which you'd think is especially odd for a self-described "socialist". I consider that a feature, though, not a bug, since his approach to guns is more nuanced than other candidates, and I am not really totally for gun control to begin with. He has tried to straddle the line there as best as he can.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[Zoraptor]

I'm not sure what is even the point of discussing up to 50-60 trillion of spending as if it would definitely be 50-60t is anyway. The article itself has M4A being more than half the 60t upper limit, and notes that the lower estimate for that policy's cost cost is, well, a far more manageable 31 billion instead of 34 trillion. There's no basis for real world discussion when the estimates vary by a factor of 100. The article title is basically clickbait, something that wouldn't cost that much unless you took the highest figures for everything.

Having had a look at the report the 34t figure (over ten years, for those who didn't read the article) of extra cost is based on I'm... exceptionally skeptical. 3.4t per year is already the approximate existing total cost of both private and public healthcare combined in the US. Public spending is already about 40% of that figure, private expenditure is 60% or ~2t*. So they're essentially saying that that 2t if 'nationalised' is going to expand to a 3.4t average cost or around 70% increase to existing costs, and increase overall health spending to a cool 4.8t p/a, or about 16k p/c. Essentially, they're saying that the system used in multiple other countries will cost 3x as much in the US as there, 4x the OECD average and pretty much 2x the closest country (Switzerland), in p/c costs. If you're going to claim that you need pretty strong evidence as to why.

*And of course that existing 2t private healthcare cost is currently being paid by someone- someone who wouldn't be paying that if it gets 'nationalised' even if their tax bill goes up.

[Gromnir]

not really clickbait. not misleading. is not as if article fails to note there will be savings to many americans under medicare for all. the rand study from last year has estimated total health care costs under medicare for all only slight oustripping current total costs. 'ccording to rand, total costs o' medicare for all would be in the $3.89t-$4.2t yearly range, which is only smallish 'mount 'bove the $3.821 current being spent total by Americans through fed, state and private.

'course is not as if numbers is switched magical from one side o' the ledger to the other neither. administrative costs under medicare for all is a matter o' conjecture and is difficult to imagine such costs running lower than expectations. am not certain why rand didn't believe there would need be regional governance structures to accommodate changes. is also a whole industry current dependent on nothing save medical billing which disappears. with an entire industry disappeared and massive changes to employee pay overall as fed assumes burden for health care instead o' employers, am expecting we get another shift such as happened with obamacare. at the very least, a large % o' the medical and dental billing people is gonna be looking for work. 

regardless o' total estimated savings to americans, the fed government nevertheless needs raise those monies. is much easier to spend money than to tax and collect. assure people that Americans as a whole will only be spending a few billions more per year on healthcare overall will not mollify those many voters who discover they is individually paying far more.  

also, 34 trillion isn't anywhere near the high watermark btw. is safe to assume the $31b number is a number adjusted by savings. the difference is thus not what it would appear. regardless, article mentions two numbers but am thinking it would be foolish to assume those two is the full spectrum. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 27, 2020 by Gromnir