Politics US Edition (2021!)

[melkathi]

18 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

Anyway they are grinding the social democrats (SPD) to dust between them...

The SPD makes it easy for them though. They moved away from their roots to standing for nothing with candidates people have trouble remembering unless they managed to stumble about memorably enough.

To say it in German: hätte, hätte, Fahrradkette.

The most social democrat rhetoric we heard in the last years were satires by Böhmermann. Heck, I think I would vote for him if he did join the party. 

Edited January 13, 2021 by melkathi

[Guard Dog]

21 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Without context it seems that all one could possibly do is guess

I don’t think, as some have suggested, that the Democrats want to birth a new Soviet union on the North American continent. But they definitely envision a world where the government is a big part of your life and they are in complete control of the government. When it comes to radical ideas like the Green New Deal and even seemingly innocuous ones like Medicare for all they are happy to talk the talk. But most of them know it IS impossible. And economically ruinous if it were. Schumer is a big proponent of aggressive gun control for example. But he’s not stupid. Much as he might want prohibition and confiscation he knows what that would lead to. 
 

They might seem incompetent because they never deliver on things that cannot be delivered. But they CAN do small things over years that gnaw at the edges and undermines systems they hope to replace with government programs down the road. It’s smarter to take a long view on the expansion of the state in a country where half the people are averse to such.
 

so when he says “fundamentally transforming the United States“ I don’t look at that so much as an eminent threat. More like a road sign.

[ComradeYellow]

9 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

 radical ideas like the Green New Deal

Funny how the original New Deal of the 1930's wasn't widely regarded as "radical", yet a more moderate, decentralized version of it in the 21st century is considered extremely radical in many if not all right wing circles in the United States.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

But they definitely envision a world where the government is a big part of your life

I imagine this is a bit like a fish saying that some group wants to make water a big part of its life.

The debate we should be having is "good government or bad government", not "government or no government".

Quote

They might seem incompetent because they never deliver on things that cannot be delivered.

That's one take, but not necessarily mine.

They might seem incompetent because they're too interested in governing by consensus, letting idealism get in the way of strategic wins, and/or randomly shooting themselves in the foot at inopportune times.

[Malcador]

39 minutes ago, Raithe said:

A Game Designer’s Analysis Of QAnon | by Rabbit Rabbit | curiouserinstitute | Medium

 

 

What's with the reference to "Godfather III". I mean the movie wasn't so bad as to be part of some grand conspiracy. 

[Guard Dog]

45 minutes ago, Achilles said:

I imagine this is a bit like a fish saying that some group wants to make water a big part of its life.

The debate we should be having is "good government or bad government", not "government or no government".

That's one take, but not necessarily mine.

They might seem incompetent because they're too interested in governing by consensus, letting idealism get in the way of strategic wins, and/or randomly shooting themselves in the foot at inopportune times.

I would frame the debate as maximum government versus minimum government. Obviously too much is a bad thing and none is a bad thing. Where on the scale should we be. I think it goes without saying I would have us somewhere much closer to none than too much. As far as whether it is good or bad opinions are certainly going to vary on that one. As far as shooting themselves in the foot and working against themselves well they are all human. All of them subject to the same foibles as everyone else. A lot of times I wonder why we are supposed to be leery of big greedy corporations made up of people but not of a big greedy government made up of people.
 

as for my own opinions on things I’ve reached the point where I’m too old to much care about it anymore. Idealism and political philosophy are all well and good and make for interesting conversation. But that’s really all there is to it. Biden and the Democrats are going to do what they’re going to do. I’ll pay my taxes and mostly follow their laws. As long as they Don’t take my money, don’t take my home, don’t mess with my private property, my dog or my chickens or any other critters I end up with I really don’t care. I will willfully disobey any laws they pass I find morally objectionable. Gun control for example not that it will happen but if it did I would never give them up. If they want them they’re going to have to come take them. But I have no interest in fighting this government or the last one or the next one. For me sedition and insurrection ends at my property line.

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, ComradeMaster said:

Funny how the original New Deal of the 1930's wasn't widely regarded as "radical", yet a more moderate, decentralized version of it in the 21st century is considered extremely radical in many if not all right wing circles in the United States.

LOL you realize her idea encompassed tearing down and replacing all of the buildings in the United States right? And that was just one aspect

[Malcador]

9 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

LOL you realize her idea encompassed tearing down and replacing all of the buildings in the United States right? And that was just one aspect

They changed (well, or clarified depending on how charitable one wants to be) that to "upgrading" over a decade, no ?

[Boeroer]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Ieven seemingly innocuous ones like Medicare for all they are happy to talk the talk. But most of them know it IS impossible. And economically ruinous if it were.

We have medicare for all in Germany since the founding of the BRD and it hasn't ruined us yet...

We don't have a green new deal but the Energiewende. In April we were at roughly ~50% electricity from renewable resources and we cut 40% of our CO2 emissions compared to 1990 (partly due to Covid though) and it hasn't ruined us either. It's expensive - but we're still no. 4 in the world (GDP).

So I wouldn't say "impossible".

 

[Gromnir]

14 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

LOL you realize her idea encompassed tearing down and replacing all of the buildings in the United States right? And that was just one aspect

*sigh*

you do realize that the claim 'bout needing rebuild almost all housing were part o' that original "farting cow" blunder filled draft that aoc and others admitted were not meant to be released. actual language from the green new deal were for, "upgrading virtually every home and building for energy efficiency."

am thinking most is aware we are critical o' aoc and her frequent "stealing bread" stoopid. am not certain why people are so quick to make excuse for aoc mistakes. release o' the original green new deal were only one such mistake. however, is unfair to hold her to the retracted draft.

serious. fact check.

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

11 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

*sigh*

you do realize that the claim 'bout needing rebuild almost all housing were part o' that original "farting cow" blunder filled draft that aoc and others admitted were not meant to be released. actual language from the green new deal were for, "upgrading virtually every home and building for energy efficiency."

am thinking most is aware we are critical o' aoc and her frequent "stealing bread" stoopid. am not certain why people are so quick to make excuse for aoc mistakes. release o' the original green new deal were only one such mistake. however, is unfair to hold her to the retracted draft.

serious. fact check.

HA! Good Fun!

I was not aware that draft was not meant to be released. There were a number of amusing details in it but that’s the one that stood out is just being slap down impossible.

 

edit: text doubled up for some reason. 

Edited January 13, 2021 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Thought this was funny so I am sharing. First I must deliver the Gromnir disclaimer; The following image is being posted for the purposes of humor and amusement only. Guard Dog (herein referred to as poster) Makes no claims of the veracity of the image, draws no comparisons between this impeachment or the last, or suggest the hobbit or hobbits of middle earth would be on board. The following image does not represent the opinions of the poster the Tolkien estate, the Dunedain Rangers, or any other persons living or dead. The poster is not responsible for the creation of the post and assumes no liability for anyone who is triggered by it.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I would frame the debate as maximum government versus minimum government. Obviously too much is a bad thing and none is a bad thing. Where on the scale should we be. I think it goes without saying I would have us somewhere much closer to none than too much.

And I would argue that we're still pretty much saying the same thing, though neither one of us are operationally defining terms. Government is a tool. Like all tools, it has a function and can be used effectively in the hands of the skilled. It can also be used improperly.

Key words for discussion here are "effectively", "skilled", and "improperly". We would also probably benefit from having a shared understanding of "function".

Similarly, I'm guessing that you and I define "minimum government" very differently, even though we're in agreement that it's the appropriate amount of government to have. I feel comfortable speculating that "minimum" for me is "too much" for you and "minimum" for you is "not enough" for me.

Quote

A lot of times I wonder why we are supposed to be leery of big greedy corporations made up of people but not of a big greedy government made up of people.

Because the feedback mechanisms are profoundly different. We have an institutional process that people are encouraged to participate in that is designed to keep our government accountable. What is the equivalent for corporations?

Spoiler

It's actually government

 

[Guard Dog]

15 minutes ago, Achilles said:

And I would argue that we're still pretty much saying the same thing, though neither one of us are operationally defining terms. Government is a tool. Like all tools, it has a function and can be used effectively in the hands of the skilled. It can also be used improperly.

Key words for discussion here are "effectively", "skilled", and "improperly". We would also probably benefit from having a shared understanding of "function".

Similarly, I'm guessing that you and I define "minimum government" very differently, even though we're in agreement that it's the appropriate amount of government to have. I feel comfortable speculating that "minimum" for me is "too much" for you and "minimum" for you is "not enough" for me.

Because the feedback mechanisms are profoundly different. We have an institutional process that people are encouraged to participate in that is designed to keep our government accountable. What is the equivalent for corporations?

  Reveal hidden contents

It's actually government

 

Consumers. If you don’t like a company’s business or political activities you can deny them the one thing they want the most. Your business. I don’t like Colin Kaepernick. Nike sponsor’s Colin Kaepernick. I don’t do business with Nike. See? Easy. Boycotts work. Convince enough people to agree with you when you can make a difference for that business. And if people don’t agree with you well no one should be compelled to act in a certain way by another person. Freedom of association.

Edit: I don’t actually give a damn about Nike or Colin Kaepernick. That was just an example. Gromnir disclaimer

Edited January 13, 2021 by Guard Dog

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Consumers. If you don’t like a company’s business or political activities you can deny them the one thing they want the most. Your business.

lol, good joke 

I'll use an extreme example to make my point: a corporation can kill dozens or hundreds of people over a span of years or even decades before anyone is the wiser and people will still buy products from them. It's often government intervention that forces a change in the form of regulation. 

Quote

Convince enough people to agree with you when you can make a difference for that business.

I love you, man, but all I can do is shake my head and chuckle at this one

Tell me how many people it would take to put Amazon in check. Over what period of time. After how much economic damage is done.

Quote

And if people don’t agree with you well no one should be compelled to act in a certain way by another person.

I'm willing to bet that you don't actually believe this.

If you want own slaves, but I don't think that you should be allowed to own slaves, then you shouldn't be compelled to act in accordance with my beliefs?

[Guard Dog]

10 minutes ago, Achilles said:

 

I'm willing to bet that you don't actually believe this.

If you want own slaves, but I don't think that you should be allowed to own slaves, then you shouldn't be compelled to act in accordance with my beliefs?

Actually I believe this one most of all. And to answer your question about slaves reread what I said. No one should be compelled to behave in a certain way by another person. That includes the slaves. No gods, no masters. Only those you take for yourself.

now of course the governments job is to make and enforce law. That is it’s singular function when you get right down to it.  I am no anarchist. I thought I had made that pretty clear. “Government “ in the generic sentence has a vital role to play in society. But like all things when it goes to far it becomes not just a problem but the problem. 
 

as far as how many people it would take to change Amazon? I don’t know but it would be a pretty hard sell to get me to go along. I love my Kindle. But if your personal ethics demand that you punish Amazon well then you do what you can do. Which is don’t do business with them and try to persuade other people. You lose me when you talk about forcing other people or taking the option away.

Another example. I hate the entire concept of abortion. To me that is nothing short of cold blooded murder. But I am 100% pro-choice. Who am I to impose my ethics on one of my fellow humans? Everyone Hass to be free to choose what is best for their lives. I wouldn’t make that choice for them and I don’t want the government to do it in my stead.

Edited January 13, 2021 by Guard Dog

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Guard Dog said:

Actually I believe this one most of all. And to answer your question about slaves reread what I said. No one should be compelled to behave in a certain way by another person. That includes the slaves. No gods, no masters. Only those you take for yourself.

now of course the governments job is to make and enforce law. That is it’s singular function when you get right down to it.  I am no anarchist. I thought I had made that pretty clear. “Government “ in the generic sentence has a vital role to play in society. But like all things when it goes to far it becomes not just a problem but the problem.

You're attacking the analogy rather than addressing the point.

The fact is that people *can* want "bad" things and sometimes the rule of law is necessary to compel them to "right action". Sometimes people needs rules that compel others from acting against them. Sometimes people need rules to compel them to act in their own best interest.

So again, it's "good government or bad government". "Too far" belongs in the "bad government" bucket...but you and I would need to agree on what "too far" means.

Quote

as far as how many people it would take to change Amazon? I don’t know but it would be a pretty hard sell to get me to go along. I love my Kindle.

I rest my case.

[Zoraptor]

5 hours ago, KaineParker said:

It has been getting attention for years now, and folks even reached out to groups like the ACLU and Intercept (less after Reality Winner) with no reply. In this light columns decrying social media tyranny after the President of the US gets suspended looks a lot more like opportunistic careerism than a real desire to combat social media tyranny. Frankly it's a mirror of the social media companies themselves, who had years to address growing right wing violence being encouraged on their platforms and only acted when it was evident there wouldn't be any blowback from people in positions of power.

Well yeah, ideally they should have talked about it earlier, I'm just saying why they didn't. Trump is famous and everyone knows- there's a formal public explanation- why he was banned. That's not the case for the vast majority of other bannings.

(It's a lot more difficult to do vetting for the 'little people' and checking why they were banned. Indeed, people going elsewhere to whine about being banned on SM followed by finding out that that ban was perfectly justified is a bit of s stereotype for good reason. Obviously we both know there are legitimate complaints, but "actually, [one person in article] was banned for sending unsolicited dong pics to underage girls via PM, not what they claimed" will be an inevitable response to such articles, from SM companies)

4 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

There is a reason, why EU is called by some euro-kolkhoz. 

EU politics is really far on the left. 

If you're in the US, rest of the world appears left wing. If you're in the rest of the world, US appears right wing. It comes up a lot obviously, but 'left wing' things like single payer healthcare are near universal in developed countries, outside the US, and the equivalent of most right wing parties outside the US are the Democrats, not the Republicans.

[Zoraptor]

Impeachment passed, but with a lot less cross party support (10 Republicans) than speculated. Not exactly bipartisan and not a great sign for those wanting an out and out removal in the Senate.

Edited January 13, 2021 by Zoraptor

[Malcador]

Senate reconvening on the 19th, as well, so maybe they'll kick him out 12 hours early at best, heh.

[Zoraptor]

Don't think there's any prospect of them getting the 2/3 majority needed for a removal now, they'd need 7 more people to cross the floor in the 100 member Senate than they got in the ~400 member House. Given that it's very likely to be deferred until later.

Edited January 13, 2021 by Zoraptor

[ComradeYellow]

12 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

with a lot less cross party support (10 Republicans) than speculated. 

From whom?

[Zoraptor]

For me, got the number from BBC specifically, prior to the vote. House Majority Leader Steny (?) also said up to 20 expected to cross the floor. Not sure where Bruce got it from but he mentioned the same number too, last page.

8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

It looks the impeachment could seriously got through today, there appears to be 20 Republicans congressmen who   will be supporting the Democrats and the impeachment 

 

[Raithe]

[majestic]

7 hours ago, melkathi said:

The SPD makes it easy for them though. They moved away from their roots to standing for nothing with candidates people have trouble remembering unless they managed to stumble about memorably enough.

To say it in German: hätte, hätte, Fahrradkette.

The most social democrat rhetoric we heard in the last years were satires by Böhmermann. Heck, I think I would vote for him if he did join the party. 

Warum zum Schmiedl gehen, wenn man zum Schmied gehen kann?

The SPD has the same issue that our counterpart has. Why bother voting for them if that in the end means voting for the conservative party of your country (CDU in Germany's case, ÖVP in our's). You might as well just vote for the CDU and be done with it, or look for alternatives that promise you a better life and have a very clear message about who is at fault for your situation. Like, say, the AfD.

Lucky for Germany they still have Die Linke. Not so lucky for Germany that the SPD has a standing order to commit political suicide, first by promising to never form a colation with them, and recently by giving Mutti Merkel a fourth term because heaven forbid there could be a government without her, or heaven forbid, another election, even though they promised not to. 

By now I guess it's too late for a much needed Red/Red/Green government in Germany. Just like it is too late for us. Unless our glorious leader messes up somehow, just not sure how. He could grab a **** or shoot someone in the streets of New York and still be elected. Bah.