Politics 2017 Act 6

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

No introduction needed. Get to fighting over Trump.

[Blarghagh]

Short, to the point and borderline prophetic. I like it.

[Bartimaeus]

You don't know us, everyone could all suddenly start getting along instead.

 

...Yeah, never mind.

[Raithe]

I don't fight. I  find appropriate snark from the sidelines.

[Malcador]

The Wheel of Time of threads

[redneckdevil]

The Wheel of Time of threads

Why isn't there a game of this yet?!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Short, to the point and borderline prophetic. I like it.

[Zoraptor]

 

The Wheel of Time of threads

Why isn't there a game of this yet?!

 

 

This thread isn't famous enough for a game yet- unless it's the dystopian setting mentioned for Tim Cain's unannounced game, that is.

 

WoT did get a game though, and it was better than anyone had a right to expect. There were even rumours that Red Eagle talked to Obsidian about doing another one at some point.

[Sarex]

Well they are doing a TV show with Sony now, so if it turns out to be popular I would expect more games. I'm not holding my breath though.

[redneckdevil]

Mmmm knew about that one but at the time was turned off by the arch going against the story and was hoping for something like the LotR fellowship of the ring on Xbox type of following details etc.

I might check this one out but I rather just have a game to play out the books. I know I'm a picky bastard.

Did not know bout the Sony thing, thought that was over with since I heard about the TV show yearssssss ago it seems lol.

[Sarex]

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/wheel-of-time-tv-series-sony-1202390897/

[Azdeus]

This is possibly the best news I've ever read in a Politics thread!

[Gromnir]

This is possibly the best news I've ever read in a Politics thread!

am tending to agree.  is not a positive endorsement o' wot.  we dislike wot and have no anticipation regarding a wot tv show.  am suspecting the most compelling aspect o' a wot tv spot will be the drinking games which it spawns.  threat to box ears = drink.  visibly smooth skirts = drink.  rand/mat/perrin presence results in deus ex machina = 3 drinks.  etc.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/14/mcconnell-thinks-garland-as-fbi-director-fantastic-idea-ex-adviser-says.html

 

tab garland as director o' the fbi would help insulate trump from much o' the comey firing backlash. personal we would rather see a new director with a bit more prosecutorial or law enforcement experience, but garland is, if nothing else, a most intriguing option. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Leferd]

This is has the potential of being the greatest Politics thread in WOT history.

 

My preference for FBI Director would be someone who has never been a political appointee.

• Either keep McCabe, or promote internally with another Deputy or Assistant Director for the top spot
• Go with a well-respected career AUSA prosecutor. Find the best Criminal Division Chief amongst all the USAO Districts

Definitely what not to do:

• Appoint a politician
• Appoint a Sheriff. Especially not one from Milwaukee.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Leferd

[Valsuelm]

Meh... I don't care who runs it, anymore than I care who runs the Bloods, Crips, Cosa Nostra, or any other criminal organization.

 

Abolishing the FBI is the only good thing to do with the FBI.

[Gromnir]

val posts make more sense if you picture him as the rl inspiration for jerry fletcher.

 

 

more gravy val?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

Here is a little injustice served up: http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/12/reversing-obama-era-policy-sessions-orde

 

Sessions is instructing Federal prosecutors to pursue maximum sentences for drug offenses. Including non violent offenses. Given how frequently violent crimes are allowed to plead to lesser offenses (around 30% iirc) it's possible you would spend more time in prison for smoking a dried plant than actually killing someone. 

 

For those like WoD who wonder why I don't vote Republican anymore this is exhibit A.

[Hurlshort]

Well, we aren't going to keep the lead in world prison populations by only locking up the violent ones.  

[Guard Dog]

Aetna CEO discusses single payer healthcare: http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/12/aetna-ceo-says-we-need-to-have-a-convers

 

The problem is cost of course. Taxes in the US are high. Very high. Compared to other places not that high but when you consider the actual value we get for the amount we pay they are too high. And we are taxed by multiple levels of government. For instance in my state Tax Freedom Day (the point where every dollar earned is required to pay the annual tax burden) falls on April 7th. In Connecticut Tax Freedom day is May 21st. Taxpayers in that state work almost half the year just to pay their taxes. They don't get health care. They don't get education assistance. That is the cost just to keep the lights on in the capital, fuel in the police cars and of course all the social programs they are not eligible for. The biggest beneficiaries of their labor are government bureaucrats and people who pay no taxes. By some estimates a Federal single payer system will literally double the tax burden on the 55% of Americans who actually pay Federal taxes. Yes, it's true. 45% of Americans pay no Federal tax. So if my tax freedom day is extended from April to August just to have single payer healthcare why on earth would I go for that? It does not cost near as much now. Just over half the country would work over half the year just to pay for the benefits of the other half.

 

So we can't have the government take the whole thing over. Having them manage the private entities that pay the costs isn't working either. so what are we to do? how about getting the government out of it all together? The veterinary medical system in the country is completely free of government interference (with the exception of the fact that everything the Vets use is taxed now thank Obama you ******) and the economics of that works fine. Sunny needs her teeth cleaned. I can call all 14 of the clinics nearby that offer that service and get 14 different price quotes. 

 

Of course it's hard to get toothpaste back into the tube.

[Gromnir]

am not certain we would use animal teeth cleaning as a measure o' how/why the vet system works.  is likely different where you live, but teeth cleanings and/or oral surgery for dogs and cats in northern california is expensive. call multiple vets results in increased Gromnir rage as we very get similar exorbitant quotes. quotes we got is ~$800.  sounds as if is particular expensive 'cause there is a need anesthetize the animal.  oh, and when we brought our cat in to get a teeth cleaning, the vet noticed something wrong with the cat's kidney during routine exam.  probably should do tests before doing an $800 teeth cleaning if the cat has some kinda tumor which will result in death w/i months, yes?  $792 in tests.  no tumor.  so, for all intents and purposes, we spend $1600 for teeth cleaning and assurance o' no tumor.

 

...

 

again, am certain vet costs is different for gd, but such variation is part o' what is wrong, no?  

 

oh and as to drug sentencing, am in complete agreement 'bout silliness o' decade long incarcerations for non-violent drug crimes.  still, the republicans has been much more dedicated to reducing teenage drug use through education programs than democrats.  teenage drug use decreased substantially during the bush presidencies.  we honest couldn't care less 'bout pot smoking adults, but the truth o' the matter is that marijuana use does impact brain development.  high school and college aged kids is doing irreparable long term harm to themselves.  

 

don't even get us started on the opioid problem. suicide rates, which has increased dramatic in recent years, seem to mirror the opioid addiction increase.  we got libertarian leanings, but addicts is, by definition, incapable o' making reasonable decisions 'bout their problem.

 

etc.

 

am honest not sure what a reasonable drug policy would look like.  haven't seen a superior approach based 'pon party affiliation.  libertarian hands-off ain't much o' an answer either.  pretend Gromnir got solutions to drug problems would be a lie.  for the most part, we got no sympathy for addicts, but kids who genuine don't have the brain development to make enlightened choices, and folks who original got addicted 'cause they were following doctor orders is making us reflect a bit.  am thinking more than nothing is needed.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps  while there is not many northern ca folks here 'bouts, we do have local info to share.  vet frustration led us to discover, after the fact, an alternative:

 

http://catsabouttown.org/resources/low-cost-dental-surgery-and-cleaning/

 

they is booked 2 months in advance, but they got folks from as far away as LA bringing their pets for treatment.  get an estimate in excess o' $2000 for dental surgery and these folks will do for no more than $600?  as far as we can tell, the $600 number is rare actual charged.  $350 sounds common for teeth cleaning, and more complex surgeries rare exceed $500.

[Guard Dog]

jeez Grom, that was just an example. But I could (and have in the past) make an argument on who human medical care can and should work like Veterinary care where market forces and competition do help keep prices down. Particularly in routine care. Now, my pups get the best treatment I can find as I know yours do too. But that is a choice I make. I'd rather low cost/ low service places like Banfield exist to offer lower income families vet care than have the Government screw the whole thing up with program and price regulation that ruins the free market economics it does have. Without reduced cost clinics some family pets would, by necessity, get no vet care at all.

 

But as for drug prosecution I think education is great. I'm even in favor of using Federal money if it would help. But at the end of the day, teenager or adult, we are all solely responsible for the guy/gal in the mirror. I've never used any unprescribed drug stronger than Motrin or bourbon. And if it were legal today I still wouldn't use. But i would never presume to make that choice for someone else. If a teenager, against all better advice and teaching, wants to throw their life away on drugs, well it was their life to throw away. It always was.

 

The logic of the government makes no sense to me. To "save" said teenager from ruining their life with drugs we'll lock them up for 10-20 years and then send them back at age 30 with no education and a felony conviction. But hey... saved them from drugs.

 

They ought to make me the AG. No victim = No prison time.

[Ben No.3]

"I'd rather low cost/ low service places like Banfield exist to offer lower income families vet care than have the Government screw the whole thing up with program and price regulation that ruins the free market economics it does have"

 

Do you realise what you are saying? You just justified giving low-income-households, so the largest amount of the population, worse medical treatment. And you justified this based on a vague mathematical model. Do you really consider that humane treatment?

[Gromnir]

 

 

But as for drug prosecution I think education is great. I'm even in favor of using Federal money if it would help. But at the end of the day, teenager or adult, we are all solely responsible for the guy/gal in the mirror. I've never used any unprescribed drug stronger than Motrin or bourbon. And if it were legal today I still wouldn't use. But i would never presume to make that choice for someone else. If a teenager, against all better advice and teaching, wants to throw their life away on drugs, well it was their life to throw away. It always was.

 

obviously we got a different notion 'bout how well privatization has worked for keeping vet costs down? if we were less well off, there is numerous times we woulda' had to consider euthanizing pets for relative minor problems. 

 

*shrug*

 

as to drugs, we complete disagree with you 'bout responsibility.  our time working at juvenile hall is the reason we will never have kids, but it also inspired us to do a fair bit o' reading 'bout childhood development, particular kiddie brain development.  perhaps gd recalls what he were thinking 'bout during teenage years, but you cannot genuine reflect 'pon how you thought.  the brain you got now is substantial different than the one you had in junior high and high school.  complex morality choices ain't possible 'til relative late puberty.  as adults we often see teenagers and is baffled by their immaturity, but the immaturity is not only the norm, it is a result o' brain development. bad parenting and/or lack o' experience is what most o' us is gonna point to when we see kids do wrong. ain't that simple.  good parenting teaches kids to suppress their natural immaturity until their brain develops enough so they can actual make enlightened choices. 

 

we got a few folks on this board with med backgrounds, and hurl is a teacher who must needs have taken numerous childhood development classes to get his credential.  is so difficult for us to recall how we were using our brains when we were teens.  sure, we likely look back on moments o' teenage stoopidity and probable chalk it up to our inexperience, but your brain were genuine different during those years, and even good parenting cannot complete overcome brain development issues. you were inherent irresponsible as a teen, even if you were able to suppress immaturity.

 

opioids is also blurring the lines o' responsibility.  random guy is prescribed opioids by a doctor.  after all, the vast majority o' opioid addictions begin with dr. prescriptions.  random guy works +50 hours a week doing construction or law enforcement or some other job.  the only way he can work is with the aid o' painkillers.  private contractor roofer guy don't work and his family don't eat.  so, he takes opioids as directed by his doctor, and becomes addicted.  roofer guy's pain ain't going away, but as with any such medicine, he is needing increase dosage to get similar/same relief. so, when roofer guy wakes up one morning and realizes he is addicted to opioids, who is responsible?  the roofer?  of course he is responsible, but he is also an addict, which again, by definition, means he is no longer able to act reasonable and responsible regarding his drug use.

 

just don't take the drugs in the first place, eh?  is not a viable option for many. "for there was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently."-much ado about nothing, shakespeare.  roofer guy or cop or (ironic) dentist needs to work.  even if one willpowers self though pain, the capacity to do work at a high level will be diminished.  our hypothetical dentist with a toothache could likely will himself to endure pain, but no doubt gd would be concerned if he were getting a root canal from a white-knuckled and pale dentist who were sweating profusely.

 

dunno.  as we said already, we got no answers, but am thinking gd is oversimplifying.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 15, 2017 by Gromnir

[Ben No.3]

 

"I'd rather low cost/ low service places like Banfield exist to offer lower income families vet care than have the Government screw the whole thing up with program and price regulation that ruins the free market economics it does have"

 

Do you realise what you are saying? You just justified giving low-income-households, so the largest amount of the population, worse medical treatment. And you justified this based on a vague mathematical model. Do you really consider that humane treatment?

And how's that different from now? You will always have worse/cheaper products for lower income and better/expensive products for high income.

That's not even the question, and if you think it is you don't know life. The question is - will the "worse medical treatment" on free market be better than "worse medical treatment" in socialistic model. The answer is and always will be - free market is better.

Are you claiming that the poor in a strictly capitalist economy has better healthcare than the poor in a strictly socialist economy? My friend, history seems to prove you wrong: hardcore conservative Bismarck had to implement some degree of free health care in order to not have the poor support the communists. Adam Smith himself, if I remember correctly, supported governmental healthcare (or welfare generally, I'll have to search through the texts when I'm home).

 

Is this humane? Considering that humans are the only species that have medical treatment and incomes. Yes it is humane. It's even fundamentally humane to get what you pay for in a quality correlated to the amount you paid.

Your line of thought is: "Humans have produced free market health care, therefore, free market healthcare is humane".

 

Following your logic:

Humans have invented torture, therefore torture is humane.

 

Do you see the problem? Or is there something I'm missing? Because that seems fundamentally wrong.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Gfted1]

...my employee was loosing sight and needed surgery asap or be blind forever and got a term for operation in government healthcare system in 7...years. We (company) paid for his surgery and the same doctor, in the same hospital made his surgery in 4 days after the payment.

That just blew my mind.