Let’s get right to the point…why should we stand for so much gun violence in this country? Of all sorts - from murders to suicides to accidental Dick Cheney-type incidents. How many dead children is the right sacrifice so that unfettered gun access goes on?
@klezman, Once again, it’s actually enforcing the existing laws, and ACTUALLY following through by FBI that is needed.
The Air Force didn’t forward information to the database that would have stopped one shooter from getting a gun. The FBI has dropped the ball not only this last time, but others as well, including Orlando!
And once again, it’s not just guns, the FBI also dropped the ball on the Boston marathon bombers!
We only have to look at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, the vehicle incidents in London and France to see it’s not really a gun problem, but a people problem. Desensitization to human life is the cause.
Implying that I don’t care about children or human life in general is not the way to start a reasonable conversation. Couple that with the very predictable litany of new policies and laws the left trots out after every tragedy that would not have stopped or mitigated said tragedy in any way and I don’t see a point in engaging.
@airynne Not sure who you thought was implying what. I don’t know you or your views, and the reverse holds too.
I am sick and tired of school shootings. And shootings in general. And the fear that some asshole on the street might decide to shoot me because they don’t like my bicycle (you’d be amazed at the vitriol people spew from their vehicles on occasion). I think a basic expectation of society ought to be that I don’t need to fear for my life while going about my daily duties. And I sure as shit shouldn’t need to ever worry that my kid (currently a bit older than a year) fails to come home from school one day because some crazed nut can get a rapid-fire gun.
I guess I am, however, stating outright that the people who write the laws of this country don’t care about human life. Their actions speak louder than any words. I am frustrated and pissed off.
I’m not a crazy person nor an ideologue - I’m pragmatic by and large. While I’d love to narrow the range of the types of firearms one can buy, have strong gun registries, bullet tracking requirements, and strong licensing requirements, I don’t actually know which of those will reduce gun violence. “Gun violence” doesn’t just mean mass shootings or school shootings. This includes suicides and accidental shootings.
@MarkDaSpark
We only have to look at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, the vehicle incidents in London and France to see it’s not really a gun problem, but a people problem. Desensitization to human life is the cause.
That may be true as far as it goes, but it misses the point. There always have been and always will be evil in the world - and I doubt the incidence rate of evil has dramatically changed. The ability to procure weapons that can kill dozens makes it far too easy and deadly.
@klezman I think it’s naive to think if all guns were banned that suicide rates would decrease, so the stats from suicide don’t factor for me at all. Asking how many kids have to die is absolutely implying that me or anyone else that advocates for gun rights is indifferent to human life. These are emotional topics. Policy should not be written by emotion.
We’ve both heard all the arguments on both side so I’m not going to rehash them here, but I will emphasis that we have a lot of other root issues here besides the tool used. Mental health, desensitization to human life (our entertainment is watching people shoot other people in movies or doing it ourselves in video games), and a phrase I’ll borrow from Simon Sinek, a series of failed parenting strategies, have all led to a lot of people that don’t know how to cope with life or handle emotions in a productive way. I’d love to see those issues addressed instead of ban the scary guns.
@klezman, No, you missed the point. We didn’t have this problem back in the 50s and 60s (or before). There were just as many guns per person ratio back then, and people brought guns to school. What changed?
Removing guns WON’T solve the underlying problem. Evil people will still find a way … thus Manchester, Boston, London, multiple times in France, the Knife killings in China. Japan has a very low gun ownership, but a very high suicide rate. They still find a way!
Demonizing guns is not the solution. Demonizing the NRA or “the Right” doesn’t help. We could demonize the Left as well for the idiotic “Gun Free Zones”. We have the innate right to defend ourselves and our families. One of the points in my other link (the 6 reasons) was the Left constantly tries to push “blood on our hands” … why would ANYONE think that would help?
You can look to the Far Left for major desensitization … everyone not with them is “intolerant” and shouted down. To be excluded. Just look at the women excluded from their so-called “Women’s Marches” for supporting Israel!
Sure, policy ought not to be written on emotion. If all policy was evidence-based then our laws would look rather different.
I didn’t say anything about removing guns writ large. In fact, I went to lengths to avoid saying that. No need to put words into my mouth.
I also am not committing any of the fallacies your 6 reasons article suggests. I’m not saying you or any individual doesn’t care about loss of life. But I am saying that the federal government does not seem to be interested in reducing the likelihood of mass shooting events at schools or otherwise. Or of reducing gun-related violence more generally. The last policy enacted by the government was eliminating mental health checks, for example.
Nor am I demonizing guns. They have their uses. I think it is a mistake, though, to suggest that firearm ownership can do anything about a tyrannical government. The U.S. Army isn’t afraid of a pistol or semi-automatic rifle.
I also did read the link about Israel. It’s sad that the best answer people can come up with is to employ the same procedures that a country beset by terrorism uses. We can and should do better, imo.
I think it’s naive to think if all guns were banned that suicide rates would decrease, so the stats from suicide don’t factor for me at all.
I addressed this using the scientific literature back on WW. I don’t have the patience right now to go dig that post up, but it turns out that removing suicide methods that are the most expeditious and lethal does reduce suicides.
Obviously there are more problems than simply the “tools” used to wreak havoc. But again, I think this is disingenuous. If the tools weren’t readily available then the havoc would be lessened.
Again, I never said we should ban all guns. I’m not saying the second amendment is the worst thing in the world. I’m simply saying that we don’t need to accept the status quo, and that there’s value in reducing gun violence. The choice isn’t between zero and what we have now.
@airynne@MarkDaSpark Fair enough…but it is truly starting to feel like that is the trade-off that is happening. It’s a provocative way of asking what the correct balance is between the right to bear arms and the right of people to walk around in public free from being shot. We both agree that neither completely unfettered gun access nor a complete ban is either correct or desirable. The argument is only about where the balance point lives.
@MarkDaSpark What you are saying would have a lot more credibility if the US didn’t lead the 1st world by far in gun deaths. You repeat the same few incidents over and over and what has happened in Europe certainly hasn’t happened as often as the incidents in the US. In the last 9 years that I have lived in Poland, not one person has been murdered, by any means. While not the only reason, the huge amount of guns available in the US has a direct effect on the amount of gun violence. Personally, I would prefer a repeal of the 2A but that will never happen. It isn’t out of the question that the anachronistic 2A will receive a much needed overhaul. The sooner the better. Changing society will take generations, stemming the bleeding while that happens isn’t being unreasonable.
@klezman Nobody should seriously be worried about school mass shootings, and so long as its brown people killing brown people and old white men killing themselves, I doubt many people will care about the other stuff either.
@edlada ROFLMAO where do you get your [dis]information from Ed? Poland, as a US state sized entity which is 70 years post nearly complete ethnic cleansing, officially has almost no crime to speak of, but even so there have officially been thousands of murders during your 9 year stay.
I’m positive when I say it’s not worth the trade off.
@edlada@MarkDaSpark I really don’t much care for Wiki, but are you suggesting these numbers from the site are flat out lies? In 2011, Poland had a murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000 population.[1] There were a total of 449 murders in Poland in 2011. In 2014 Poland had a murder rate of 0.7 per 100,000. There were a total 283 murders in Poland in 2014.[1]
@mother@rjquillin I am not sure why you didn’t read what I said closely. I said in my town, not all of Poland. Even so, the murder rate in all of Poland is quite low, and similar to most countries in Europe where firearm ownership is highly restricted. Mother, I am not sure what you are trying to imply about the Holocaust, the Germans did that, remember?
@edlada Ehhh, because that isn’t what you wrote?
And first of all, no matter what laws get passed to try to revise history, it wasn’t just the Germans, but it doesn’t really matter who ethnically cleansed Poland, it happened. It’s now a country almost entirely made up of white ethnically-Polish Catholics.
A situation that helps explain a lack of internal conflict as well as the dangers of not being in a position to oppose tyranny.
@mother Fair enough, I had the words ‘my town’ in my head and they didn’t get typed. I don’t think it would be realistic to think that I would believe there weren’t any murders in the entire country. I am a bit of an unreformed idealist but I am far from naive.
Now to address your slander of the Polish people, because it does really matter who perpetrated the Holocaust. It was the Germans, they were responsible, not any of the occupied countries. (Actually Poland was’t occupied, it was absorbed into the Reich, but that’s another story.) I will not deny that there were some Polish people who were anti semitic but that was pretty normal all over Europe. I will remind you that about 1/2 of all of the Jews in Europe lived in Poland. The reason for that is they were for the most part welcomed there for centuries and allowed to live as they pleased. I might also add that Poland lost 20% of its population during WW II, 2nd only to Belarus in the percentage of the country’s population killed. Yes, Poland is predominately white and about 80% Catholic. Ethnically Polish is not really true. Due to the nature of Poland’s history of being repeatedly invaded and occupied throughout most of its existence, as well as borders that expanded and contracted significantly over the years, it is hard to say what is ethnically Polish. People might identify as such however you wouldn’t have to look far to find other nationalities in their blood, particularly on the western and eastern sides of Poland. Actually there isn’t any country in Europe that can claim any more than a little over 50% of their genes to a particular nationality, except maybe the British Isles. A diverse gene pool is a very healthy thing, Polish women are generally beautiful, for one thing. Although the current Right wing, ultra Catholic government is anti immigration, that hasn’t always been the case. Unfortunately, the same desire for Right wing despots that the US is experiencing is a thing in Poland as well. One reason that Poland doesn’t have a lot of immigrants is because it is a relatively poor country. There is far more money to be made in neighboring Germany, among other countries. I am not sure why you have such a dislike for Poland and Polish people but your comments are very insulting.
I am glad to see you are as combative, obnoxious, opinionated and abrasive as you were over at WootWine. Are you Jewish perchance, that would help explain the rather obvious chip on your shoulder. You must be a very unhappy person.
@edlada Ah, and I see you still respond to being wrong by launching ad-hominem attacks.
PS I don’t recall ever engaging with you on w.w outside of topics pertaining to wine, but I saw you pull this stunt against many others.
PPS If you think that significant numbers of Polish people were not horribly complicit in the murder of 3 million Jewish Poles, why should we not think you also believe in no murders in Poland, or the tooth fairy for that matter?
BTW For the record some of my favorite people in this world are of Polish and/or Catholic decent. My “slander” was against your attempt to hold up modern-day Poland in an effort to attack the rights the 2A protects.
The fact that Poland is currently attempting to rewrite history to hide their sins is as frightening as it is disgusting, but not relevant to this topic.
@mother I’ll tell you what Mom. You go ahead and give me concrete proof with reliable sources. I have been studying the history of WW II in Europe for the past 40 years. I am familiar with what the Poles did to the Jews during the war and your accusations are specious. As for a person accusing me of ad hominem attacks, I see you are capable as well. If you want to engage in a real discussion, lets try to stay in the realm of facts.
@rjquillin Yes, and I explained above. Part of the reason I originally responded as I did was because I was sure I had written ‘in my town.’ Apparently I was mistaken and I apologize for my statement to you. I was the one that was mistaken. I will reiterate that I think that it was an obvious mistake, I doubt that anyone would truly believe that a country could have no murders.
@mother You can rationalize anything you like. If you think you can explain away your ludicrous, unwarranted lies about Poland in WW II by claiming you like Polish people but I provoked the attack, is disingenuous at best.
I am as appalled as you are with the current Polish government, as are many Polish people. Just because the government is trying to cover the anti- semitic behavior of some Poles during the war, doesn’t mean that the activity was widespread, and it wasn’t. Poland has nothing to be ashamed of its treatment of Jews during the war, it was far better than other countries in Europe. There are many stories of Poles that sheltered and aided Jews but those stories don’t support your narrative. I don’t know why you have such animosity toward a country that suffered more than most others during WW II, and also gave more resistance to the Nazis than any other country during the war, as well as providing significant support to the Allies.
@edlada Yes, I could see how this could happen. I too think I’ve said something, when my fingers said something different. I’d not seen your reply/explanation when I replied.
I enjoy the discourse, less so accusations, from any point of view.
Sorry Ed, but it’s been well-documented. Yes, there have been those who saved Jewish people (like Irene Sendler), but far more did nothing or helped the Nazis. Why do you think most Death Camps were IN Poland?
Finzi notes that in Poland, which contained one of Europe’s largest Jewish communities, the 1930s ushered in a systematic economic boycott of many Jewish producers and a series of prohibitions excluding Polish Jews from several occupations and educational opportunities
– from Cambridge University Press 0521773083 - “Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe before the Holocaust” by William I. Brustein
@MarkDaSpark@mother So a YouTube video and a biased source are proof? Your last statement is astounding, and reveals your true agenda. Why the f**k do you think the death camps were in Poland. Because after the Nazis, with their special hatred of the Poles and other Slavs, partitioned the country, stripped of its independence and borders, they a) Sent German pioneers to settle on the land and start farming; and b) Built a series of extermination camps, because the methods they had used at first were totally inadequate and since half of the Jews in Europe were all ready in Poland it made the logistics easier just to build the camps there. In addition, they had an easier time hiding the industrial slaughter of millions of people in Poland rather than soiling the Fatherland with such a specter.
I would appreciate if you would just be honest with me as to what your real agenda is. You have some kind of axe to grind, and you are woefully misguided with your revisionist ideas. I will be happy to go toe to toe with you and Sparky when it comes to the history of WW II in Europe. I have read hundreds of books on the subject, I don’t just cite the first source that looks good in a Google search.
@MarkDaSpark Can we please stop feeding the troll? It just doesn’t matter in the context of the 2A…
Poland is proof that the framers were correct to protect our right to defend ourselves with the 2A. Perhaps if both countries continue to exist for another 5,000 years, the US will have cumulatively lost an equivalent portion of their population due to being armed as Poland did in 6 years due to not having the equivalent to our 2A and “gun culture”.
Sorry, I keep hoping he’s changed, but he’s still the Troll he’s always been. The link I posted was using US Intelligence (State Dept.) reports post-WW2. Hardly “biased”. And the second link to the PDF had literally dozens of notes to other sources.
@MarkDaSpark@mother
I’m not going to get deep into this, but Ed is most definitely not a troll. An internet troll says things just to get people riled up and cause a stir. It doesn’t mean “somebody I disagree with”.
@klezman
The issue isn’t that we disagree with him, it’s that he’s intentionally dragging the conversation OT in an extremely and intentionally obnoxious way.
In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll’s amusement.
@MarkDaSpark@mother Sorry Sparky, i would engage in a battle of wits with you however I am morally oppose to fighting unarmed people. You r intellectual paucity is simply stunning.
@mother You really have some nerve to say something like that. You try to make Poland implicit in the Holocaust and then you call me a troll? I asked you and your intellectually challenged friend Sparky to debate me with facts, and this is how you respond. With all due respect that you absolutely don’t deserve you are a disingenuous anal orifice. HTFU, you don’t need an ignore feature, just don’t look at my posts.
I know I’m feeding the troll, but dude, I used that line (battle of wits with an unarmed person) on WW on you!
For the record, I did use facts, unlike you. You have yet to respond without ad hominem attacks or with any links to “facts”! Where are your documented facts? Links?
US Intelligence docunented anti-Semitism in Poland before, during, and after WW2. They passed laws against Jewish people before the war. You have yet to discredit those facts or any of the other facts.
I’m sorry klez, but this is what ladeeda does. When he can’t respond with facts, he attacks you personally. He did it in WW to loweel, myself, and others.
He is very generous sharing his wines, however. He just can’t seem to discuss other topics reasonably.
@MarkDaSpark@mother Quite honestly, I am tired of you calling me a a troll. I made a reasonable comment expressing my opinion on the 2A. Mother responded with a trolling attack on me insulting the Polish people and making ludicrous statements. Mother also implied that if people had private weapons, the holocaust wouldn’t have happened. That is patently false. WW II began a little more than 20 years after the end of WW II. There were plenty of privately owned firearms all over Europe. When Hitler was consolidating his power in the 1920s and '30s, there were battles between Hitler’s Brown Shirts an opposing parties. Polish people had plenty of privately owned firearms when Germany invaded Poland in 1939 to start WW II. In the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, the Poles put up a valiant fight against the Nazis, for over 2 months before they were finally overwhelmed. Of all the countries controlled by the Nazis, the only country that put up any sustained, meaningful resistance against the Nazis were the Poles, no matter what the French claim. After the Jews, the Poles and the rest of the Slavs were the second most hated people that Hitler singled out for extermination. As far as your links, the YouTube video is simply one man’s experience during the holocaust, that is hardly a definitive account of the entire Holocaust. Here is another Jewish man giving his view, of a different nature. It is long but I highly recommend you watch the entire video, it is very good. Your other links don’t work. I clicked on your link to the site and it didn’t work. I went to the website and I searched for the story you linked and it didn’t come up. In addition, it is quite clear that the site has an extreme bias to a certain viewpoint. Your PDF link doesn’t work.
I never denied that there weren’t anti Semitic Polish people. There were anti Semitic people all over Europe. There are many other reasons that Polish people committed acts of violence against Jews. Poland suffered more than many countries in WW II, life was a brutal struggle for day to day existence. Of course some Poles collaborated with the Nazis, but they were definitely in the minority. The fact that 3 million non-Jewish Poles were killed in the war. I will also reiterate that half of all of the Jews in Europe lived in Poland. That wouldn’t be the case if Poles are as Antisemitic as you and mother claim. Even though the Poles did increasingly put restrictions on Polish Jews, they were never denied citizenship, the right to vote and other things that Jewish people were deprived of in other European countries. I don’t know why you and Mother are trying to make a point about Polish Antisemitism. I am beginning to thing that Mother must have a grandfather or something that was in the Nazi SS. I can’t imagine why he and others chose to deflect the responsibility of the Holocaust from the perpetrators of that horror, the German nation. The deflection of the responsibility of the Nazis for the Holocaust is revisionist and does nothing to promote an honest discussion. The entire subject is complicated and certainly can’t be thoroughly and accurately discussed by posting links to this or that. It is far to vast and complicated to discuss in any meaningful way, in a forum like this. I have spent more than 40 years studying the history of WW II in Europe and there is still much that I don’t know. I don’t deny that the current Polish government is passing frightening laws, it appalls me as well as many Polish people. This is a manifestation of the current trend in the world, including in the US with Trump where populist, nationalist demagogues are spreading prejudice, bigotry and hatred, and it isn’t a good sign.
If you and Mother have some personal grudge against Polish people, that’s fine. You are entitled to your opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts trying to justify your incorrect stand.
I am willing to have a reasonable discussion but it is obvious that you and Mother have no interest in that. All you want to do is attack anything I say because of some kind of personal animosity you have against me. When I am attacked for no reason, I will respond, sorry about that.
You are right, I am a very generous person. I am also open minded, kind, compassionate, and a reasonable person. I only ask to be treated with the same respect that I treat others that are reasonable. If you think otherwise, I am sorry.
If you can find anything I said above as an ad hominem attack or trolling, please let me know.
I am glad to see you are as combative, obnoxious, opinionated and abrasive as you were over at WootWine. Are you Jewish perchance, that would help explain the rather obvious chip on your shoulder. You must be a very unhappy person.
Your attack on Mother, and before any impugning of you. You did indeed, change the tone from a rational discussion to a personal attack on Mother first.
I would appreciate if you would just be honest with me as to what your real agenda is. You have some kind of axe to grind, and you are woefully misguided with your revisionist ideas.
Your attack on me, indicating I wasn’t being honest and that I was misguided.
Sorry Sparky, i would engage in a battle of wits with you however I am morally oppose to fighting unarmed people. You r intellectual paucity is simply stunning.
Your second attack on me. Yes, it was after we called you a troll, but that was after your initial attacks and refusal to document any of your “facts”. I’m not sure why my links may not have worked for you, but they are valid facts.
For the record, I have nothing against the Poles. My grandmother came to the US in the early 1920’s from the part of Poland that was part of Austria before WW1. As I already said, there were people who supported and helped Jewish people, but they weren’t as many as you insist.
If you want to show you aren’t a troll, stop the ad hominem attacks and actually post links supporting your position.
In the last 10 years or so it has become widely known that massacres like this actually happened in several Polish towns, most notably in Jedwabne, north-eastern Poland, where Poles at the instigation of the Nazis murdered more than 300 Jews.
But as the BBC notes,
Of course, anti-Semitic attitudes persist in Poland as they do in most European countries. But in the last 20 years, thanks to the late Polish pope, John Paul II, calling anti-Semitism a sin, progress has been made.
Jewish history and culture have also become increasingly popular among Poles. The country now has major Jewish cultural festivals and demand for Yiddish and Hebrew language classes has risen.
So yes, there is less Anti-Semitism now. But not before or during WW2. Even after there was still problems, as the Algemeiner noted in the post above.
Antisemitism flared up again after the 1967 Six-Day War, when Poland decided to take the Soviet dissatisfaction with Israel out on the country’s remaining Jews — around 13,000 of them — by firing them from jobs, denying them the right to study at university, and various other forms of harassment. Consequently, nearly all the remaining Polish Jews left Poland between 1968 and 1972.
@MarkDaSpark I never denied that there was Antisemitism in Poland, as there was in all of Europe. The subject is complex and finding links supporting this or that view is a useless exercise. History cannot be thoroughly discussed by taking isolated stories from the internet with little context, and a thorough examination of all of the events. As you see in the BBC link you provided and quoted, there are many facets to the story. Otherwise, it is just a round and round discussion with no actual benefit. Lastly, I am not sure why you are so intent on arguing about this, I agreed with the original statement when this started. Please get back to me after you have gotten a thorough background on the history of WW II, in about 20 years or so and we can have a real discussion. I have a feeling that the recent articles on the subject were provoked by new research which was in part stimulated by the current Polish government, which quite frankly a populist, regressive, ultra conservative, religiously oriented group. People, especially Jewish people are lashing out at the current government, and supporting their anger by bringing up the Holocaust. Thank you for you comments.
I would like to see sane proposals from both sides. I want to see a national database fixed, I think we can all agree on that. I think we can agree on increased access and coverage for mental health and not just pill pushing. I want to see increased training and licensing. It should be harder for me to buy a gun then for me to go get a car. As for the japanese knife one, it was more than one person and it took longer than a few minutes. Obviously the solution of more guns has not worked. There is a reason I feel safer teaching in a maximum security prison where officers do not have guns than going to teach at cornell.
@tiger7610 When you figure out how to have a database that could NEVER be abused by a tyrannical government and provides for nearly frictionless due-process, you let us know. We all want people who obviously shouldn’t be allowed to have guns to not have guns, but not at the expense of the entire reason the founding fathers wrote the 2A. Reporting of mental health to the government also is a very tricky subject- you do more harm if you simply cause these people to not seek help.
As to your car comparison- an American can go out and buy a car with cash with absolutely no limitations or restrictions- if they have the money, they can buy it. However driving that car on public roads is not an intrinsic right of an American, having firearms is.
As for the more guns didn’t work thing- that’s statistically a false statement at least as concerns the US over the last however many decades.
BTW If you feel safer around maximum security inmates and COs compared to the Cornell campus, that’s really irrational. Something like 2.5% of people working in prisons in a given year are injured in violent incidents. That’s ~4 orders of magnitude higher than the risks you face of being shot on a school campus.
@klezman Progressivism is the belief that personal freedom and individual rights are irrelevant versus what is deemed as good for society. The current US incarnation directly fosters a “SJW” mentality that says unless you are perfectly in line with my ideology, you’re an enemy, and it runs allies off.
I am a social liberal (as in “an adherent to social liberalism”), and am therefore opposed to socialism and totalitarianism on historical and ideological grounds. The progressive movement in the US is, unfortunately, socialist totalitarianism wrapped in a veneer of free hugs and unicorn farts. It is inherently un-American, and IMHO just as evil and fact-averse as the “neo-confederacy” that is behind the Trump-GOP.
@mother Yup, that sounds a lot like my problems with progressivism as well.
We may disagree on several more immediate issues (like guns) but fundamentally we are in the camp that the piece decsribes as being able to compromise on such things.
Interesting piece. But it’s not without partisan bias. But accurate in part, and as noted, not restricted to only the Right. Just look at Obama and Hillary, same type of blinders on the Left.
@klezman@MarkDaSpark Kind of reminds me of something I read once about how people overwhelmingly believe that politicians are corrupt in general but also overwhelmingly believe that their own state and local politicians are mostly honest.
@klezman Neat article. I can see how it applies to both sides of the fence. Though I don’t spend enough time with crazy liberals see it in action there. Most of my political discussions have been with a friend who is a conservative Republican Christian. And it’s my sad belief that the the conservative Republicanism is modifying the Christianity, not the other way around.
Anyway, since I seem to be linking Paul Graham articles, here’s one I think is oddly appropriate.
@klezman Also I meant to edit that statement (the “the the” in there was almost a marker for it) to make it clear that it applied in his case. I don’t know enough people to make sweeping, generalized statements.
Though with billions of people on the planet, I doubt I’m capable of really dealing with even a hundred of them as unique individuals. That implies it’s a pretty short interval before I’m stuck with stereotyping.
@TimothyB Yeah, fair enough. That statement certainly could have been read either way. I think it does apply more broadly than just the one case but also obviously is not an appropriate broad stroke.
@TimothyB Never seen it laid out like that. I can definitely see some validity in the premise that people being bad at disagreeing causes anger-
Look at the exchange with Ed above. He responded to DH5/6 with ad hominems and things meant to look like refutation that were, in fact, just an attempt to deflect the conversation to a topic that was not in any way important to the point being debated.
I don’t do well with having DH6 responded to with DH0. Which is why I put great effort into not being baited by it, and really really really want an ignore feature
Though if you know me, you might notice that occasionally when I speak nonsense it’s kind of a koan. (The rest of the time, what I say really is nonsense. I find that nonsense is appropriate a surprising amount of the time.)
Here’s one example.
I was on a long drive home with a friend who likes to listen to political commentary radio. On one show we were listening to, I don’t remember the topic. I only remember that the radio personality consistently referred to the Washington Post as “the Washington compost”. The name calling just obscured for me any valid points he may have had.
I tried explaining about How to Disagree, but I wasn’t able to get my point across. (Perhaps the nonsense thing prevents me from being a great communicator.)
So talking with my friend about the show, I started referring to the commentator as “that idiot [whats-his-name].” My friend got offended. he just couldn’t see that I was doing the same thing as his beloved [whats-his-name].
In fact, by doing that, I lost so much credibility with him, that he couldn’t believe me when I suggested that if we wanted to get to my house, he should take the next exit. We drove another ten miles before he realized that Waze had reset itself and was taking us to an entirely different destination.
Obviously those who don’t have a login can’t see the full text. The thrust of the argument is that Heller missed an important word in the second amendment and read “infringed” as “abridged”. The author contends that even a textualist reading of those terms indicates the former is indicative of the relationship between the federal and state governments while the latter is about individual rights:
Most glaringly, Heller never addressed the meaning of the last clause and verb on which the amendment rests as pointed out in my prior articles, including “The Historic Legal Blunder That Enabled Our Gun Epidemic” (Law360, April 28, 2018). Instead, Justice Scalia transposed “shall not be infringed” to “abridged” (“Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms”),[16] though not synonyms, like changing “shall not kill” to “maim.” “Abridge,” a forgotten term of art, was used in the First Amendment and every amendment since that protects individual rights. “Infringe,” another term of art, was used in its classic sense to protect state sovereignty.
And he uses this as evidence:
Had Justice Scalia considered legislative history disdained by doctrinaire textualism, he would have found that the First Congress in drafting the First Amendment rejected the substitution of infringed for abridged. Or had he consulted some of his usual period dictionaries, or even his frequent co-author Bryan Garner’s “Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage” he’d have found: “infringe on [read encroach or impinge on] British sovereignty” (Garner’s emphasis and brackets), just what states feared Congress would do to their sovereignty over their militia.
While I know most of the lawyers who read this thread are perfectly in agreement with Heller, I am curious for your analysis on this line of thought.
The BoR was intended to be specifically enumeration some rights that absolutely are not touchable by the Federal government. It was drafted specifically to get the anti-federalists to support ratification of the constitution. To read the 2A this way completely negates that, as it would remove the protection granted by the 10A [“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”].
Additionally the FF were pretty clear what they meant, there is plenty of other writing, drafts, etc., which make this so. Heck even the throwaway justification clause in the 2A about militias indicates this wasn’t the intent- in the late 18th ‘the militia’ meant all free and able bodied white men 18-45 who weren’t congressmen, stagecoach drivers, or ferryboatmen.
@klezman The argument is not even remotely convincing. You really have to have read the history of the right to bear arms in England, under common law, and then in light of the English Bill of Rights of 1688 - which purported to enshrine (not to establish) the proper Rights of Englishmen. Among those was a right to keep and bear arms, but with a qualification “suitable to their condition” - i.e. it might be (was!) different for aristocrats, the gentry, the middle class and peasants. Interestingly, in earlier times, all free men in the countryside (the yeomanry) were expected to keep and be proficient with the longbow - a personal weapon also useful in war (as demonstrated to the French at Crecy, Agincourt, Poitiers, etc.). The right of self defense was generally considered to inhere in all men (and women… it was the generic term in the day), and not something a state could take away.
The problem with arguments about the purpose of the second amendment is that there were no doubt multiple purposes and understandings. I can’t think of any serious 18th or 19th century writer on the Constitution who embraced a collective model - remember also that the ‘militia’ was the male citizenry from 18-60 or so, whether they were organized or unorganized. To the extent the 2A talking militia, it wasn’t the organized militia (the precursor of today’s National Guard), but the unorganized militia - the body of all citizens defined by statute as the ‘militia’ whether or not enrolled. Curiously, I first learned of the distinction when I went to college: at the Virginia Military Institute, when we signed up, we became cadets in the Viriginia militia - that was an organized militia unit (the Corps of Cadets), but many of the officers at the VMI (any who did not hold US commissions) held commissions in the “Virginia Militia (unorganized)”.
The bottom line for me is that there really isn’t any way around the fact that, having recently fought the Brits for independence, the Founders really meant it when they enshrined the right to bear arms. They meant it for self-defense, they meant it for defense against foreign enemies, and, yes, they also meant it as a bulwark against domestic (state or federal) tyranny.
@rpm OK, fair enough. I suspected that would be where you came down on it.
In general, though, do you disagree that “abridged” and “infringed” mean different things?
Without trying to troll, and there’s no need to answer, I don’t understand how one reconciles slavery with the noble intent of the FF’s BoR. For me, it undermines the foundation of the document. The more I have thought about it in the last decade, the more fungible the contents have become.
In any case, as some of you might remember, I’m extraordinarily liberal and think the establishment of the aristocracy here is a bad thing. Even though I’d eliminate guns, I think democrats should stop trying. There’s no need to alienate/rile up two different single issue groups (anti abortion & pro gun).
How is casemates? I’m struggling with the blog/forum style a bit.
@canonizer Trying to be brief, you need to understand the FF’s were operating in the context of a world in which slavery had (virtually) always existed, though in some countries it was (virtually) nonexistent (e.g. England).
There was a split among the FF over slavery - some were very much opposed (and that even included some from slave states, and even some slaveholders) to slavery and some, especially from South Carolina and the deep South were strongly in favor.
As the FF’s saw it, without a compromise over slavery in the new union, there would not have been a union, and the individual states would have been vulnerable to England or other European powers reasserting control over them.
Also, you need to understand the Constitutional convention was before the invention of the cotton gin, and slavery wasn’t nearly as profitable as it became in the first quarter of the 19th century.
The Constitution permitted the slave trade to be abolished in the future, and most of those willing to compromise on slavery to allow the union to exist believed reasonably and in good faith that slavery would slowly wither away as more profitable forms of agriculture and commerce replaced it over time.
In short, the FF left slavery mostly to the separate states as a pragmatic compromise to benefit the entire country in the short to medium run, which they deemed critical to the survival of an independent republic.
We can disagree with the choice - and there were some who did at the time - but we can not have any comfort that the long term outcome would have been nearly so favorable for the republic.
@rpm Ah, there’s no warning if you shut the window. I shall spill a bit later for my lost post.Thanks for replying, Rob. I take your point that without the collaboration among the States, there would have been little security.
In what way did the Constitution permit abolition? Via Amendment? That’s a high bar, only possible during the Reconstruction period. And if that’s the case, it is true of any altering any of the amendments in the BoR.
But the factors maintaining slavery went far beyond their economic value, which some have argued was more than market wages at the time. New World slavery was vicious by comparison to historical precedent in its treatment, length and automatic perpetuity of kin (regardless of how fathered). Likewise, the need for blacks (and unknown whites, for that matter) to positively prove freedom, as opposed to an assumption of such, created a cottage industry of “repatrioting” them.
I think it’s too easy to say slavery was on the way out. (Incidentally, I think it is critical to read 2A in part as a means to quell slave revolts but that is an aside.)
Thanks. Again, I understand that I’m far to the left on many of the issues here. I appreciate the perspective though.
@canonizer Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution prohibited Congress from prohibiting the slave trade until 1808 - which meant Congress was free to do so afterwards, which it did in 1807 (effective January 1, 1808). Abolition of slavery (a different question) would (and did) require an amendment.
Again, historical context is critical - I know, it’s not fashionable to actually have studied history, or law, but I did 40-50 years ago. The economic value of slavery looked very different in the late 18th century than it did after the invention of the cotton gin, which permitted the growth of the cotton industry. All I can say is you really need to read the contemporary accounts and the solid scholarly history.
There is no question that quelling insurrection (whether slave or otherwise) was a factor in the motivation of the Second Amendment, but I would argue that in the historical context, most of the FF were far more concerned with self-defense (considered a natural right), defense against foreign enemies, and defense against potential government tyranny.
In the midst of all this supreme court nomination crap (no matter what you want the outcome to be), seems to me we have a problem here. The court is becoming more and more politicized. Its legitimacy is in danger. It’s even worse now that the supermajority confirmation requirement has gone away. People are talking about court packing, adding term limits, and more. What about this: simply require that all court nominations have a 2/3 or 3/4 majority in the Senate confirmation process? That makes it a high enough bar that all nominees ought to be in the mainstream.
Too crazy? Or just crazy enough it might work?
Well, in theory, before 1917, there was no way to stop a filibuster as long as someone kept talking.
Since then, filibusters are stopped by cloture motions. From 1917, until 1975, it took 2/3 of the senate to invoke cloture, so that was an effective 2/3 requirement for a Supreme Court justice. In 1975, it was lowered to 3/5 (60 votes if all 100 senators present), where it stood until the Democrats removed it for all presidential appointments other than the Supreme Court in 2013, and the Republicans eliminated it for the Supreme Court in 2017. So, the political judgment of both parties - though primarily the Democrats have made these changes over time - has been to lower the vote requirements as the court has become more important and more political.
I’ll avoid comment on the current circus, but it’s clear that there is no Republican nominee the Democrats would not block if they could, and similarly no Democratic nominee the Republicans would not block if they could.
Mainstream or not. One could easily make a very strong argument that none of the Democratic nominees have been in the mainstream since the Johnson administration. Likewise, Democrats have called every Republican nominee since the Eisenhower administration outside the mainstream.
In short, the problem is not with the required vote, but the tenor of the country. If you raised the requirement, no one would be confirmed in the current climate, and the converse would occur when the Democrats gained a majority. Procedure won’t fix the problem, only the country moving away from the current craziness will.
And, I have no confidence whatsoever that has any chance of happening anytime soon.
@rpm Wholeheartedly agreed on the craziness of the country and that being the root of the problem. But you don’t think steps that required extra consensus would help provide a nudge for our elected representatives to work toward compromise? All the rule changes you highlight eliminated the need for compromise…
@klezman nope, in order to have real compromise, there has to be an area where the sets of preferences of both sides intersect. The area of intersection used to be substantial. But, right now it is asymptotically approaching zero. We haven’t seen anything like the division now since the run up to our civil war, or the revolution.
The area of intersection used to be substantial. But, right now it is
asymptotically approaching zero. We haven’t seen anything like the
division now since the run up to our civil war, or the revolution.
It certainly frequently feels that way; though I also sometimes think a substantial number of overlapping preferences remain, but with a few other preferences being so strongly held that compromising any of those few strong preferences is entirely anathema to those that hold them. Of course, that may have been the case prior to the Civil War as well (though less so, I think, in the run-up to the Revolution).
@jawlz@klezman I would be curious where you think areas of overlapping preferences remain. A decade ago, I would have said many. Now, I’m not sure there are any other than such things as wine, food, and loving children - though I’m not so sure about the later given the current profound disagreements over how to raise and educate children today. And, there are actually people who prefer beer…
We haven’t seen anything like the division now since the run up to our civil war, or the revolution.
This is precisely what scares me.
Back to the Kavanaugh thing for a second - if he’s not confirmed but another person from the Federalist Society’s list does get confirmed, would that move us closer to all out war or farther? Same question if Kavanaugh is defeated and then Trump is forced to nominate somebody not from that list because the Senate flips to the Democrats in the midterm?
Not sure either one bodes well for the country. (Or maybe, more accurately, pretty sure neither bodes well…)
@klezman - my opinion is that Kavanaugh’s defeat will move us towards potentially violent confrontation. It will certainly poison relations between the parties in Congress. Confirmation of another serious conservative might mitigate, but would not alleviate the anger ‘out there’. Certainly, if the Democrats take the Senate and refuse to confirm any further nominee (I doubt Trump would nominate someone the Democrats would confirm), I think you’ll see the anger grow by at least an order of magnitude.
What you’re seeing in the America that’s outside of the big cities and college campuses is an almost complete distrust of the political class and much of the upper middle class elite generally. Many people believe - rightly in my view, but YMMV - is that the political class (of both parties), and the elite that serves the political class, has absolutely no commitment to this country, to the Constitution and its meaning, or to anything besides their own power, no understanding of economics or history and a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.
I would also point out - though one should not have to - that while the left talks big and parades around as “antifa” thugs attacking people who don’t fight back and expect the police to do their jobs, the right is far better armed and encompasses far more veterans with combat experience.
@rpm You hit on many points that continue to keep me fearing for my future. While we might disagree on some of the specifics you mention about peoples’ beliefs, I agree that most now (rightly) see the political class as a group to be distrusted. We might lay more blame on one group than the other, but the result is the same: a fraying of society.
While it may not be to your liking, I think a brilliant political move for Trump (much as I despise him) would be to withdraw the Kavanaugh nomination and nominate Merrick Garland in his place. It would completely disarm the Democrats, and (if Trump could bully the Republicans into going along with it) that move would repair the part of the rift created when the Republicans refused to consider his nomination. Selling it to the people could actually go a decent way to healing part of the rift.
Of course, Trump hasn’t demonstrated the existence of that sort of instinct anywhere in his psyche, so that would be a pipe dream.
On the bright side, I can move back to Canada if things here get too insane. It’d be a lot easier to watch hockey!
@klezman What are you smoking, Klez? Gotta get me some of that…
Why does your ‘brilliant political move’ amount to a surrender to the left and their tactics?
Seriously, what makes you think Merrick Garland (well to the left of the retired Kennedy, and thus shifting the Supreme Court from center/center right to well left of center) would be acceptable to Trump (who has generally tried to keep his promises, especially about nominating conservative judges) or to anyone in the Republican Senate? Even those Republican Senators who are part of the Uniparty in DC went along with McConnell in not bringing Garland to a vote. To appoint him would be to reward the absolutely atrocious behavior of the Democrats in the Senate and elsewhere, and to reward the demonstrators who make mockery of the rule of law and all decency. The Republican leadership doesn’t like Trump as it is, why would they follow him into the electoral suicide that confirming Garland would represent?
Even trying to sell Garland would not only fail to heal the rift, but would actually exacerbate it by at least an order of magnitude. You really have no idea how much anger is out there at this point.
Indeed, if the Republicans were to confirm a Garland after what has been done to Kavanaugh, the party would be finished. It would go the way of the Whigs as a new party would emerge as conservative voters abandoned the Republicans wholesale. Of course, that would let the Democrats run riot for a few years with the insane behavior of the Nancy Pelosi’s and Maxine Waters’ of the world, and we’d be Venezuela in no time. Not sure if even a new Conservative party taking power after 8 years of rebuilding could turn that around.
Which would probably precipitate the very armed resistance which you want to prevent in the first place.
I think we have different views on the level and kind of anger that is out there. From my (admittedly, California and Canadian, big city, largely (socially) liberal) vantage point the anger is directed at the Republicans more than the Democrats, even if there is plenty to go around. I don’t think Garland would be acceptable to Trump (even though he was acceptable to Republicans until Obama nominated him), but since Trump’s greatest instinct is self-preservation he might see that as the best way to win reelection. I have no idea if that would overall work in his favour, but I think (and hope) at the end of the day that the people of this country want to move toward less division, not more. If, despite his every instinct being to the contrary, Trump could bring the country together it would be a political masterstroke. It won’t happen, of course. And i’s entirely reasonable to call bs on that one hypothesis of how one could help the country heal.
The anger I’m seeing is one that is born of people feeling like they can’t get ahead. That the existing power structure minimizes their ability to live safely and happily. That whole “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” thing feels sorely threatened, impinged on by those who would brand (for example) all transgendered people as presumed sex offenders. Or those who say women should primarily have domestic roles. Or who think they ought to control other people’s bodies. Or those who inflict harm on the most vulnerable in the population. The people who are harmed by this see a willingness of the ruling political class to inflict direct harm on them - a good friend who is transgendered in particular finds that recent enactments by the Republican Congress directly impinge on his right to equal treatment. This is real anger that is felt by real people.
I’m sure people who lean Republican would say the same thing to a large extent, and the main difference is what they see as the cause/solution. I wish a new party in the true centre would emerge. I think it’s likely the only way things will get better. Hell, I’d think of obtaining citizenship here just to vote for it.
@klezman Very different views indeed. You’re within the bubble and see everything from that perspective. So do my kids, which means I obviously failed to teach them anything about history, philosophy or economics. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree - except on wine and an appreciation of the lovely red haired beauty who is your wife.
@jawlz@klezman@rpm
I don’t know how many overlapping preferences still exist between the parties but the thing that strikes me is that nobody wants to start from a basis of cooperation. Both parties like to emphasize their most glaring differences in an effort to play to their bases and all that does is prevent things from getting done (costing taxpayers big bucks as situations drag on) and assure continued discord.
Supreme court nominations aside, surely there are areas/items of agreement that could be better served as starting points for negotiations on things like taxes, deficit reduction, health care, education, energy, etc. Let’s sit down and figure out the areas where those preferences do overlap and use these as starting points for future negotiations!
@chipgreen@jawlz@klezman Fair observation that no one wants to start from a base of cooperation. Two points about that:
Cooperation requires trust - at least trust that people will keep their word when a deal is made. At this point, there is no trust between the left and the right. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Positions are pretty much diametrically opposed on most of the things you list. Taxes? Left want to raise (except where it impinges on the right of high tax state residents to deduct those taxes, making it easier to keep high taxes at the state level), right wants to lower. Where’s the common ground? And so on. Certainly no common ground on health care. The Dems really want single payer and the Republicans want competition and maybe even a return to true insurance. Energy? No common ground there. Education? Left wants free college full of SWJ safe spaces and trigger warnings, and the right wants college to be more academic and less political.
@chipgreen@jawlz@rpm
Rob, we agree about more than you might think. I do think the anger you cite is just as real as the anger I cite. Which is more pressing and how to address it, however, we’ve long known we disagree. Unlike most of what passes for political discourse in this country, though, we have civil and enlightening conversations.
I think one of the reasons the positions on the left and right are diametrically opposed is because neither side is quite ready to admit and discuss that there are inherent trade-offs in any proposal. Everybody (ok, nearly everybody) agrees that society (via taxes) should pay for some things and not others. By refusing to have an honest discussion about the trade-offs, both sides are being inherently dishonest. “Mine is always better!” is hardly a persuasive argument, yet it’s the one that both parties try to make at every turn.
I want to look at one of your examples in depth, but I don’t have time to write out a thorough discussion. Suffice it to say, I am more optimistic that things are less diametrically opposed than you are. What’s missing is a rational discussion of the inherent trade-offs of any policy decision. Today’s politicians are (possibly completely and irreversibly) incapable of having those discussions because they are only concerned with “scoring the next point”. That is something I don’t have any ideas for how to solve, aside from the courageous few who step out of their partisan tents getting massively rewarded for being fair-minded. I’m not holding my breath.
@chipgreen@jawlz@klezman Klez, you’re still (well) on the other side of 40! And so may retain the optimism of youth, whilst my beard and hair are gray and I have the cynicism of age. As someone put it (it’s been variously attributed to Churchill, Clemenceau and Bismarck): he who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart, and he who is not a conservative at 40 has no brains.
Warning: Long and rambling post. Read (or not) at your own leisure.
I would be curious where you think areas of overlapping preferences
remain. I suppose it depends on what groups were talking about.
At the outset, I think we should note that the vast majority of Americans (75%+, probably closer to 90%+) aren’t particularly invested in politics one way or the other (the most recent thing I’ve read on this, but far from the only thing). I certainly know that the proportion of those who have strong political views among my own circles is significantly higher than this, but I don’t know that that is true for most.
I think that in general a significant majority of people are content to put politics out of their mind so long as their own material circumstances are minimally satisfied (I’m happy to decry the ill effects panem et circenses on political engagement, but there’s a certain rationality there as well). At the same time we are experiencing a general decline in political engagement, I suspect we are also experiencing increased volume and visibility of extreme political messages thanks to the rise of the Internet and social media (i.e. the arguments that I was reading in leftist rags back in my early undergrad days at UCSC and UCLA are not at all dissimilar from the arguments I read today on Twitter, Facebook, and Internet news sites, but the online audience for those arguments is exponentially larger [at least potentially] than the number of kids who could have picked up one of those rags at the local college co-op). I am skeptical those arguments have any significantly greater acceptance today, however. And I suspect that most of the preferences of the politically unengaged are shared.
…
That said, to your question on where areas of overlapping preferences (among those who have them) remain.
I haven’t seen much real appetite for a break from democracy and
general democratic processes, and I would say that there’s a large
set of overlapping preferences there. There are very real disputes on
a somewhat technical level (the electoral college, the redistricting
process and apportionment of representatives, one-person-one-vote,
etc), but I don’t see any significant group that’s ready to abandon
the idea of republicanism or democracy altogether.
I also don’t see much appetite for any significant curtailing of
private property, or calls for state ownership of industry
(exception: healthcare. See below!). Again, there are debates about
how embedded corporate interests already are and/or should be in
politics, but I’ve seen few arguments from any large or commonly
accepted political group that says we should transfer control and
ownership of Amazon or Walmart to the state. I’ve seen even fewer
arguments (honestly next to none that have any real political
currency) about transferring ownership of private residential
property to the state. Those are real issues other nations have faced
and/or acted on that I don’t see in the US.
I think that there’s a set of shared preferences when it comes to
maintaining and providing basic public infrastructure (streets,
roads, highways, bridges, sewers, water systems, other utilities;
even also things like education [at least on a basic level; clearly
there are {substantial} disagreements about curricula beyond basic
literacy and numeracy], parks, etc). We have differences about how
we should go about providing and maintaining that infrastructure, but
I don’t see any significant group of people that argues we shouldn’t provide/maintain that infrastructure.
I think there’s also a general set of common preferences that
people should be largely left alone to do their own thing when in
private so long as it isn’t clearly harming others. Moreso today even
(with increasing acceptance of behind-closed-doors recreational drug
use and homosexuality) than in past decades.
…
Really, though, it might be easier to call out areas where there is little overlap in preferences. Certainly there is little overlap in many matters of sexual politics (reproductive rights/abortion; the status of women as de facto victims of oppression, etc), though I suspect there is also some overlap to be found (I see few sincere and largely accepted arguments/preferences that women be shunned from the workforce, or that the proper role of women is as housewives/mothers, and both parties seem to agree that everyone should have some base equality of opportunity [though one party would clearly prefer more than just that]).
Health care is another huge area of little-to-no overlap, with Dems increasingly preferring single-payer or state-run healthcare, and Republicans the opposite.
Free speech is another area where there seems to be less and less overlap (at least among those most politically engaged), though I’ll also note that the US has stopped well short of the proscribed speech laws in the UK and Europe.
I’m sure there are several other areas that I’m missing (I see some have brought up energy in other posts), but I’m already going on longer than I should. Apologies for my general rambling – a good deal of brain power is being otherwise taken up by a new job and an unexpected potential boarder moving in with Lauren and me for a month or two (hurrah for life-long grad student friends?).
In any case, I think that I would sum up my thinking by saying that – with some notable exceptions – the country has relatively few disagreements about the basic political structure and form of government we use, but a number of remarkably profound disagreements about the details of our society and political system under that basic structure.
(Also, I reserve the right to completely change my views if 4 years from today we’re headed into the middle of Bernie’s first term and everything is free for everyone.)
@chipgreen@jawlz@rpm I’m glad you think I’m so young! But I am a bit optimistic by nature…you kind of have to be in my line of work (R&D is ridiculously difficult if you’re not somewhat optimistic).
the country has relatively few disagreements about the basic political structure and form of government we use, but a number of remarkably profound disagreements about the details of our society and political system under that basic structure.
Expressed more cogently and succinctly than I would have been able to do.
Interesting point that so little of the population is invested in politics. So then how doe they decide for whom to vote? Or maybe that’s a larger part of the problem than I thought…people don’t really understand what they’re voting for, allowing politicians to do things misaligned with their constituents.
That made me think of one other point - an increasingly apparent problem (to me) is that politicians seem to forget that their responsibility is to all their constituents, not just those who voted D or R. (I really wish there were more functional political parties in this country.)
the country has relatively few disagreements about the basic political
structure and form of government we use, but a number of remarkably
profound disagreements about the details of our society and political
system under that basic structure.
A decade or two a go, I would have agreed with you. But that’s no longer true. Most of those on the left want to do away with the electoral college and, increasingly, many leftists complain that the Senate is not based on population. The left wants more power in administrative agencies, and wants them to be independent of the executive. All of this is contrary to the Founders’ Constitution based on checks and balances. You should read Philip Hamburger’s Is Administrative Law Unlawful. The left has disliked our Constitutional framework since Woodrow Wilson, who would much have preferred a parliamentary system. The left is increasingly uncomfortable with the presumption of innocence, the right to confront witnesses, and the basic protections in the law - at least when the accused are the currently unfashionable white males… I could go on, but I think that is illustrative of my point: these are profound disagreements about structure and form (republic vs democracy) of government.
I do agree that most people would just as soon tend to their own garden ala Voltaire’s Candide and would simply like the government to leave them pretty much alone. In fact, that’s pretty much why the left has the power it does today: when the right tosses the left out (as in 1980 and again in 2000), instead of burrowing into government jobs as a career as leftists do when they’re running things, they spend a year or two in government, and then return to the private sector. I’ve observed this over many decades.
A key thing to note is that for the most part, Conservative fervor in elections is a reaction to changes imposed by the courts or legislature in Democratic hands which they think impinge on their right to go about their business pretty much as they always have. Conservative social legislation which leftists find threatening typically attempts only to reverse the effects of those Democratic changes.
The left and the Democrats really are trying to change the country, through unrestricted immigration, legislation pushing equality of result in many areas (school discipline!) and making many decisions long considered private to be matters of public concern and regulation.
You may be comfortable with some or all of those changes. As we always say here YMMV. I’m not particularly. But, I grew up in a very different America than most of you. In a California that was a completely different state - it barely even looks the same.
This is part of WHY everyone is so much more concerned about the SCOTUS nominees than in prior decades. The structure of the government on paper is the same. Congress makes the laws, the executive enforces them, and the courts validate or invalidate their constitutionality…except congress doesn’t make the laws anymore. They’ve completely abdicated their responsibility to the other 2 branches and the administrative state that doesn’t appear to be under control of the executive anymore. Most folks I talk to now are realizing that the makeup of the court can affect their day to day life in the long term far more than who their President, Senator or Congressman is. I know a great number of people on the right that held their nose and voted for Trump because of the court…and they will do it again. This Kavanaugh debacle has motivated them to come out and vote in the mid-term.
@jawlz@rpm@airynne
While I understand most of your points, what I’m missing is how you can ignore the effects of some of what the right seems to want. If “going about their business pretty much as they always have” means ignoring discrimination and unequal application of the laws, is that what is intended? The incarceration rate of black people vs white people for drug offenses is always a good reference point for that.
The difficulty I have with many of the positions taken by the right is that it seems to want to ignore aspects of human nature and behaviour that are important in public policy making. (Yes, the left also has some terrifyingly large blind spots in this realm as well. See “unrestricted” immigration.) If animus is held by certain populations against others does it make sense to allow that, or does it make sense to establish that it’s against what this country stands for? (One example might be the North Carolina “bathroom law” that was an assault against transgenred people.)
The thing I keep returning to is that I agree with you philosophically on many of these issues - but when it comes down to application it seems the “conservative” viewpoint results in outcomes I find distasteful or outright repugnant (in addition to the many that I just find to be not my policy preferences…I’m excluding those atm). How am I to square those two things?
The thing I keep returning to is that I agree with you philosophically
on many of these issues - but when it comes down to application it
seems the “conservative” viewpoint results in outcomes I find
distasteful or outright repugnant (in addition to the many that I just
find to be not my policy preferences…I’m excluding those atm). How am
I to square those two things?
I dunno, Klez. I think you have to decide what’s most important, given that there are unintended consequences of any approach. For me, it’s about the rule of law, the structure of government and the legitimacy of institutions. Not a perfect world. Some of your examples don’t resonate with me the same way they seem to with you. The transgender bathroom thing is an example. It seems to me that biological women and men ought to be able to use the bathroom without having to worry about whether someone with the other biological equipment is in their bathroom just because they claim to identify with the other gender. To me that’s hardly discrimination. At most, it’s a balancing of rights. There are times when rights of one person may interfere with the rights of another, and we have to balance between them My right to extend my fist stops short of your nose. My right to free speech stops short of a right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. In a world where 90-95% of the population is heterosexual and identify with their biological sex, as a practical matter of governance, I’d put more weight on their rights to use the bathroom in peace than I would on the rights of a fraction of a percent of the population (those who claim to be ‘transgender’ - most of whom still have the original biological equipment) to insist on using opposite sex bathrooms. But, more broadly, I don’t see gay rights as the moral equivalent of the right of citizens of color (is that the current politically correct term?). I was there, I was involved in, and supported, the civil rights movement. But, I opposed the form of affirmative action that was instituted when it was first proposed, and oppose it still. I totally oppose any attempt to ensure equal outcomes.
But, I hear your cri de coeur and I don’t have a better answer. Hard cases make bad law, as the saying goes. Sometimes the consequences of well-intentioned actions to alleviate suffering only make things worse.
@airynne@jawlz@rpm
This is exactly why I enjoy and value these discussions. We’re finally getting to the heart of it. Balancing of interests and rights really is difficult, but nobody in government appears to be interested in an honest discussion of that. It’s full of “my side is morally right and yours is morally wrong, making you an evil person”.
Obviously I don’t have the answers, but that’s why this is a good venue for these discussions. And yes, the road to hell and intentions and all that certainly rings true.
FWIW, it seems the main thing lacking all around is empathy. People are unable/unwilling/uninterested in putting themselves in other people’s shoes. How do you incentivize people to see beyond their own noses?
@airynne@jawlz@klezman
Traditionally, religion (at least the post-pagan religions in the West) spurred people to empathy, compassion, and encouraged what philosophers call superogatory acts (that is, acts which are not legally or even morally required, but a praiseworthy or even heroic). In fact, one of the great ‘selling points’ of Christianity in the late classical world was its emphasis on charity and taking care of the less fortunate. (This is inherent in Judaism, and probably the source for Christianity’s version, but, given Judaism’s then almost exclusively tribal nature, did not give it the wider appeal of proselytizing Christianity, but I digress). The pagan religions simply did not do this doctrinally, and that’s quite possibly why the states in the classical world rarely did much in the way of charity beyond bread and circuses.
The point being most people (who are not made of the stuff of saints) need incentives to see compassionate behavior as in their own (broader) self-interest. It’s a cliche, but you cannot legislate human nature. It’s the reason all utopian schemes (which include socialism and communism in all their forms) fail. And yet, in their own way, communism, and even socialism in anything other than a very diluted form, amount to religions with their own deity (the great god Diahistamat - dialectical historical materialism) and eschatology.
The left, of course, doesn’t understand that it’s become a religion and has spent the past 250-odd years destroying Western religion and all of the institutions of the West.
The genius of the American Founders was that they created a government designed to take advantage of the competing self-interests of the states, and of people and interest groups within states (and even smaller communities) to check and balance each other out in a manner that would, over time, work in the broader common interest, without falling prey to the ills of prior forms of government, in the case of republics, to either mob rule (which is what pure democracy amounts to) or oligarchy (e.g. the fate of the Venetian republic). We’re the second longest lived republic out there - the only longer-lived one the Roman republic, which had close to a 500 year run before succumbing to the temptations of empire and one man rule.
I don’t think you can have it both ways - you can either have a state that guarantees liberty (but thus allows not insignificant numbers to fail and fall through the cracks) or a state that tries to make sure everyone is ok (but must become coercive in order to command the resources to do that, and becomes tyrannical as a small group determines what ‘ok’ means and what everyone ought to have - which of course doesn’t include the deciders as some animals are more equal).
@airynne@jawlz@klezman
I would add here that another great strength of the United States, at least before the growth of the administrative state during and after the First World War, was that while the state (either the federal or state governments) was very limited, a vast number of private - entirely voluntary - groups did a fair (but obviously not perfect) job of providing education, charity, civic engagement, self-help (insurance type groups), and the like. The beauty of that approach was that it was voluntary - no state coercion, hence not a threat to liberty - and it was local - directly connected to the place where something was needed, overseen by those who were in a position to know who truly needed help and who needed a kick in the pants. Tocqueville remarked on this as something unknown in Europe (though in fairness, much of it had precursors in England in the 17th and 18th centuries), something born of the need in the colonial era of the colonists to take care of themselves without help from the British government. Despite the flaws with that model, I think it’s much healthier than the entitlement model of the modern American and European welfare states. We imported the welfare state model from the Continent (originally mostly Germany!), where there were limited or no notions of individual liberty against which state intrusion was to be balanced or even forbidden.
@airynne@klezman@rpm RPM, I’m heartened to see you reference Toqueville and the influence of religion and charity on the earlier history of the US. It’s not something that is commonly taught in history classes today on any level (elementary, secondary, university, etc). But their influence on colonial and post-revolutionary America - as well as on the country’s expansion westward - really cannot be overstated. I am skeptical that our political institutions would have fared as well as they did without the separate but complimentary sphere of services and influences provided by religious and charitable groups. And replacing religion with the state for many of those roles makes for a remarkably tenuous and uneasy fit, at least in our democratic system of government with its cacophony of competing interests. Really, we’re too large geographically for that to work well.
For the most part I agree with your posts, though I would note that I too am not particularly sanguine about the changes the country is undergoing (though I’m also largely resigned to them). But by-and-large I think those changes are cultural, as opposed to structural on a political level (though of course political structure influences culture and [at least in democratic countries], vice versa). But maybe I’m missing it, and we’re transitioning (or perhaps we’re already there?) into an Augustan phase of the country’s history where the scaffolding of our democratic systems hangs ornamentally around a new non-democratic and bureaucratic (some might even say ‘deep’) state. (Related: I ordered Hamburger’s book, and look forward to giving it a read.)
@airynne@jawlz@rpm Very interesting and enlightening stuff. Thanks!
I hadn’t realized the extent to which religious and other charitable groups had influenced that balance. I think it’s undisputed that the balance you refer to is no longer, well, in balance. So how can balance be restored - even if it’s not a balance between government and religion/charity providing? Who are the right players? Who picks up the slack if (for example) religious groups are unwilling to help those who aren’t heterosexual cis-gendered people? Should there be a safety net for those who slip through the cracks you mention?
@airynne@jawlz@klezman@rpm Carlson’s piece starts slow but builds an interesting case. The cliff notes version is that the disintegration the family, and Republican worship of the market, has created today’s economic and cultural decline.
@airynne@foxrunner@klezman@rpm I don’t know that I have much to say except that it’s probably more complicated than Carlson is suggesting, and I don’t think that he’s made a strong case that our tax policy and capitalistic economic system were the primary drivers in the decline of the family as opposed to any cultural shift in attitudes (though of course culture and economics influence eachother). There may well be a case to be made here, but I don’t see it being made coherently or clearly in the linked oped.
That said, the decline of the nuclear family and the correlated social ills has been relatively well documented - you can look at The Moynihan report from 1965 and various follow-ups to that report, up to and including Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart” from 2012 which I recall RPM recommending in the past.
@airynne@foxrunner@jawlz@rpm
I was on board with the first half of Carlson’s essay, pointing out the lack of attention given to these problems by the “ruling class”. But it quickly devolved, to me, into oversimplifying things into conservative tropes like “out of wedlock births”. To be sure, I think the research clearly shows having kids in a stable family environment with two parents is ideal. That doesn’t mean everything else is terrible and immoral.
Here y’all are! I’m reading up on what I’ve missed. It’s been a very ugly week or so in politics, huh? For the most part, my friends are busy hating each other (or what they think the other represents). I can’t imagine any outcome that won’t be terrible in one way or another.
Been crazy quiet here since before the election!
I’m curious…with Trump apparently contemplating declaring a state of emergency to build his precious border wall, what is the propriety of that? Both politically and legally?
@klezman Yes. I’d love to be an insider “in the room where it happens.” Angry blowhard? Is he really the guy who doesn’t like to read and only wants to look at graphs? Is he a clever manipulator of people to his will? Financial genius? Spoiled brat and bully? All of the above? I have my own thoughts, but willing to hear the other side.
@mwfielder I don’t think any of us will truly ever know. I suspect he’s as arrogant and gut-based as the stories tell us. But again, we will likely never know for sure.
@rjquillin 12 years ago the status on the border was rather different than it is today. Also a fence != a wall. Also the actual people who are out there doing the actual work don’t want a physical barrier, they want more useful things to find and deter people crossing illegally.
Also the actual people who are out there doing the actual work don’t want a physical barrier
This statement is in conflict with reports and interviews I’ve read and heard. A physical barrier will not stop crossings, but as has been demonstrated, will deter and redirect to allow better enforcement, if permitted.
There will remain attempts to cross so long as there exists an incentive and our laws are not enforced by sanctuary cities and states.
@rjquillin perhaps I should rephrase slightly. It’s that other things are higher priority than a physical barrier.
I’m also no far leftie on immigration, having gone through the system the normal way. But I still think building a wall is a silly waste of resources.
According to the “fact checkers”, illegal aliens cost the USA $116 billion/year. It is also estimated that slightly over 50% of the illegal aliens enter over the southern border, so maybe the cost from there is $60 billion/year. Suppose the wall only stops 30% of the illegal crossings. If it takes $18 billion to build, in only 3 years it has “paid for itself” in savings, and everything after that is “profit”. If the wall stops 75% of the illegal crossings, you’re starting to talk about some real money (hat tip to Everett Dirkson).
@Mark_L How is that estimate of “cost” derived?
I think it’s also disingenuous to say what Trump says, which is that “shifting costs” is the same thing as “Mexico is paying for it”. A different economic argument could be made, maybe even convincingly, but that is not what is being attempted.
@radiolysis wow. From Cato no less. The first paragraph is so damning that I’ve copied it here.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is devoted to reducing legal and illegal immigration. Its recent report, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2017)” by Matthew O’Brien, Spencer Raley, and Jack Martin, estimates that the net fiscal costs of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is $116 billion. FAIR’s report reaches that conclusion by vastly overstating the costs of illegal immigration, undercounting the tax revenue they generate, inflating the number of illegal immigrants, counting millions of U.S. citizens as illegal immigrants, and by concocting a method of estimating the fiscal costs that is rejected by all economists who work on this subject.
@klezman@radiolysis
Wow i’m shocked! a righty can find something on the internet that says illegal immigration costs the country billions and a lefty can find something on the internet that says the cost of illegal immigration is not so bad or is an outright lie.
Personally I think we should change our laws to match Canada’s! You can cross the border but you cannot legally take any job that could be used by a Canadian citizen until you are a permanent resident or citizen or you can apply for permanent residence if you are considered a Skilled Worker and of course if you cross you are not getting the benefit of the free health care until you’re considered a permanent resident or citizen.
@klezman@radiolysis@ScottW58 And, of course, your children do not become permanent residents or citizens entitled to welfare, free health care, or education…
@radiolysis@ScottW58 Canada actually has a pretty good immigration system overall, as far as I know.
Cato Institute is hardly left wing. They describe themselves as libertarian, fwiw. They were started by the Koch brothers and continue to be heavily funded by them. Those paragons of left wing politics…
The Canadian system you describe is, on paper, not that far away from what’s required in the USA. You have to go through several hoops to hire a temporary foreign worker, get certified from multiple federal agencies, and then you are allowed to hire them. Those visas are valid for three years, renewable once (for the high-skilled worker category called H-1B, which is where I was). Then if you want to hire them permanently you have to do further certifications plus another job search to prove there’s no American to take the job, then apply to more government agencies, have a medical exam, be fingerprinted, not leave the country during the process, etc. Oh, and until you have permanent work authorization you are, more or less, stuck with your employer and it can be difficult to switch jobs.
I’d love a total immigration overhaul in this country. That’s not what people have been talking about. They’re talking about illegal immigration as if it’s the same thing as legal immigration. The two could not be more different in my eyes. The former needs a comprehensive overhaul. The latter needs something to be done, but it doesn’t seem to me that building a wall and trying to evict ~11 million people from the country is a wise use of resources.
@radiolysis@rpm@ScottW58 Children born in Canada are Canadian. There was actually a good article recently talking about how people are using Vancouver to get their kids Canadian citizenship at birth so they can have that benefit later on in life. We’ve got our anchor babies too…
@klezman@radiolysis@rpm And by the way whatever happened to the much talked about giant migration to Canada of the lefties if Trump was elected?? Maybe they got stopped at the border
@klezman@rpm@ScottW58 I’d love for someone to find some sound clips and quotes as well.
Easier to find for those opposed to Trump, check out Hollywood.
As a parent of a three-year-old, sometimes it’s better to just give them the toy and get the hell out of Walmart.
On a more serious note, “we” elected this president (not me, but, you know). It seems appropriate to try to work with him to some extent. Didn’t we learn anything from the Obama years?
@klezman Maybe that too. Still, aren’t we gleefully piling up debt like there’s no tomorrow anyway? With Republicans’ blessing, even? What’s another 5 billion? Give it to him and let’s all go home.
@chemvictim since Trump acts like a toddler shouldn’t we test him as such? Although to some that means appeasement while to others that means not letting him win.
@chemvictim THIS is exactly where I am on this whole thing. Will the “wall” do what Trump touts? I have no idea. Best case it does, worst case, it’s a waste of money and misuse of eminent domain…But when have democrats or republicans ever been opposed to wasting money or misuse of eminent domain? Just give him his $5B toy so people can feel better and move on. This is stupid.
@chipgreen@rjquillin
Wow, that was surprisingly dumb.
(The only people who seem to confuse weather and climate are those like James Inhofe, of snowball in Congress fame.)
Since this thread has resurfaced, I’m curious on people’s thoughts on antisemitism, recent attacks, and what Trump and others (does or doesn’t do) to (encourage or discourage) these sorts of attacks.
I’ll leave the gun component of this issue out for now.
Whatever one thinks of the Donald otherwise, he is certainly the most Philosemitic president in the history of this Republic.
The whole topic of antisemitism is well beyond the scope of this little thread, but I have always found it vile. Neither the right nor the left - in Western political terms - own antisemitism, but it has been in the warp and woof of both Christianity and Islam historically.
I thought the West was pretty much done with it on any serious level (beyond those who still practice a certain amount of social discrimination, e.g. certain private clubs), but apparently not. In Europe, before the German National Socialists made antisemitism their own, it was primarily a ‘right’ phenomenon, strongest in Tsarist Russia and republican France, but there were bouts in other countries (even England tossed out the Jews in the Middle Ages).
In the Islamic world, antisemitism of course has been a consistent and constant theme, which has come to widespread attention only since the resurgence of political Islam in the past 30 years or so. I’m not sure how well-known it is, but the Nazis played some pretty serious footsie with the antisemitic Mufti of Jerusalem and the Arabs (and let’s not even get into the German alliance with the Turks during WWI and their indifference to the Armenian genocide, but I dirgress).
And, of course, public antisemitism in Europe and the West today seems very much related to increased Muslim immigration as well as movements such as the black Muslims.
The almost absolute public bar to criticism of Islam and its adherents in recent years has made the increase of antisemitism almost respectable in Democratic circles. And, of course, it was always a staple of Soviet communism and the Comintern generally - as the Jews (though many were personally leftists or communists) were seen as the archetype of the rapacious capitalist and always among the first to be put up against the wall or flee.
There is a certain irony, perhaps, in the fact that one of the most (theologically) conservative Western religions, Judaism, gained its widest toleration and acceptance in the countries most profoundly affected by the Anglo/Scottish enlightenments, the classical liberalism that undergirds the worldview of most in the Anglosphere.
I find it hard to square Trump being philosemitic with his refusal to call out antisemitism when it is counter to his political interests (see Charlotte march). Some argue that his stance toward Israel is the best of any American president, but I’m not sold on that idea. While I agree philosophically (to pick one example) that the US embassy ought to be in Jerusalem, I’m far from clear that it was a wise tactical or strategic move on his part to relocate there. One could cast it as a bold slap in the face toward antisemites, but one could also predict that it will hasten the eventual demise of Israel as a Jewish state. I honestly don’t know which I think is more likely.
It seems that extremists on both the (current) right and left delight in showering hate on The Other. Jews have always been in that category. I find the right wing version to be more honest, for what that’s worth, since the far right nutbags are at least consistent in hating everybody who isn’t like they are. The left wing nutbags, otoh, obfuscate and dither around it, trying to convince everybody that it’s just criticism of Israel and Netanyahu. Obviously that’s grade-A bullshit.
I’m not sure how to read your last paragraph. Some sects of Judaism are theologically conservative and some not. The one I adhere to is more middle of the road (despite it being called Conservative).
After its massive bungling of that cartoon last week, the NY Times managed to publish a couple pieces (one editorial, one op-ed) that very eloquently made the case for fighting antisemitism in all its pernicious forms. At least that’s something.
@klezman - where to begin… on you numbered points:
I think you misread the whole Charlotte mess - there are a lot of things said about what Trump said that are simply not true. Every politician shades things in his or her political interest, but historically - long before he was in politics in both business and personal life (Ivanka is a convert and his grandchildren are Jewish) Trump was generally seen in the New York world as pro-Jewish. That hasn’t changed.
I remember Southern blacks saying similar things about Southern whites years ago: Southerners (who were even the pretty “right wing”) were more honest about their feelings compared with supposedly liberal Northerners. If a Southern white asked you in through the front door, they almost certainly meant it and you could trust it, but Northern liberals would pretend to be friends and supporters of black insincerely, and their professions of friendship could not be trusted.
My comment was historical: Judaism was mostly conservative theologically up through the 18th century, the time of the enlightenments, and the liberal Jewish movements of our time only evolved (along with Zionism) in the mid-to-late 19th and in the 20th century, concurrently with the greater tolerance and acceptance of Jews in (especially) the Anglosphere and much of Western Europe. I was pointing out the irony, rather than trying to explicate it in detail. The is a very rich set of ironies and intellectually interesting set of conversations to be had on the enlightenments and their both positive and negative effects in the modern world - one to which I devoted several years in graduate school. While I don’t keep up with the scholarly literature much, I still think about these things and occasionally something spills out into my general conversation: you were a recipient…
@rpm Thanks!
I am certainly not inclined to feel warm fuzzy things toward the current president, and given how things have gone lately this is a particular sore point. As for what he said, I did see the original, and I’d like to think (but obviously can’t prove) that my opinion was based on that rather than the chattering op-eds. But saying his kid converted is a little too close for comfort to the “my best friend is black” argument of not-that-long-ago.
I always like your history lessons. If I’d had better teachers for that sort of thing I would have enjoyed it more and probably pursued it more. Too much fact memorizing and too little discussion of how it all fit together.
But I think in the wording you used it’s clear just why Jews need a Jewish state. The most we can hope for in most other places is tolerance and maybe acceptance. They both seemed a foregone conclusion in North America during my lifetime, but I’m being forced to reconsider the truth of that statement. It’s terrifying.
@klezman Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the Donald, but we do that now and then
I don’t think the fact that he seems perfectly comfortable with his daughter’s conversion and his Jewish in-laws is close to the ‘my best friend’ arguments of decades ago. After all what is more intimate than complete acceptance of someone who is different into one’s family?
Happy to help with history - though I do wish more people knew enough history that I could spend more time discussing historical issues and less time helping others learn the basics…
Well, again, I’m thinking historically: tolerance precedes acceptance and so it was historically with Jews in North America and Western Europe. So, I think you’re reading too much into the wording. If you think of this republic, we are unique in that legal equality among members of all religions is in our fundamental documents and was in many (but not all) of the colonies before our revolution. As you note, however, even legal equality (which is probably what ‘religious toleration’ meant in the 18th century) is not the same thing as full social acceptance. While I am not now, and never have been, of the view that the Jewish sense of exclusive group identity is a significant cause of the Jews being seen as “other”, the issue of Jewish “otherness” is complex. Historically, it was called (by everyone who wrote about it, whether Jewish, Christian or almost entirely secular) the Jewish Question. Zionism - the notion that the Jews needed their own state - was a late 19th/early 20th century response to the assimilationist tendencies and persistent anti-semitism. There is much I would enjoy discussing with you about these issues, but I think they are best discussed in person over a few bottles of wine.
@rpm Always agreed on the wine! I’ve not had cause to pass near your area lately, but we shall see.
And at least I know some stuff about the history of Zionism and related. Jewish Zionist schools are good at teaching that sort of thing
@klezman@rpm I just wanted to say that it has been quite enjoyable reading this discussion. It is sad that it seems more of a rarity these days to see different sides civilly presenting ideas and listening. I know that @klezman and I have our differences of viewpoints, but (as was mentioned above) nothing that would prevent us sharing a few glasses (or bottles) of wine as we solve the world’s problems.
Despite the URL, the essay dissects the ways in which Barr misled the public. I haven’t seen anything yet that suggests the author is wrong.
So did Barr mislead the public and/or Congress? Is his role to be partisan or be neutral as far as the law is concerned? Is the way he misled the public worthy of sanction, or is this all just noise?
Sorry, but the author lost me when he stated: “Not in my memory has a sitting attorney general more diminished the credibility of his department on any subject.”
He must have an extremely short memory. Obama’s 2 AG’s did far, far worse.
@MarkDaSpark WOW, I could not disagree more. So what you’re saying is that anybody with whom you disagree and who comes to a different conclusion from you is forever irredeemable. Hardly constructive.
Please ignore the assertion you disagree with and comment on the substance of the article, which is a discussion of the variance between Barr’s public testimony and letter to Congress compared to the actual text of the Mueller report. That is the entire scope of the question.
@klezman
Hardly that. That’s not what I said at all. Try again, realizing that what he said demonstrated his bias, if not outright prejudice. He didn’t preface it with “In my opionion …”, but said it outright.
And this is ignoring the blatant abuses done by the previous AGs’, including meeting with the spouse of someone under investigation in a plane on the tarmac. Hardly someone making cogent, valid arguments. He had no substance.
He wasn’t making an assertion, but claiming it as a fact. As for “forever irredeemable”? You are the only one saying that. If that were the case, I would have given up on you long ago.
I’m only asserting his opinions are worthless in that article only, not “forever”. When one starts off with a faulty premise, one can only keep going down the rabbit hole, not seeing the light.
The Post report said after Mueller sent the letter to Barr, the two
talked on the phone. While Mueller said the summary was not
inaccurate, he stressed that it was misleading and was being
misinterpreted by the media. “After the Attorney General received
Special Counsel Mueller’s letter, he called him to discuss it. In a
cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis,” a Justice Department official said.
@klezman
Read the piece, twice, and followed most of the links.
Considering the historical bias of the authors I have nothing to add.
Their writings speak volumes.
@rjquillin Not sure that deals with any of the substance either…which of these statements are wrong and why?
Barr did not lie in any of these statements. He did not, as some people insist, commit perjury. I haven’t found a sentence he has written or said that cannot be defended as truthful on its own terms, if only in some literal sense. But it is possible to mislead without lying. One can be dishonest before Congress without perjury. And one can convey sweeping untruths without substantial factual misstatement.
Then there’s this:
The first element is Barr’s repeated conflation of that which Mueller has deemed to be not provable to the exacting standards of criminal law with that which is not true at all or for which there is no evidence. Mueller determined that the evidence “did not establish” Trump-campaign participation in a criminal conspiracy with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Mueller also makes clear that when his report describes that “the investigation did not establish particular facts,” this “does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”
And this:
Barr’s second sleight of hand—also visible in the quotations above—is rendering the absence of a criminal-conspiracy charge as reflecting an active finding of “no collusion.” These two are very different matters. Conspiracy is a criminal charge. Collusion is a colloquial claim about history. Yet Barr, at his press conference, actually said that “there was in fact no collusion.” He used the phrase no collusion over and over. He even described it as the investigation’s “bottom line.”
In other words, Barr is not merely translating the absence of sufficient evidence for charges into a crime’s not taking place; he is translating the crime’s not taking place into an absence of misconduct in a more colloquial sense.
How is Barr’s characterization of the report not full of spin, misdirection, and mischaracterization? While it appears that he’s not outright lying, he’s as close as possible to that line without quite crossing it.
Okay. I read the article and here’s what I walked away with. Barr did not lie or make misstatements but he came to different conclusions than the author wanted so he’s partisan and corrupt… Well isn’t that kind of what the right said about anyone on the left and the left says about anyone on the right? Everything is perspective.
And when in recent history has the AG NOT been political? Would it be nice if they were all non-partisan? Sure, but if it were to be a non-partisan post, it wouldn’t be a political appointee job.
I have to agree that it was hard to take much in the body of the article as serious unbiased journalism when he starts by saying that Barr is the worst ever (uh, did he miss Eric Holder, who was basically BFFs with Obama)?
@airynne Fair enough.
I’d draw a distinction between the AG being political in setting and carrying out administration policy vs upholding the law as-is. Most attorneys general have taken the correct stance that their job is to uphold and defend any law that can be honestly defended. I can only think of one definite exception (Barr not defending the ACA) and one maybe-exception (Holder not defending DOMA). The latter is a maybe-exception because I’m not clear on whether there was an honest defense of that law. (And if was truly defendable then it’s clearly in the same group as the ACA.)
@airynne@klezmanMost attorneys general have taken the correct stance that their job is to uphold and defend any law that can be honestly defended.
Janet Reno? Eric Holder? Bobby Kennedy? Nixon’s AGs? And by your stance on Holder and the DOMA you are reaching a partisan conclusion as to what’s a law that can honestly be defended. I could say - in good faith - exactly the same thing about the ACA, that I’m not sure there is any honest basis on which it could be defended.
As you know, I enjoy our discussions, but I think on issues regarding the current administration we are so far apart that we - in good faith and all honesty - see the world so differently that little communication is possible. Which I find very sad, but we may have to accept.
@klezman What can and cannot be honestly defended is still completely a matter of perspective and bias and often politically motivated. Clearly ACA, DOMA, drug laws, etc all were defensible at some point by some administration as they were all passed by congress and signed into law. I don’t believe any of those examples were veto overrides. both congress and the executive found them defensible.
I don’t view it as the executive branch’s responsibility to decide which laws from previous administrations are defensible or not. Congress passes the laws, the executive, including the DoJ, administers and upholds the laws, and the SCOTUS determines if the law is constitutional. This would be a truly neutral and unbiased upholding of the law (or as close to it depending on how political you think SCOTUS has become).
Just like I expect a defense lawyer to vigorously defend the most disgusting of human examples, I expect the DoJ to defend the law regardless of what they personally think about them. But maybe I’m just an idealist. I know it’s never really worked like that.
@airynne@rpm
I should have known better than to say something that would be taken father back in time than I know much about.
I agree that in a perfect world the DOJ should defend all laws on whatever basis they can. Closely both Holder and Barr are not doing so. It’s a fair point that a defensible law is also in the eye of the beholder, so I guess the right answer is that all should be defended.
@airynne@rpm Even if I knew more history, I was a kid in Canada when Janet Reno was AG. I didn’t even know what politics meant at that age! (And a simpler time it was!)
So I take it you disagree that the House is going to likely hold Barr in contempt? Is disregarding a subpoena something that is ok to do?
@klezman@rpm The house held Holder in contempt and it meant nothing, so I’m not sure Barr or anyone else cares what congress does. They have weakened themselves to this point though, cheering as the executive branch usurped their power. It would be a hard path for them to gain their proper relevance back.
@airynne@klezman@rpm
Be careful what you wish for! The last time the last time the Dems pushed something through it came back to haunt them big time. 51 votes
@klezman@rpm@ScottW58 The ACA debacle also set the precedent to remove the filibuster which weakened the minority party in the Senate and resulted in Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. This was a short sighted decision given they would not always be in the majority.
@airynne@klezman@rpm
Ah yes they were flush with power and figured they would push through anything they wanted never considering what would happen if they lost the Congress. Everything that has followed they have nobody to blame but themselves and yet they act surprised.
@airynne@klezman@ScottW58hubris gets you every time . . . . a lesson the 'pubbies and 'crats should both take much more seriously than they usually do… and which the uniparty political elite (or class if you prefer) never seems to get at all! These clowns should all read more Greek tragedy…
@airynne@rpm@ScottW58
An uncharitable (even if not crazy) interpretation of those events. I think the norm-busting responsibility sits with both parties, but Mitch McConnell has done more of it than just about anybody else. It started with him filibustering just about everything the Obama administration wanted to do and then things degraded pretty quickly from there. Where did he think that was going to go?
(Yes, you can point to bad behaviour by just about every iteration of every party over the years. But McConnell has made no pretense of even attempting to work in a bipartisan fashion since January 2009. Of all members of Congress, he is the one I most want to see vanquished in the next election. But then what’s the incentive for everybody else to start working together, when the Democrats have a lot of incentive to try to even things up before doing that. Which would only make things worse.)
And meh to the ACA. It’s pretty popular overall and has succeeded in all of its primary goals, even if there’s room for improvement. Its lowest popularity was right after it passed.
@airynne@klezman@ScottW58 while I can agree everyone has behaved less than stellarly, your putting the bulk of the onus on McConnell is purely partisan. One could as easily say, after the Democrats enacted a hated measure without any 'pubbie votes, the 'pubbies reasonably believed that no compromise was possible and that it was necessary to oppose the 'crats tooth and nail and to give them nothing after that.
I don’t think the ACA is so very popular - I certainly don’t know anyone (Democrat or Republican or other) personally who believes his or her personal health care situation is not worse, or at least no better, than it was prior to Obamacare. I’m sure they are out there, but the cost was wrecking much of the insurance system and eliminating the ability to buy the insurance one determines she or he needs rather than what some bureaucrat decides. Oh, and you can keep your doctor…
@klezman@rpm@ScottW58 The primary stated goals of the ACA were to expand health coverage and lower costs. Costs have gone up significantly, and while the number of uninsured has gone down, most people I know feel their coverage is worse than before. Mine certainly is.
If the ACA is so popular, why are nearly all of the current declared presidential candidates touting the need for single payer? Why aren’t they running on what a success it is?
Blame McConnell, Obama, Reed, Bush even, but the passage of the ACA and the way it was done was a low moment for the legislative process and predictably resulted in less bipartisan interest and more dirty politics on both sides. Honestly, if you can’t see that, I’m not sure what else there is to say. You trace the bad behavior back to 2009 and McConnell and I say look at the bigger context. He’s been in the Senate a long time, you think in 2009 he just said, I’m done playing nice with these guys for no reason?
@airynne@rpm@ScottW58
Fair points all. I’d be more inclined to give McConnell a break if this all started after the Democrats rammed the ACA through. But it didn’t - he started the second Obama got elected with his famous “our only goal is to make him a one-term president” comment and the strategy that flowed from it. That’s why I’m assigning him more than a proportional share of the blame, although not the majority of it.
I think the people who now have access to health care when they did not before would argue they love the ACA. But its success doesn’t mean it’s perfect. One of the main issues that the left side of the Democratic party has identified is exactly what you describe - premiums and co-pays continue to rise (although I think less quickly than before, but no matter), putting access to health care on the margins again, even if you nominally have coverage.
It’s worth pointing out my Canadian (or frostback, as Scott calls me ) perspective that health care is a basic right. Period. How to pay for it and how to structure it is up for grabs, but the premise is not. Public delivery vs private. Insurance vs Medicare for all. I don’t care so long as it’s efficient and covers everybody without financial hardship.
@airynne@klezman@rpm
Really this all started with the first Obama election?! For you maybe but I think you should go back to the first Clinton presidency or even Bush 1 when it started getting really nasty, (RPM might correct me on that). Since then the dems and repubs have had plenty of chances to be the bigger man but have chosen not to, so this is just the natural progression.
And now after all that has gone down the next dem president well, better be strong.
@airynne@klezman@ScottW58 I suppose that those of us who have been close observers of American politics as it happened back into the '50s (in my case) and students of American political history back to the origins of the republic take a rather longer view of the partisanship “who’s to blame” that you naturally would as a (well disposed and intelligent) foreigner who has only observed our politics for 20 years or so. Also, you come from a country, though mostly anglophone and within the Anglosphere, in which the state takes a much more interventionist role and the citizenry has a very different understanding of liberty and rights than that expressed in our founding documents.
While I appreciate your focus is purely “practical,” those of us concerned with our liberties and questions of the proper role of the state must consider not only whether the means chosen to address a particular goal (such as actual access to health care) are consistent with our liberties as described in our founding documents, but whether the goal itself is a proper function of the federal (or in some circumstances state) government.
Our founding documents conceive rights as restraints on action by the state (whether federal or state), not as what are referred to in the professional literature as “positive rights” - of which health care is an example.
@airynne@klezman@ScottW58 Scott: in personal memory I’d go back to the nastiness of the campaigns against Tricky Dick Nixon in 1960 and 1962, and the viciousness of the attacks on the (rather libertarian in many respects except defense) Barry Goldwater in 1964 as egregious examples of the left’s politics being much more vicious towards the right than vice versa - example, the widely reviled Dick Nixon refused to challenge what was almost certainly voter fraud in both Texas and Illinois in the 1960 election; those who urged him to do so said his refusal was based on his sense that it would have been worse for the country than his having lost. But, there were also vicious anti-Catholic smears against John Kennedy in 1960, and the conservative concerns with communists in government earlier (which turned out to be justified based on the release of the Venona documents and the opening of Soviet archives in the early 1990s, but I digress). And, of course the internal vicousness of the New Left against the Democratic establishment (think the Chicago convention in 1968) and the subsequent McCarthy/Bobby Kennedy brawl and the treatment of Hubert Humphrey (once a liberal’s liberal…)… And the smears against Reagan… Oh, I think it’s worse by an order of magnitude now, maybe, than it was when Wendell Willkie ran against FDR in 1940, and and was called a fascist and worse, or when Alf Landon and others called FDR a socialist in 1936 but the slope has been quite slippery all along. And things were at least as vicious in the early years of the republic based on both domestic and international (think the French Revolution) issues.
@airynne@rpm@ScottW58
Scott - no, not that nasty partisanship was invented by McConnell in 2009. That’s obviously bunk. My point was that McConnell tipped his hand as to his true goals at that time, leading me to conclude he was operating as a pure partisan from then on.
Yes, agreed with my limited perspective on the time series of partisan politics and who did what to whom.
Thankfully I do understand the issues you raise, rpm, about the founding documents and their definition of rights. (Naturally the conversations here and on wine woot have helped inform me.) I do wonder if those more “limited” versions of rights and the kind of liberty they imply may be well served with some level of revision or expansion. The Declaration of Independence is centred around the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I suggest that it’s fair to describe being bankrupted for medical care and being unable to leave a job due to the same high cost of medical care are significant impediments to life, liberty, and happiness. Granted, that’s not the constitutional definition, but it does seem in line with the declaration.
Maybe more broadly, when does it become fair to expand our notion of what the existing rights mean and assert new or derivative rights?
Believe it or not, I actually agree with you on the proper role of federal and state governments. I am less skeptical, obviously, of the ability of government to solve problems, but they should stay in their lanes. That isn’t to say that their lanes should be restricted forever to how they were conceived of in the late 1700s, although constitutional amendments would clearly be the correct way to effect those sorts of changes.
@klezman@MarkDaSpark@rpm@ScottW58
We can have a discussion on if full access to health care is in the interest of the greater good and if that good outweighs the cost, but I will never call it a right.
Rights are things that no one has to provide for me (though they can be infringed on). Free speech, Freedom of religion, privacy. Like the term or not, health care is a service. And that service must be provided by someone either in exchange for some thing (money, bartered) or by force/threat.
If tomorrow all Doctors and Nurses quit, there would be no healthcare for anyone, so it’s not a right.
@airynne@MarkDaSpark@rpm@ScottW58
Fair point, airynne, even if I don’t entirely agree. So do we have any rights aside from those specifically enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
@klezman@MarkDaSpark@rpm@ScottW58 I listed Privacy, which isn’t specifically enumerated even if it’s implied. I think overall, they did a good job of listing them though.
The reason I say privacy isn’t directly addressed is that the topic has become larger in the age of the internet. I’ve been watching the topic with interest for a while now from SCOTUS rulings to the EUs “right to be forgotten” stuff.
I believe it was a Kavanaugh opinion that stated the gov’t spying on citizens was okay, as long as the information gathered was not used for criminal prosecution. I don’t personally agree with that stance, but I also can’t really argue against it with the 4th.
Regardless of whether you think it wise or justified or just partisan manoeuvring, is the House within its power to subpoena administration officials, records, etc? Is the administration legally correct to refuse and disobey the subpoenas?
Legal/constitutional question here - not a political one.
Yes and No. This link has a good analysis of the issue. However, I disagree with one statement in it, in part.
President Trump’s particularly acute hostility towards congressional
(or any) accountability has left much of the infighting for the courts
to resolve.
While it’s fairly accurate, it also ignores that the Dems in Congress and some extremely liberal Judges have been acutely hostile towards Trump. I don’t remember any judges issuing injunctions against Obama, and while there was hostility towards Obama, I think the rhetoric against Trump has far exceeded that.
I don’t remember the Republicans in the Senate being as ridiculous in their hearings for Obama’s nominees for SCOTUS as the recent circus performance by them.
The Yes/No refers to: “Yes”, Congress has the capability to subpoena the Executive Branch; The “No” part refers to there are some (“some”) instances where Congress should be refused.
The additional problem is when Congress is clearly hostile, and overdoing their congressional reach.
@klezman@MarkDaSpark There has never been such a broad decree by a president to stonewall all house subpoenas. I think that might be considered acute hostility. Also, we should not forget that the Republican senate from preventing Obama’s nominee for SCOTUS Merrick Garland from even getting a hearing for a year. Much worse than a circus performance. There needs to be a way to depoliticize the supreme court. One way is to greatly increase the number of judges and create sitting panels on amore or less random basis. There have been other proposals as well.
@rpm
I believe I’ve heard [Mark Levin] speak that subpoena power is intended to be limited to matters related to pending legislation.
I did find this from BYU where section II deals a bit with scope and purpose.
I have no law background, can you comment?
@hershelk@MarkDaSpark
Yes, Congress spent a lot of time firing off subpoenas at the Obama administration. Somewhere between “some” and “many” were for political gamesmanship and the like. The one major instance of them fighting back resulted in a finding of contempt against Holder. (I’m probably missing some instances, but the point is the existence, not the prevalence.) So I don’t see why the “hostility” of Congress toward the executive or vice versa matters from a legal perspective. As we all know there are plenty of instances of hostility in both directions, at a pretty high level today obviously.
And while I haven’t read the linked article just yet (soon) the “yes” part of the answer seems clear. The “no” part remains mysterious to me. How do you define “should be refused” and how does the legality of said refusal get determined?
@hershelk@MarkDaSpark
Sparky, as to the one statement from that article you disagree with, how do you disagree?
It seems clear Trump has a large degree of hostility and animosity toward anything resembling oversight and accountability.
I can agree that it’s not yet clear that the courts will have to resolve the (likely) stalemate.
You do realize that Holder was actually misleading Congress as to Fast & Furious? Which is why he was found in Contempt both Civilly and Criminally. The only AG in US history to be found in Contempt. Note Dems response then versus now.
There are many valid reasons to say “No”, mostly for National Security. Let’s face it, Congress leaks like a sieve (both sides), and our wonderful Senior Senator (D) had a Chinese spy driving her.
I also believe that Obama was right to ignore subpoenas when there were sheer harassment and not really necessary towards the running of Congress, just as Trump should. But as noted, Trump does seem to have a “propensity” to ignore viable subpoenas.
Sadly, it may come down to the courts deciding.
… the Republicans in 2012 calmly went to court to seek a peaceful resolution of the dispute. Unfortunately, Holder ran out the clock in district court, the Obama administration came to an end without ever complying with the subpoenas, and the American public never got an answer.
Two attorneys general. Two entirely different sets of rules.
@klezman@MarkDaSpark I expect Barr and the white house’s main strategy will be to try to run out the clock as well by leaving it to the courts. However, Holder actually lost his case leading to a recently filed settlement. It is a precedent which might lead to a quicker resolution here. If Trump wins re-election, it may actually be a bigger problem for them unless they get enough extremely conservative judges out there.
Please read the link I posted. There is a vast difference between what Holder did, and what Barr is doing.
For one, there IS a law protecting certain Grand Jury materials (Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) — passed by Congress), so there is a valid legal reason why Barr cannot include that information. Something the Dems completely ignore.
@FritzCat@rjquillin Well, in the broad sense maybe all politicians are heartless and cruel. But you can’t make that argument in good faith against Biden.
And you can’t honestly say he’s addled or any of the other BS Trump spews about him on a daily basis. Just look at the word salad from Trump to answer a simple question. Biden has a long history of gaffes, most of which can be traced back to his stutter.
Also, it’s very much about who you surround yourself with and whether you have the humility to acknowledge what you don’t know and seek expert advice. We know Biden excels at this and Trump is convinced he’s the world’s foremost expert on just about any topic.
@FritzCat@klezman@rjquillin
I have to disagree about Biden. His cognitive decline seems rather obvious and it’s quite a stretch to explain it away by saying that it’s merely a continuation of his history of gaffes which are also then explained away by his former stuttering issues.
OTOH, Trump doesn’t seem to be too far behind. Let’s face it, they are both old and the laws of nature dictate that they are in physical and mental decline. The only real questions are how far gone are they and how fast are they declining?
I think the debates will help to answer these questions. It will be interesting to see how they perform. At some point, I expect that Kanye West will rush the debate stage and steal somebody’s mic. Getcha’ popcorn ready!
@chipgreen@FritzCat@rjquillin I don’t see cognitive decline from Biden, fwiw. I agree it would be nice if both parties had nominated younger individuals, but here we are.
From my perspective, I see this particular election as “Trump and the GOP must go.” While I’ve preferred Democrats most of my time living in the States, it’s only since about 2015 that I’ve come to view the current incarnation of the Republican party as beyond redemption. They need a shellacking that sends them back to the drawing board so that a responsible right of centre party can emerge rather than the dumpster fire that currently exists.
@chipgreen@ScottW58 Little from column A and a little from column B. But it depends who comes aboard. I’m not going to try to convince Sparky of anything.
@chipgreen@ScottW58 nope, not really. Unless there are truly open minded people who stop by.
But I have learned a lot in prior incarnations of this thread and hope to continue learning what others think and why. Maybe even have a little bit of civil discourse and debate ideas… (I know, I know…)
@chipgreen@ScottW58 Me? With today’s choices? No, unfortunately. The only political party I’ve never considered voting for is the NDP in Canada. Way too far left for me.
If the GOP would stop trying to subjugate women and control their bodies I’d be able to consider them as well. Notwithstanding that monstrous viewpoint, I’ve occasionally thought they were the better choice. I’m not an ideologue, but I do have principles.
I have to laugh at anyone considering the Democrats as the “better choice”. GOP is barely that, but the insanity from the Democratic party is unpalatable.
While some ignorant ones in the GOP want to totally eliminate Abortion, many see it as repugnant to be so callous of human life to approve it so late, even AFTER birth (see NY Democrats for example). It’s a responsibility issue. I read something today that claims Colorado has seen a decrease in abortions since they started giving regular forms of birth control away.
But, it amazes me that the Democrats hypocrisy and push to control our lives is ignored. You don’t need guns, that’s what the police are for … but “Defund the Police”! Nanny state laws limiting how large a soft drink you can get … trying to eliminate 1st Amendment rights by saying something is “hate speech” … Destroying property isn’t violence? Allowing their own cities to be destroyed, then trying to get Federal money when they allowed Federal Buildings to be attacked?
Contrary to @klezman’s belief, I can change my mind, but you have to have facts from reputable sources, not propaganda (from Left or Right). And I’ve yet to see him change his mind or stance!
@MarkDaSpark So I did, and I forgot even though it’s just a few posts up. I blame tiny humans. Either way, in my experience both here and on facebook you have never been convinced away even one inch from where you start y me or anybody else.
Those of our little community who were NeverTrump are still NeverTrump, no matter how senile, left-wing, or authoritarian the alternative is.
Those of our little community who believe that, no matter how truly bad we think Trump is as a human being, the populist opposition to the current elite and the policies he has worked to enact on immigration, deregulation, taxes, trade, and the judiciary are necessary if the republic is to survive.
Those of our little community who don’t know quite what to make of all this are probably still perplexed.
None of us have proven very successful at persuading anyone on the other side to change his or or or [insert pronoun of choice]’s mind.
Yet, we remain cyber- and in many cases real friends…
Perhaps we should take our cue from the Poet:
For “IS” and “IS NOT”, by Rule and Iine
And “Up-and-Down” by Logic I define
Of all that one should care to fathom, I
Was never deep in anything but - Wine!
@rpm I certainly count you among the real friends.
You have helped me understand different viewpoints from my own and things you’ve said over the years ha have led me to change my mind.
I wish Trump had become a decent person upon taking office. Alas, he’s just as terrible as when he campaigned. He’s gotten a few things right, imo, but they are very few and far between.
I am curious about your thoughts on his attacks on the USPS and mail in voting, though. This one seems to me like it should be a swift and bipartisan condemnation of how he’s dismantling the post office.
@klezman Thank you, I certainly count you (and your lovely and charming bride) as real friends.
On the USPS, I refer you to the editorial in the weekend WSJ “The Post Office’s Problem Isn’t Trump”.
On mail in voting, are you aware that virtually no country with any concern for the integrity of elections permits mail in voting of the kind the Democrats are advocating? There is a very solid paper by John Lott you should read on SSRN, SSRN-id3666259.pdf, entitled “Why do most countries ban mail-in ballots?: They have seen massive vote fraud problems.”
I have been concerned with the integrity of our elections since Kennedy may have won in 1960 as a result of vote fraud in Illinois and Texas. I believe very, very strongly that no one should be permitted to register to vote, or to actually vote, unless he or she (or insert preferred pronoun) can prove identity and citizenship. I think absentee ballots should be available only if the person requesting the ballot shows up personally and presents proof of identity. Arrangements could and should be made through local authorities (not political parties or partisan ‘nonpartisan’ ngos) to enable shut-ins to see a deputy registrar to present identification and request a ballot. All ballots should be on paper. Mechanically counted through scanning, perhaps, but with the original ballots kept for recounts.
I absolutely oppose same day registration, motor voter, and similar schemes that are little more than opportunities for fraud. I also oppose allowing any person to assist a voter in filling in a ballot. I also absolutely oppose allowing convicted felons to vote, unless the felon has been pardoned.
It may take some effort on the part of citizens to register to vote and to get to the polls. If a citizen is not prepared to make that effort, then that is his or her (or insert pronoun of choice) problem, not society’s.
@klezman I should probably add that I believe it is every citizen’s moral duty to vote, and I disapprove of anyone or any thing - other than providing solid proof of identity, residence, and citizenship - that creates an onerous burden on an adult citizen who wants to register to vote. I don’t regard a 30 day (or similar) cut off period as onerous, because the Registrar or Town Clerk needs a reasonable time period within which to verify the prospective voter’s identity, residency within the jurisdiction in which she or he (or insert preferred pronoun) is trying to register, and citizenship.
@rpm As usual, I agree with some of your points and disagree with others.
Agreement: moral duty to vote, proof of citizenship to register*, ID check when voting*, independent nonpartisan electoral commissions to administer elections (I stretched a bit here), all ballots on paper, and paper ballots retained for manual recounts.
The disagreements. First about the availability of mail-in voting. I’ve voted in Canada by mail ever since I came to the US. You provide a copy of your ID and proof of citizenship to register and they automatically mail you a ballot when the election writ drops.
I’ve yet to see a convincing study about voting fraud by mail in the United States that is convincing. The few states that have done their elections entirely by mail have seen no problems, at least not any documented ones. I don’t doubt that other countries may have had their problems from time to time, but that’s due to the corruption of those places moreso than the availability of mail-in ballots. The paper you linked seems to support the argument that voter fraud happens occasionally but rarely does it alter the outcome of elections. (But I only skimmed it.)
Nonetheless, this country has a voting access problem. And like many things in this country, the things that make it harder to vote fall disproportionately on poor people and people of colour (with the obviously large overlap in that Venn diagram). This is the source of my (*) above. When I first came to the US and witnessed the craziness of the 2004 election and the arguments over voter ID laws and such I thought the Republicans had it 100% right. My view shifted as evidence continued to come to light at the disproportionate impact of voting rules on disadvantaged communities. So while I agree that securing elections in this country would necessarily require additional rules to prove citizenship and identity, there need to be mechanisms to both make it easy to obtain these documents and to actually exercise the right to vote.
I think it would be sensible for the US to establish a national voter registry. It would eliminate the possibility of state-to-state fraud. Linking it to the Social Security database would enable efficient removal of people who pass away. Having state DMVs and the USPS address change service be able to update your registration address would also increase accuracy and decrease opportunity for fraud. I know states are in charge of their own elections, so this would have to be a voluntary program. It seems like a no-brainer to me, but I know that rarely means much to some parts of the political spectrum.
For same-day registration, why not do what Canada does and allow one to provide all the required registration information, cast a provisional ballot, and have it appropriately counted or discarded once the registration information is verified?
I completely disagree on removing a criminal’s right to vote after their sentence is complete. I don’t see any benefit to society of removing their franchise. I see many benefits of allowing them to vote. In particular I’ve seen studies that show voting brings former convicts further back into society instead of making them permanent outcasts. Recidivism goes down when voting rights are restored. I’m undecided on whether those in the middle of serving their sentences should be allowed to vote. I can see pros and cons there.
Do you support making election day a federal holiday? Do you support other efforts to make it easier for people to vote, particularly people who can lose their job by taking time off to vote?
I am simply not willing to take the risk of massive fraud, especially when even the sainted Dr. Fauci (PBUH) says in person voting is not a problem.
I’m not sure what one could do to make it “easier to obtain these documents and to actually exercise the right to vote” means.
No to a national voter registry. Not Constitutional, I think. We’re a federal republic. The DMV should not have anything to do with voting, and the law expressly prohibits Social Security from being used as you suggest.
There is no good reason to have same day registration: if you can’t be bothered to register in advance, in sufficient time for the authorities to verify your identity, residence, and citizenship, you can wait for the next election to vote. Just no excuse. Many states have these provisional ballot procedures - often the votes are counted without verification, or verification delays the results. Elections results should not be delayed because there are potential votes outstanding pending verification of identity, residence and citizenship.
The reason for removing voting rights from convicted felons is that convicted felons have demonstrated that they are unwilling to obey the law and live by the rules that an orderly society has enacted to govern itself. Those who don’t play by the rules shouldn’t have a say in what the rules are, or who makes the rules. Sounds hard, but there it is: you want a say in things, don’t commit a serious crime. I see no benefit to society whatsoever in having those who flout the rules have a say in making the rules. There might be some perceived benefit to the felon, but I’m much more interested in having society in which the law abiding make the rules, than in the potential benefit of voting rights being restored to felons.
And, no, I would not make election day a federal holiday. The polls are open early and late. Keeping polls open longer hours is not a bad idea, but forcing employers to pay employees to take the day off to vote is not acceptable. If you want to make it an unpaid holiday, I’m ok with that.
@rpm The article you link and just about everything I can find relates back to voting list maintenance issues. While it wouldn’t solve the issue of nefarious actors messing with the actual ballots, that sort of problem seems far less of an issue. Especially when you compare the scope and scale of that with the easy hackability of “voting machines” throughout the country.
So why don’t we have easier ways of maintaining voter lists? You’re saying that you want to make it easy to register to vote (provided you’ve got proper ID) but all the low hanging fruit ideas seem to meet with your disapproval. I agree the federal government requiring states to use a federal registry might not pass constitutional muster, but a voluntary effort run by the feds would seem fine. To my overly simplistic mind, why wouldn’t we want citizens to have the option of updating their voter information any time they interact with the government? Don’t you think incorrectly removing people from the voting rolls is a serious problem? How do we prevent that?
I know you’ve held your view on former felons’ voting rights for a long time. Has the increasing evidence of bias in both policing and sentencing not swayed you at all? Take the simple example of the disparities in sentencing for crack vs powder cocaine. That was a racist policy that has now disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of black people (even if the policy wasn’t racist at inception, it has been clearly shown to be racist in retrospect). So while I largely agreed with you on this a few years ago, the mounting evidence of racism in this area has led me to shift my opinion.
As for enabling people to actually go vote, we both live in places where the government wants everybody to vote. But what about Texas? Georgia? Other states where the evidence is overwhelming that polling places have been removed from poorer areas, making the lines longer, sometimes to the point where the lines are 4+ hours long. California requires employers to give 2 hours paid for people to vote, but then those same (usually low wage) workers can lose their jobs for taking longer. We’re both fortunate enough to have work situations where that isn’t an issue, but that’s not true for many others.
You asked what I meant about people having a hard time getting their ID sorted out to prove citizenship. It boggles my mind, but apparently this is quite common. Documents get lost, people don’t have driver’s licenses, birth certificates, etc. These people get lost in a bureaucratic nightmare of needing to get new ID documents, and since most of these people are poor, they are also at high risk of losing their meagre income by having to take the time off work to get to government offices during their open hours. They’re caught in a catch-22. So to my mind, the basic prescription is simple: make it easy for everybody to get their documents sorted out and then institute nationwide ID rules for voting. Figure out a non-discriminatory way to do this and I’m 100% on board.
I’m no fan of voting machines - note my comment in my initial post here that ballots should be paper and kept properly sealed and preserved for recounts, even if they’re machine scanned and counted in the first instance.
I am simply unwilling to risk the validity and integrity of what is sure to be a closely fought election on delays and possible risks of fraud with mail-in ballots. The recent NYC primaries are a cautionary tale. Absentee ballots under traditional criteria only.
I don’t know if erroneously removing voters is a problem; I do know that there have been a number of instances where there were more registered voters in precincts than adult inhabitants, and situations in certain cities where there were many more votes recorded than registered voters. If we err, it should be on the side of being more certain that a registered voter is an identified citizen and inhabitant of the jurisdiction.
No, nothing has changed my views on felons voting, whether after they have finished a term or during incarceration. Race is irrelevant to my point: those who break the rules shouldn’t have a say in making the rules or choosing those who make the rules. If the law has been applied in a racist manner, the remedy is to apply it in a non-racist manner to those who commit crimes, not to let criminals have a say in government.
Making more polling places available is fine with me - I’m not interested in suppressing any properly identified and registered citizen’s vote. I’m not sure it’s really been that much of a problem, but my mind remains open.
I’m not sure how you make it easier to get documents without increasing the risk of fraud. If you suggested that the County Clerk or Registrar of Voters (or similar officials) should have occasional and well-publicized week-end or evening hours for the convenience of those who need to get documents, I’d say fine. If you want to subsidize the cost of obtaining copies of one’s documents, I’m fine with that, too. But I’m not in favor of waiving the standards for documents. It’s not like parts of Europe where all of the records were destroyed during WWI or WWII. Rare to the point of vanishing probability is the person legally born in the United States in our lifetimes whose birth was not recorded and verifiable. (Even my mother, born at home on a rural ranch in Eastern Oregon over 100 years ago, had a perfectly good birth certificate, signed by the doctor who showed up well after she arrived and recorded in the County Clerk’s Office - it was good enough for the US government and the DAR!)
Agreed, and apologies if I said something that made you think I missed that.
Fair enough. I’ve also not advocated that universal mail-in voting is the correct or best response. I do think it deserves consideration.
Yes, there have been instances of people being on the voting rolls longer than they lived in an area. This is a problem that could be solved by cross-jurisdiction record sharing (although I recognise that introduces other issues). There have been a few well documented cases of large scale voter roll purges in several states. I think one of the recent ones was Ohio. Some jurisdictions automatically remove you if you haven’t voted for some number of elections in a row - that seems fundamentally wrong to me.
The evidence of racism in both lawmaking and law enforcement is, imo, too large to ignore. I agree the best answer is to eliminate racism, but that’s not something this country has been able to do just yet.
There seems to be plenty of evidence of voter suppression via setting polling places, staffing levels, voting booths, and opening times. When I don’t have so many things going on I’ll try and look up a few references.
I’m with you here. I’m not suggesting that the standards need to be reduced to prove citizenship and identity. I’m suggesting the things that you are fine with as a bare minimum to make it easier for people to get their documents. Again, it astounds me that these things are difficult and pose nearly insurmountable problems for part of the population. But I think it’s important to listen to those who’ve been affected so that we can try to ensure all citizens have equal opportunity to vote. (Says the non-citizen.)
@klezman@rpm Gore vs Bush ring a bell? That election was stolen.
Concerned about mail in voter fraud. Let us look at Texas. Mclellan County to be precise. The county has closed a record number of polling places over the past 8 years. Guess who are the fastest growing groups in the County? Yup, latinos and blacks. Coincidence? I think not.
@rpm I encourage you to reflect on your privileged status as a white man in the upper class. Your reality is simply not the same as so many other Americans in the working and middle class. View things through their lense and I promise you may just see things a bit differently.
@klezman@losthighwayz@rpm First I’d like to say hello, then say that to categorize an individual based on color or economic status, is exactly the same kind of thing that required our nation to take a look at the, then, status quo.
It makes no difference who the recipients of injustice are, only that these injustices are addressed, one and all. The Constitution didn’t differentiate, why should we?
There are, and always have been, plenty of good reasons for people to work together, and somewhat accommodate those who are different, in the interests of betterment of the whole. No-one, regardless of class, race, or belief, should be excluded, only that they present constructive arguments for the positions that they hold.
@losthighwayz I’m not sure we have a basis for discussion as we do not share sufficient premises: I followed the 2000 election very closely (as I have every presidential election since 1956) and categorically reject the premise that it was stolen, although the Democrats tried very hard to do so in Miami-Dade and Broward counties in Florida.
My discussion with Klezman makes it clear I do not support closing polling places, etc. It is a nonsequitor to advocate mail in voting because you think blacks and hispanics are fast growing groups.
Lastly, your call for me to ‘check my privilege’ is risible. I do not find any discussion that involves discussions of racial privilege, intersectionality, critical theory, or most of the nonsense that has come out of the universities in the past 30-odd years, worth beginning, let alone continuing.
@losthighwayz@rpm Honest question, rpm: leaving the labels aside (I find the label of “privilege” to describe racial/ethnic inequities irritating, personally), do you think some groups continue to face systematic barriers compared to other groups? If no, why not? If yes, what can/ought society do to correct them?
@losthighwayz@rpm
It’s a framing problem that gets your natural allies angry rather than on board.
I don’t like calling what is, effectively, the way things should be a privilege. I think there are many more accurate ways to discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of belonging to a particular racial or ethnic group. Let’s call it what it is: systemic racism, disadvantaged or oppressed groups, and so on.
Being somebody who naturally agrees that all people ought to be treated equally, I can tell you it feels rather like an attack to have somebody tell me something that amounts to “you didn’t earn what you have”. That’s what, to me, the framing causes. Build bridges, don’t torch them.
@klezman@losthighwayz Let me be clear, more than ‘dislik[ing] the use of privilege’, I don’t think it has any place in serious discussion. The idea is entwined with identity politics, which I consider profoundly abhorrent and to have a pernicious effect not only on debate, but on the actual lives of individuals in society and on society as a whole. Moreover, ‘privilege’ claims (usually against someone or some group) are intended to narrow discussion and debate, to delegitimize views on an ad hominem basis: your idea/viewpoint is not legitimate because you are X and have X privilege. Both privilege claims and identity politics are reductionist in the extreme. Invoking privilege immediately eliminates the possibility of persuasion, it is intended to shame or intimidate the target into acquiescence.
@losthighwayz@rpm I agree, rpm, that you describe one of the endpoints that can happen when “privilege” gets invoked. And that it is pernicious. However, I think there is a nobler side to that line of thought which is a call to action to work toward a society in which all are treated equally in fact and not just in theory. The revelation for many over the last few years is the extent to which the theoretical and legal equality of people in this country differs from reality. I think in the spirit of a “more perfect union” this country needs to take some hard and self-critical looks at reality alongside theory and work to correct inequities.
@klezman@losthighwayz My reaction to your ‘nobler side to that line of thought’ is rather like Samuel Johnson’s retort to Boswell who had said that Scotland had many noble wild prospects - Sir, the noblest prospect that a Scotsman ever sees is the High Road that leads him to England…
More seriously, as an historian, I know that in no country, at no time in recorded history has there ever been a society that did not discriminate against one or more groups, whether legally or de facto, or, prior to our Founding, even embodied in its constituent documents the ideal of equality, however honored in the breach it may have been and still may be. I also know that various movements which have preached radical equality historically have ended in tears, from the ancient world, through certain early Christian sects, and the various levellers, utopians, communards, etc. since, not to mention the Hell of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution (with its sub-Hells in the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution), the Cambodian Revolution, and every single country that has lived under Marxism - or tried to - since.
@losthighwayz@rpm fair. Although I’m certainly not saying equality in any radical sense or in a socialist sense. But it sounds like you’re saying that because no society has succeeded in eliminating discrimination we therefore shouldn’t try.
@klezman@losthighwayz Not at all. I am saying that from my perspective as an historian, the current mode for radical solutions is almost certain to end in tears - that is to say with massive crime, disorder, and ultimately more harm to those who the radicals purport to be wanting to help than doing nothing would do. Historically, the way to end discrimination is to stop discriminating. Government should not discriminate. In the small incremental ways that were working towards a perhaps unobtainable ‘perfect equality’, each of us should (note imperative is moral, not legal) do what we can to avoid consciously discriminating. Treat members of minority groups (note, each of us deals with individuals, not groups) as you would wish to be treated, and afford them the dignity and respect of assuming they can be held to the same standards you hold yourself, your family and friends to. Don’t feed anyone a sense of victimhood or cater to the false security of self-esteem (as opposed to self-respect). Don’t condescend by assuming members of minority groups can succeed only with lowered standards or special dispensations of one sort or another, or by tolerating behavior you would not tolerate in any one in your own circle.
We should never make a failure to achieve perfection (especially when definitions differ widely) prevent us from doing better. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. I suppose this is an essentially Burkean argument.
@rpm Four times in previous posts you’ve said “he or she (or insert preferred pronoun)”. Can i ask that you make an incremental improvement today to use “they” as your preferred singular pronoun?
Perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of better, but it’s also imperative to change when different words are needed. I’ve been making an effort to stop using racist, sexist, elitist, and discriminatory terms in my life. Sometimes out of finally learning the history behind terms, sometimes out of being asked by those affected. I also don’t claim to know all of the inappropriate words, or all of the times that i shouldn’t say a certain word, but “they” is a small step.
@rpm Rob, seeing as how I agree with everything in your last post, why do we disagree on things that can be done to move towards non-discrimination? How does the correcting of government-enshrined racism get fixed in this view? (e.g. unequal school funding, and to return to how this started, the unequal application of justice)
@radiolysis You certainly may ask, and you asked very politely. However, I’m old enough that I simply cannot abide politically correct pronouns and I am not going to change my usage of English, especially the notion of using a plural pronoun in place of singular pronouns… I’m still not reconciled to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1964 or 1966 IIRC), a descriptive dictionary, which replaced Webster’s Second New International Dictionary from the early ‘30s, the last great American prescriptive dictionary, and I still look to Fowler’s Modern English Usage from the early ‘20s. To be honest, my use of “or [insert preferred pronoun]” is often intended to be ironic.
@klezman Aye, there’s the rub…people of good will disagree in good faith about ‘what is to be done’… For my part, I would distinguish between things that reflect government action to discriminate and things that end up unequal in the ordinary course of life in more or less the same way things have ended up unequal since Adam delved and Eve span… We can and should eliminate government discrimination - that’s what equality under the law is all about. We can’t, IMHO, fix every inequality that has, does, or might in the future exist through government action - at least not without a kind of totalitarianism I think both of us would find intolerable. I pretty much think people should run their own affairs with as little government intrusion as possible - some people will make good decisions, others bad. Human nature. I’m very negative about any sort of what used to be called ‘wholistic social engineering’ - attempts to remake society based on someone’s or some group’s vision that they can’t persuade people to adopt voluntarily. It never works out. For Hayek’s reasons among others.
@klezman passed my edit window: I meant to clarify “We can’t, IMHO, use government action to fix every inequality that has, does, or might in the future exist.
@rpm Definitely - government and laws can work to solve (or at least ameliorate) many problems, but far from all.
I’m still standing here though (I now have a standing desk) wondering how to ameliorate the racism in the justice system. There’s a wealth of data out there showing how black and hispanic people are discriminated against despite equal protection of the laws. (I’ll leave out the disparate treatment of crack cocaine from powder cocaine this time around.) There’s a lot of discretion in the system: for police officers to arrest vs let somebody go, for district attorneys to charge the most vs the minimum vs nothing, for wealthy vs poor people to obtain adequate representation, for district attorneys to recommend harsh or light sentences, for judges to give harsh or light sentences, for parole boards to recommend release or further incarceration, for parole officers to be lenient or strict, and I’m sure there’s more.
Given that the evidence is fairly clear that there is at least some racism in the outcomes of the justice system and that the law theoretically treats all equally in this sense, how does society correct this?
I’ll even put up a couple examples:
-Brock Turner being given a slap on the wrist for raping a woman at Stanford
-The fact that white people and black people use drugs at approximately the same rate yet the number of black people charged compared to white people is dramatically different
Well, it looks like we’re really only at absolute loggerheads on felon voting… you’re talking about racism, which I think is utterly irrelevant. In my view NO felon or ex-felon (other than one who has been pardoned or the conviction overturned) should have any say whatsoever in choosing who makes the rules for society, or in setting the rules for society. Period. Full stop. It’s about have the fox involved in guarding the hen house. (Or like having Carrie Nation make the liquor laws…) If laws have been applied in a racist manner, then look at the individual cases to see if people were wrongly convicted. Otherwise, do the crime, live with the penalties, which (usually - but if it were up to me, always) includes loss of the franchise.
@losthighwayz@rpm The last statement just made me think of a professor, no idea of his political bent, that asked that the “justice system” be referred to as the “legal system.”
I thought it strange, as surely our legal system, and the ideal of a justice system, were congruent.
Edit to include: The law of our land, the Constitution, pretty much says that it will be.
@CroutonOllie@losthighwayz Of course, the idea is that the legal system is the vehicle for justice, but the problem is that there are different ideas of what justice entails. Also, the left increasing takes the (in my view philosophically unjustifiable) view that justice should be equivocally predicated.
@CroutonOllie@klezman@losthighwayz Equivocally predicated means that justice ought to different for different people. The left’s notion (via Marcuse in the ‘70s) notion free speech means only free speech for people on the left and that the speech of the right should be suppressed - and yet still claim there is free speech is an example of equivocal predication. While there have been times justice has not been equally applied, that is almost universally condemned as wrong, and no sensible person suggests that it ought to be that way.
@CroutonOllie@losthighwayz@rpm I see. Well, left leaning on some issues though I may be, I agree that unequal justice is flat out wrong. I don’t see the left arguing that justice should be equivocally predicated, though. I see a lot of argumentation that justice has, in fact, been dished out rather unequally to people based on race, ethnicity, and wealth. I find many of their arguments and evidence quite convincing.
I agree that some parts of the left do seem to be arguing against free speech and I find that very troubling. At the same time, I find the lies and propaganda from the right to be troubling, too. How about we spend more effort educating our kids to figure out fact from fiction so that the propagandists (of whatever political bent) get put out of business.
@CroutonOllie@klezman@rpm sure about that? I don’t see people universally condemning the high percentage of african americans being pulled over by police for no apparent reason, or the demonizing of Muslims in this country, or the discrepancies of public school funding based on property taxes…I can go on and on. So please stop with your privileged view of justice. You see America through your own lense and make yourself believe everyone is treated equally. Not the case but I am sure it makes you feel ok about the injustices all around us.
@losthighwayz What a charming collection of ad hominem attacks. Your post certainly confirms my initial reaction to your first post in this group of subthreads, that we have no common ground or basis for discussion. You are not interested in discussion, but in attack.
If what @rjquillan suggests - that you are a (public?) school principal - is correct, it further confirms every serious concern I have had about the kinds of indoctrination our nation’s children have been subjected to since encountering many Marxist and quasi-Marxist texts, faculty, and views in my limited forays into graduate instruction in education in the 1970s.
@rpm I think that their should be a pathway to regaining voting rights, even for former felons. I’m all about second chances, and have needed a few second chances in my own life. I think that no one is beyond redemption. That being said, it should not be an easy pathway. I think the felons must serve out all their time, and go through probation and rehab before regaining voting rights.
@CroutonOllie Quite simply, I think the “infotainment” industry is a cancer on the body politic. Fox News, Breitbart, OAN, and to a lesser extent, MSNBC, CNN, and others. Manufactured outrage is the best outcome from them, while the worst gets on to outright conspiracy theories and bullshit. They need to go. Then the country can begin to heal.
I do take exception to the assertion that I think the world revolves around me.
In total agreement as to the info provided by the “news” outlets. They are prostituting one of the greatest freedoms, of the press, to provide disinformation.
Which has made this thread so interesting to follow. (Along with the incredible grasp of history that @rpm has contributed.) It’s a great thing when we realize that we can learn from those that we don’t always agree with.
With the polarization that seems to be going on, it seems that argument, or reason, is often lost.
I stand as a good example of this, as I just assumed that your earlier post was a “shot across the bow”, and then responded as such. I apologized for being in error, but it is very hard, nowadays, to know what is vs what isn’t.
I am conservative, have been since I was conceived, I think, but my mind has always made up by adherence to my notion of right or wrong, and the direction of those that came before me: ie: the Constitution.
There are very few great documents, but the Magna Carta, Bible, and Constitution of the US stand out for me.
They all elevate man, over system, and place responsibility in his court. Being great documents, with great ideas, places them in the crosshairs of those who would like to dismantle them.
You think, as do many here, but please beware the commonality, that is often used, as a springboard for subtrefuge, and disinformation.
I know I’ve been on this high horse for a long time but I believe we view the Constitution as a “good” document because we exclude its acceptance of slavery. Considering it holistically just doesn’t support that.
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@klezman@Mark_L I’ll go with your characterization that you’re on a high horse…
I confess to having no patience with anti-historical arguments such as the one you seem to be making.
First, you have to consider the historical context in which the Constitution was written, not expect that people in the 18the century view the world the way you do or would like people to have viewed it. That context is not simply that slavery was still widely (though not universally) accepted in the world at the time the Constitution was written, but also the fact that the Framers believed in good faith that without the compromise on slavery, there would have been no union. Were there no union, it was also believed in good faith, and not without a sound basis, that the European powers, especially England and France, would not have permitted the continued existence of independent American republics, free or slave. Probably a substantial majority of the Framers opposed slavery personally. Not all of those favored immediate abolition, being concerned with the practical issues, but even most of the Virginians such as Washington and Madison favored ending slaver within a practicable period of time.
Second, while the Constitution tolerated slavery in the short run (that is nothing concerning the African slave trade between 1788 and 1808 - at which point it was immediately abolished), it also clearly contained an amendment process by which it could be changed.
Third, following the Civil War, the Constitution was in fact amended to prohibit slavery.
When people discuss the Constitution as one of history’s great documents while name checking the Bible and Magna Carta, I think it is fair to interpret their enthusiasm as for the document as originally crafted, not amended. It frequently appears adjacent to praise for the Founders’ foresight.
Were there no union, it was also believed in good faith, and not without a sound basis, that the European powers, especially England and France, would not have permitted the continued existence of independent American republics, free or slave. Probably a substantial majority of the Framers opposed slavery personally. Not all of those favored immediate abolition, being concerned with the practical issues, but even most of the Virginians such as Washington and Madison favored ending slaver within a practicable period of time.
I’m not sure how one can argue that the sunset provisions on slave trading would lead to manumission when the nature of chattel slavery entrenches the practice.
I’m greatly appreciative of your historical grounding but, as then debated, the Union could have gone either direction at the time. We don’t know what slaveholders would have ultimately done. We do know that the decision had a deleterious effect on the health of the Union.
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@klezman@Mark_L
My enthusiasm for the Constitution as originally drafted includes the amendment provisions, by which it was clear the Framers contemplated changes when sufficiently widely agreed.
There is no argument that the sunset provisions on the slave trade would lead to manumission ; rather, my view based on reading about the Convention, as well as biographies of the Framers, is that it was generally (though not universally) contemplated that the question of slavery was not settled and would be addressed by future generations. As, of course, it was. Though not peacefully…
At the time of the Convention, almost no one (outside of the Carolinas, perhaps) thought slavery would be economically viable over the next 50 years.
Informed opinion at the time, and modern scholarship, strongly suggests that the Confedration would not have become the Union without the compromise on slavery.
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@Mark_L@rpm So what about today? What should be improved in the constitution?
I’d start with corporate personhood for the purposes of anything aside from entering contracts.
Then I’d clarify that the right to bear arms applies to the states’ rights to raise militias.
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@klezman@rpm The next amendment I would like to see would be to extend term limits beyond the office of President to include members of Congress. I believe this would solve 95%+ of the current issues in politics.
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@klezman@Mark_L
We have very different lists, to be sure. I would clarify that our 2nd Amendment is merely the American codification of the inherent right to keep and bear arms codified in the 1688 English Bill of Rights: we no longer qualify the right by the English class system’s suitable to their condition. I would clarify the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship for those whose parents were not here legally at the time of birth. I would either repeal the 16th Amendment or alter it to prohibit progressive taxation, or at least progressive taxation without the consent of those who would pay the higher rates. I would repeal the 17th Amendment, and I would add an Amendment to specifically permit states to return electoral systems similar to that of the Union (that is, allow state senates to be elected geographically, as the US Senate is - all but one US state had such a system before a series of decisions in the 1960s which essentially upset the urban rural balance in states with large cities and large rural areas, such as New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and California - and now Florida).
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@klezman@Mark_L Honestly, I’m less absolutist on your ‘personhood’ point (not sure if you were being serious or sarcastic ). From my perspective, that ought to be a state issue. But, if it’s going to remain a national issue, I come down thinking that the scheme in Roe v. Wade was a reasonable political compromise (that satisfies no one, but which almost everyone can live with): broadly legal abortion early in pregnancy, some restrictions by state law as it gets further along, and significant restrictions permitted by state law near the end of pregnancy. That’s consistent with what the Europeans and others do and seems ‘reasonable’ if one doesn’t take an absolutist position that no abortions are permitted or all abortion is just dandy. There are two problems I see with this. 1st, Roe v. Wade was as a matter of legal reasoning an absolutely terrible decision. 2nd, there is significant disagreement where the two ‘bright lines’ ought to go. But, again, IMHO, those are more political issues that voters should decide rather than matters of law.
As I get older, I am increasingly with Bill Buckley that I’d rather be governed by names randomly selected from a phone directory that by a university faculty. I think we place far, far too much power in the hands of our judges, a very small group of men and women, almost all of whom at the higher levels are products of a very few elite law schools.
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@klezman@Mark_L meant to add to the last sentence: and are not accountable to the voters. I think life tenure on good behavior for Federal judges is a good thing, but the the flip side of a lack of susceptibility to political pressure in any particular case or controversy is a complete lack of political accountability for decision-making generally. The way to reconcile this is to remove what are essentially political questions from the jurisdiction of the Article III courts. These courts used to be much less willing to decide political questions than they have been since the 1930s. And, their most controversial decisions before that were the most political: e.g. Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson.
As an additional thought on the Constitution, I would eliminate almost all federal courts that were not Article III courts (bankruptcy courts being the exception).
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@Mark_L@rpm
We’ve long disagreed, rpm, on firearms, and that’s ok. My understanding of the history is no match for yours of course. One observation from this summer, though, is that a major stated reason for the second amendment (to prevent tyranny from the government) completely and utterly failed in Portland when shadow police held people without charges and tossed them into unmarked vans.
While I can agree in principle to removing “political” questions from Article III courts, I can’t fathom how to define that in a consistent and apolitical way.
I wouldn’t repeal the 17th amendment, I’d amend to remove the electoral college and elect the president and vice president using direct popular vote. I think the trend over the centuries has been toward more democracy, not less, and given that the president is the one person who (theoretically) represents everybody, everybody’s vote should weigh exactly equally in selecting them. And while I don’t think this part should be in the constitution, I think it should be legislated that voting in all elections should be using ranked choice instant runoff voting.
I’d also be fine with term limits in office, but couldn’t that be accomplished by legislation?
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@klezman@Mark_L
I’d like to think that a large part of our disagreement on both firearms and many other issues is largely a result of differences in historical knowledge and perspective, but I’m not quite that naive.
I think as a factual matter your comment on the 2nd Amendment and Portland is simply wrong. However, it will probably many months, if not years before anyone can ascertain the facts of the situation with any confidence.
I do think historical perspective is particularly important in evaluating claims that in all circumstances and at all times and places, more “democracy” is always better. Historically, unchecked “democracy” has devolved into mob rule, with rights of minorities run over roughshod, and, ultimately into tyranny. The examples from the ancient world and the medieval world are legion and need not be repeated here. And, of course, the most successful republics in history have had various forms of limited participation in governance by one or more classes, but not all. This fear of the results of “too much” democracy is the reason historically that those who have designed republics, and favored liberty over tyranny, have sought to temper ‘democratic’ rule with strong protections for minorities, including various requirements for super-majority or class voting. The idea is that there are more interests in a (successful) society that need to be taken into account than a pure headcount. Some think more democracy is better, others think we’ve got it like baby bear (“Just Right”), and still others, like me, think we have gone to far towards majoritarianism. A prime example in our Constitution is the 17th amendment: the Senate was intended to represent the interests of the States, hence the selection of senators was a matter of state law. Making senators simply elected at large in each state simply makes them ‘state’ majoritarian, rather than beholden to the interests of the state.
I think you are fundamentally wrong about the electoral college, but doubt I could convince you. As the President is the single most powerful elected official in our system, she or he needs to be accountable to more interests than simple majoritarian appeal. In fact a President exercises great executive power that affects all interests in society and needs to take them into account as circumstances dictate.
In Article I, we have Representatives elected purely on a majoritarian basis, to represent popular interests, and Senators elected to represent the interests of the States, who make law. In Article III, we have appointed judges with life tenure intended to be isolated from politcal pressure to adjudge cases and controversies.
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@Mark_L@rpm
The thing I continue to not understand regarding firearms is how this country compared to others around the world today deal with it, and the results. This country ranks among the worst among “advanced” countries in violence. But maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree and it’s the lack of social safety nets that causes the conditions that foster violence.
Regarding Portland, it’s possible that the photographic and video evidence we’ve all seen thus far doesn’t tell the whole story. I’m open to that possibility, even if it seems unlikely to me.
About the electoral college and related items, it sounds like you’re arguing that a minority should hold sway over the affairs of the country. That doesn’t sound like the United States I learned about growing up. I thought the will of the people was supposed to reign supreme and that minorities are protected by the constitution and the founding creed of the country.
But if a President is supposed to look after all interests in the country then this one is failing miserably.
One more thought - it makes more sense to me to elect representatives based on majoritarian schemes (what else do we have?), but then to insist on supermajorities for various kinds of legislation. That should, at least in theory, ensure that minority views are taken into account.
Most of all, though, I wish everybody could put country ahead of party.
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@klezman@Mark_L
Most of this is in the area of agree to disagree, but I think you do not fully appreciate that the majoritarianism you espouse can ultimately vitiate any minority protections unless the minorities have something close to a veto over changes to the rules that protect them. You also need to distinguish between pure numerical per capital majorities and majorities of various interests. Things that sound great in the abstract, become sticky, even close to intractable in the details.
A nice quote from an op-ed I was reading that is a better statement of the majoritarian/minority issue:
…a serious and possibly unsustainable flaw in the American political system. We’re increasingly a country where the minority is not merely protected from the tyranny of the majority, as the nation’s founders intended. We’re a country where the minority rules, and under Trump, it rules tyrannically.
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@Mark_L@rpm
Admittedly, I haven’t thought it through all the way to the end game. And with the two wee ones here I’m not likely to do it any time soon. But isn’t that why the constitution is harder to amend than it is is to enact a new law? And that’s why the Supreme Court is supposed to enforce the constutition, isn’t it?
@CroutonOllie@klezman@Mark_L@rpm The number of representatives should be apportioned based on the actual populations of the states. it’s one thing for the senate to protect smaller states; it doesn’t make sense why the house should do the same.
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@klezman@Mark_L
Sigh. I would exclude illegal aliens, who neither deserve representation nor should be allowed to increase the relative voting power of citizens in the jurisdiction in which they reside. Of course, I would exclude illegal aliens from all public services and benefits and expel them whenever found. Legal aliens should probably be counted for representation, but of course do not vote. Legal aliens are generally eligible for government services, though whether they should be permitted to be on the dole is an open question.
I note also that in the case of states with quite small populations, I would continue the practice of having at least one representative.
@CroutonOllie@klezman@Mark_L@rpm ok, then make 1 representative for every 600k people (ie rounding Wyoming up for arithmetic) and you end up with 550 people in Congress. I’m not sure I understand why small States should be overrepresented in both houses.
I think it is very dangerous to have a minority of the population elect the president.
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@Mark_L@rpm Yes, I agree the House should be way larger. I’d also like to see DC become a state. Puerto Rico should become one if they want as well.
I can also agree that birthright citizenship could reasonably be denied to children of those here illegally, so I’d support an amendment clarifying that. Nowhere near the top of my list, though.
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@klezman@Mark_L
The reason DC should not be a state is that it is the seat of the federal government and has no independent existence. That is, were it not the seat of government, it would have no reason to exist, except as an agricultural village. As such, it should not be represented separately in the legislature. Puerto Rico has repeatedly rejected statehood: it’s a bad deal for the commonwealth, because they are far more heavily subsidized and have more special privileges under the current status.
I’m agnostic on the size of the House, though it is relatively unwieldy now.
The whole notion of ‘majority’ election of the president based purely on population ignores the federal nature of the republic. You want a different system. I don’t. Agree to disagree here.
@rpm I agree with the DC thing. The very fact that it is the seat of federal power is the same reason why it should never be a state as well. Too much power in one place.
I’d like to comment on #4 above. I don’t think it has been stated clearly enough that our country is so inherently racist that a large swath of people of color have been disenfranchised. There have been several means by which this has been done, for example, “The War On Drugs”. (I know a guy)…white teens with a lid, dump it and get sent home, while black teens get a felony. Perhaps there should be a real examination of the type of felony (perhaps violent crimes) that should disqualify one to vote. And…Prison Reform! Private, For Profit Prisons! Insane!
@FritzCat I think you are conflating incidents of unfair treatment with inherent racism. Their are good people and bad people all over the world. One man gets sent to jail while one man gets off clean, regardless of whether they are black or white. That’s the way of the world. Those with dark skin can have it harder than some, but those with light skin can have it harder than those with dark skin too. blanket claims about ones experiences based on the color of their skin are racist in themselves. we can always do better to make sure that justice is served equally to all, but to accuse an entire population of racism is not going to get you anywhere.
@FritzCat@Twich22
This shows that you miss the point, imo.
First, the point about systemic or inherent racism is not saying that all people of one race are good or bad. It’s saying that history has left a legacy that disproportionately affects black people negatively. Redlining, for example, is a big factor in the huge wealth gap between white and black people today.
Second, yes, people with light skin can have it harder than people with dark skin. But that statement forgets the fact that the colour of your skin doesn’t set you back when you’re white.
@FritzCat@klezman yes, but by all the same tokens, you are saying that all people of dark skin color were equally set back and fell under the same circumstances as each other. Which is also not true. Of course lots of black Americans were victims of slavery, and that disproportionately adversely affected them and their ancestors. In my opinion, to chain someone to the past in that way is to sentence them to be victims of things outside of their control. The truth is that the world is never fair. We can do our best to give everyone equal opportunity to improve their lives and become better then what they started out as, and I think all things considered we do a fairly good job of that. There is always room for improvement. But to start judging society based on how different one person lives from another is futile. The truth is that one person born to a billionaire and another person born to a pauper May live very different lives. Should we then say that because society was to blame for the economic circumstances of both of these people that society is inherintly corrupt or unjust. The idea of equal opportunity vs “fairness” is one that I think has gotten quite confused in recent years. Life in never ever fair. That’s just how it is. There will always be disparity throughout the world. Someone born in Africa will live differently than someone born in Canada. But only if society confines them to that life. On the otherhand, if you have a society that does it’s best to provide every opportunity for people of all backgrounds to make something of their life and become successful, then now you have made a just society. Now you have allowed people to escape the circumstances that they were born into, regardless of whether their ancestors were slaves or billionaires. And so while you cannot undo what happened in the past, you can build a society that works to correct such mistakes. Does our society always work like that? No. But we sure always strive for that, and all things considered I think we do a pretty good job of creating opportunities. We could do better though, and I hope when all this is said and done we have implements things that improve people’s ability to escape their circumstances.
@FritzCat@Twich22
I can’t use my phone to explain all the things that miss important aspects of both how history affects today and your misconstrued version of my words. I’ll see if I can explain more tomorrow, but the short version is that I used to think like you. I’ve learned since then.
@FritzCat@Twich22 With respect to the various comments about “we’re doing a pretty good job”, I suggest reading about intergenerational income mobility.
Reports analyzing the economic mobility of African-Americans compared to that of whites have found stark differences. One report found that 53 percent of blacks born in the bottom income quintile remain there as adults, while only 33 percent of whites do. Research has also found that the children of black middle-class families are more likely to fall out of the middle class.
@FritzCat@klezman@Twich22 I think you’ve got it pretty much correct, @Twich22. No society has ever been freer than this. It’s not perfect, but it’s a damned sight better than the alternatives - unless the left succeeds in tearing it down.
@rpm Historical perspective, which you graciously lend, is important, but too often missing in modern day discussion.
You cannot truly appreciate where you are, as a people, until you know where you have been.
It would surprise many, that the idea of “slavery”, was not confined to race, as the same amendment to our Constitution which outlawed this, also outlawed indentured servitude, and debtors prisons.
It was no damned fun to be poor in Dickens’ day, and stiffing a creditor, or borrowing without collateral, could find you faced/forced into involuntary servitude (albeit for only 5-10 years.) No wages, your labor bought and sold on the market to third parties, your duty as your master decides, and such was your lot; much worse for the female then the male.
We have done quite well in elevating mankind in our short time, and though not perfect, represents the best hope that man has to elevate further.
It’s good to see everyone here! I remain among the perplexed (referencing rpm’s post above) and the disgusted. It’s difficult to discuss the current political climate without using profanity.
I agree this has been a fantastic forum for discussing diverse points of view in a shockingly civil way for the time/place. I’d like to pick up on the thread from @klezman:
Quite simply, I think the “infotainment” industry is a cancer on the body politic. Fox News, Breitbart, OAN, and to a lesser extent, MSNBC, CNN, and others. Manufactured outrage is the best outcome from them, while the worst gets on to outright conspiracy theories and bullshit. They need to go. Then the country can begin to heal.
How is it different now? For example, the 1890s “Yellow Journalism” of William Randolph Hurst using misleading or false headlines to drum up circulation or Thomas Jefferson’s enticement of Phillip Freneau to come to Philadelphia to edit the National Gazette*?
*He hired him as a translator at the United States Department of State in 1791 for an annual salary of $250
@KitMarlot I don’t know that it’s different from what was out there 130 years ago. Nor do I particularly care, to be honest. While there are certainly lessons to be learned from those times, we are now in a time when the internet makes this all available at the press of a button. It’s too easy to just stay inside your own information bubble.
But I’d also draw a distinction between the “infotainment” industry (take Hannity or Fox & Friends as poster children) that is heavily partisan opinion with a very tenuous relationship to truth compared to clickbait headlines on top of otherwise factual reporting. Nobody can make an honest argument that the NY Times, Washington Post, etc are infotainment. Even their editorial pages are largely filled with thoughtful pieces (regardless of whether one agrees with the thoughts espoused). One cannot say that about Fox News broadcast, maybe with the exception of Chris Wallace. Fox News’ website is bordering on pure propaganda.
I also heard on NPR this morning that Fox News staff have disclosed that they are more or less working for Trump. I don’t know much more than that since I haven’t had time to look it up, but it confirms what appears to be the obvious truth.
@KitMarlot@klezman
I think it’s interesting that you list the conservative outlets first, then say “and to a lesser extent” before listing the liberal outlets.
MSNBC is every bit as propagandized as FOX, IMHO.
Personally, I do not watch any of them. Most of the people who do, simply tune into the station that most closely matches their own beliefs, soaking up talking points while in the echo chamber.
@chipgreen@KitMarlot FWIW, I don’t watch any television “news” either. The stories I’ve seen via things like FB posts and the stories I’ve read indicate to me that MSNBC is more about news than Fox News, maybe not by a lot, but that’s my impression. Not a fact, by any means.
Whenever media bias comes up I reference this: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
Some people have tried to denigrate this effort and research, but having read their methodology it seems like a completely reasonable approach to me. MSNBC is leftish, Fox News is similarly right. CNN is a bit left but not as far as MSNBC. For Fox and CNN they evaluate the online and broadcast separately (which I seem to have reversed in my memory compared to the chart today). Associated Press, NPR, and Reuters are the most neutral and highest quality.
@KitMarlot@klezman
I remember CNN tried to remain neutral. They were the last of the major outlets to flip over to opinion-based news. They were getting crushed in the ratings with “straight news”.
I don’t know if there is any completely unbiased news source left on TV but Christian Science Monitor was a good source of unbiased print/online news last time I checked, which, admittedly, was well over a year ago.
@chipgreen@KitMarlot@klezman if you think Facebook is a reliable source of information that is outside bias then you should reconsider. Facebook is every bit as much of an echo chamber as all the news stations these days.
Just because you heard something on Facebook does not make that thing true. In fact, if you hear anything these days, on the news or social media or wherever, you are almost certainly not getting 100% of the information you need in order to make an informed opinion about a topic, let alone 50% of the information you need to know about a topic. We’re in an era where everyone thinks that they are experts on all subjects. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
@Twich22 I know @klezman can speak for himself, but I think what he meant by
The stories I’ve seen via things like FB posts and the stories I’ve read
is in regards to forming his impression about bias from media sources in general. I think it was his way of admitting he doesn’t have much first hand knowledge of Fox News or MSNBC. I don’t think he meant that he gets his news from FB.
I totally agree that we’re in an era where everyone thinks that they are experts, however (and I’m as guilty as the next guy.) Not entirely sure how we got here but it is certainly a stumbling block to empathy. We don’t understand anothers’ point of view because we’ve got the only logical solution, and anyone who disagrees is illogical and therefore not worth engaging in discussion. Pity.
@KitMarlot@Twich22 Yeah, what kit said. I’ll double down on the empathy comment.
I don’t search out my news via Facebook. But because I mostly don’t seek out biased news sources, I also don’t see stories either on Fox News or MSNBC (or CNN, and beyond) unless a friend posts it on FB. The news I seek out I seek out through other means.
(And for those who care, I have plenty of friends leaning in multiple political directions on FB.)
@klezman It doesn’t matter. Any present Republican will disregard it for being in the NYT (that liberal, Israel hating rag) unless, perhaps it’s something that Tom Cotton wrote or, after the fact, Bari Weiss.
@klezman It’s really not about Trump or some ‘conservative’s’ view of OrangeManBad. It’s about the policy alternatives on the other side. Beyond saying that, I’m just not going there anymore.
@rpm I respect your very strong preference for “normal” GOP policy preferences, regardless of my agreement, you know that.
I think Peter Wehner has a sufficiently solid conservative policy background and views that his thoughts on Trump were worth putting into the conversation. His jumping off point in this article is:
But for me, at least, a conservative approach to politics continues to lie at the core of my political being — and it is for that very reason that I believe even more strongly now, after what we have seen during Trump’s first term, that any true conservative should be appalled by the prospect of a second.
This is not OrangeManBad, even though I think Trump is a stain on democracy and a sad excuse for a leader. This article is a discussion of a conservative policy guy’s views of Trump and the GOP under him.
Personally, I never would have thought that the fundamental humanity and decency of the person in the Oval Office would be a deciding factor in how I would vote if I were a citizen. But like with many things in 2020, here we are.
@klezman I read the article. I have never been a particular fan of Peter Wehner, but that’s beside the point. I think the policy implications of a Kamala Harris presidency (because I believe Biden quite senile and that he would be a figurehead for the leftists now running the party) are sufficiently dire for the country that there is nothing that could ever convince me not to vote against them. It’s that simple. Nothing more to say on the topic. Happy to discuss ideas and the like, but this election? No mas.
@rpm I guess this is one of those times we agree to disagree. I think Biden’s mental capacity is infinitely better than Trump’s. I think Trump’s presence in the presidency has already degraded the country in numerous ways that we don’t need to rehash. The racism he’s unleashed (not created) is detrimental to the country, free society, and we all know that antisemitism is never far behind. For me it’s also that simple.
I wish this was a “simple” argument about policy preferences and whether trickle down economics is thoroughly debunked or not.
@canonizer@klezman I suppose that depends. I think everyone agrees the climate changes over time - it has been warmer and cooler within recorded history, e.g. the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age - where I think there is disagreement still is the extent to which climate change is anthropomorphic, the extent to which the models used to alarm people about climate change are sufficiently reliable to be the basis of policy discussions (let alone policy decisions), and the relative costs and benefits of various proposed courses of action or in action. Not sure if this is a topic any less charged than the current election right about now…
@canonizer@klezman Buy it anyway… need furniture, sit on cases… Need a bed, put a mattress on your cases… You know the drill… The only other thing you need is arms and ammunition so no one can take your wine from you when SHTF…
And, if you ever have to bug out when SHTF, make sure you have a Peterbuilt tractor with tandem trailers: one for your wine and one for your fuel…
@canonizer@rpm The science on climate change has become even more clear over the last year or two. We’ve caused it. It’s us. Even if there was a warming going on absent us, the speed and extent of it has been massively increased by putting CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. Whether we’re responsible for 50%, 75%, or 95% I don’t think is even relevant any more with respect to the “is this our fault” question.
As for what to do about it, well, there’s certainly a lot more that’s open to interpretation on that question.
@klezman even if all that were true, much of which is dubious at best:
who cares
good luck controlling the temperature of the world in any meaningful way
There are plenty of good causes in which we can devote humanities great efforts. Global climate control, in my opinion, is not one of them that is worthy of those efforts. It would be far better to take all that effort and put it towards something more productive. Not that im opposed to cleaner energy and alternative fuel and all that technological jazz.
@klezman@Twich22 I really hope this is where the conversation turns in the near future. The experts haven’t exactly made a persuasive case (otherwise there wouldn’t be a ‘climate change debate’) and their acolytes are even worse (‘it is settled science’). Walking around castigating ourselves for our sins and arguing about exactly what will happen decades in the future is counterproductive and feels like a political cudgel.
More energy efficiency, more fuel sources (hello Nuclear, hey ITER, are you ever going to give us fusion?), better building materials (wood can be made as strong as cement and apparently produces less CO2), better resource management (warmer global mean temps did not light any wildfires even if it made situations worse), etc.
At the end of the day, whether or not you believe the experts shouldn’t matter. What we do should have the tangible costs carefully weighed against the benefits and at worst, ‘do no harm.’
@canonizer@KitMarlot@Twich22 Why should we worry about decades in the future? Because the signs are all over the wall that we’re screwing up our planet and changing where we’ll be able to live.
@klezman I thought the whole point in worrying about the global temperature was that some people were not happy with the current temperature, and would like to change it. I believe that would be considered global temperature control.
@Twich22 I feel kind of like you’re trolling me here, but I’m not sure…
At the risk of stating the utterly obvious, it’s not about the temperature per se. It’s about the effects on everything on our planet because of the changes in global mean temperature. Things from increased carrying capacity in the air for water that leads to more heavy rains, more flooding, and more unhealthy hot & humid days in certain parts of the world. It’s about the ice at both poles melting and adding several feet to the mean height of the ocean, causing almost unthinkable amounts of upheaval as coastal cities become below sea level. (You think it’s hard living in New Orleans now? Just wait until sea level is 5 feet higher…) It’s also about our ability to grow crops in what is now agricultural land. It’s about the availability of water in those same places. Oh, and then there’s the increased number of hurricanes and wildfires.
We, as a species, have been staring this freight train coming down the tracks for the better part of 40 years now. Early on it wasn’t clear how big and difficult it would be to keep our planet habitable. Now the train’s contours are much clearer and we need to figure out how to slow it down or stop it. I don’t know if you have kids, but I do, and I want them to be able to have kids of their own one day. The current path is not looking good.
@klezman yea. So when you pair it all down, its as i first said: its about controlling the temperature of the earth. In this case, people think that the temperature of the earth is too high, and want to try to lower it. In response, I basically said that this is a fools task, and a waste of human resources, though i am not opposed to new technologies that protect our environment in general. I also think that its worth pointing out that if this apocalyptic future that your theory predicts were probable or even in the realm of possible, that we would not be having this debate at all. No matter how misguided some people may be, in general, as a species, we are all willing and ready to fight for the survival of our species as a whole. The fact that we have to have this debate should suggest that our species is in fact not at risk from the changes in the earths temperature.
@Twich22 Everything you’ve written on this topic is dead wrong, perhaps because of the phrasing you’ve chosen.
This is not about “controlling the temperature of the earth”. That sounds like building a big air conditioner for the entire atmosphere. This is about undoing the effects of humanity’s deleterious impact on, among other things, global temperatures and the consequences for climate.
This is not that “people think the temperature of the earth is too high and want to try to lower it”. This is a response to well researched and highly vetted models of how the planet’s climate will evolve if we don’t alter our path.
Nobody said anything (yet) about “lowering” the earth’s temperature. Halting a rise is not the same as reversing it.
I fundamentally disagree about the nature of humanity you espouse, at least as applied to a long term problem. Humans (and all animals) are incredibly short sighted. The “fighting for the survival of the species” won’t begin until it’s well and truly too late to save this planet. So that will be endless wars, the super-wealthy will relocate off-planet if that technology is available, and billions will die.
Also, this is not “my theory”. This is well established fact based on decades of scientific research. Science doesn’t tell us the correct course of action and what technologies to build - but it sure as hell tells us what will happen if we continue to ignore global warming.
@klezman Indeed, I intentionally used phrases like “controlling the global temperature” to point out the futility of that endeavor. Whether you like that particular phrasing or not, that is exactly what is being proposed when suggesting things like “halting the rise in global mean temperature”. The idea that humanity has significant amounts of control over the temperature of the earth is quite far fetched and not at all scientific fact. If you were to model the earth and look at the net sum of heat entering and heat leaving the system, you would quickly see that humans have little ability to influence that system because of the massive numbers involved. You would also probably realize that so called greenhouse gasses play little if any role in increasing global temperatures, and if anything they would be more likely to decrease global temperatures then increase them.
Thus, I would describe human caused climate change as a theory at best, because from my perspective it does not have any grounding in theoretical reality. It simply does not hold with physics, thermodynamics, and systems analysis. In fact, it doesn’t even get off the ground. Its dead in the water.
To state that something is “established fact” based on scientific research implies that science is always true and accurate and inclusive of all information. However, science is often quite flawed, limited, and subject to enormous amounts of subjective interpretation, perhaps more so today then ever before in human history. Science is closer to art then it is to reality. Sometimes it paints an incredibly realistic portrait, but more often an artist was just throwing paint at a canvas and seeing what the result was. And then each person looking at that art might see something different.
As for the nature of humanity, I will not get into that except to say that you can look at history to see how humanity has responded under times of existential threat.
@Twich22 Um…I’m a scientist and engineer. Your characterisation of science and the establishment of knowledge via science is simply incorrect.
If you were to model the earth and look at the net sum of heat entering and heat leaving the system, you would quickly see that humans have little ability to influence that system because of the massive numbers involved. You would also probably realize that so called greenhouse gasses play little if any role in increasing global temperatures, and if anything they would be more likely to decrease global temperatures then increase them.
@CroutonOllie yes, sadly much of science has given way to pseudoscience and science-for-purchase. For just a small sum of money they will scientifically prove any theory you want! But seriously, people do not seem to understand how science actually works, or perhaps more importantly statistics. Numbers and facts and statistics in a void without all the context are completely useless. Only through complete integration of all the relevant info can a number or statistic or data point be understood in its proper context.
For example i can use this statistic given in another thread:
53 percent of blacks born in the bottom income quintile remain there
as adults, while only 33 percent of whites do
Now, most people today would say that statistic proves beyond a doubt that there is a racial disparity in america. Perhaps even worse, they might conclude that the tone of ones skin determines how likely someone is to make it out of poverty. Then they would move on with their life with a newfound understanding of how the world works… However, this statistic does not at all say that. What it might say is that the two groups studied are not the same when it comes to upward mobility, though without actually looking at the data its impossible to know if the results were statistically significant, how samples were obtained, what the study design was etc etc. That is about as much as can be said from that statistic. You cannot at all tell WHY the two groups are different, or HOW they are different. In fact, without context, that statistic is next to useless. It does not inform about anything useful at all, but rather merely misleads anyone who might look at it and try to draw conclusions.
Upon reflection, I think that the problem is that, because of the internet, we have way more access to data and statistics and all kinds of “scientific” information than any time in history. So everyone can look up data, information, and statistics on anything at anytime regardless of how much they know about a subject or understand about statistics or study design or experimental research. Now, I am not saying that is a bad thing, I think its wonderful. However, it does lead to a LOT of misinformation and misinterpretation of “science”, simply because people just dont know enough about what they are looking at to truly understand it.
I meant literally model it. You are a scientist and an engineer, so model the system yourself. Do a little napkin math. See what you come up with. You might be surprised.
@Twich22 So just to be clear, you’re saying that my back of the envelope heat balance equation on the earth will be able to disprove literally millions of person-hours of careful research and modelling by mathematicians, physicists, fluid mechanics experts, and a host of other scientists from dozens of disciplines? Do you think an error of that magnitude would have gone unnoticed all this time?
If you’re so sure of that result, then go get it published in a peer reviewed journal and post the link.
@klezman Yes, as a scientist and engineer you understand the importance of proof of concept modeling. You can easily do a basic model of the system in question just to see if it falls within the realm of scientific possibility and follows the basic fundamentals of science. Einstein modeled the universe in his head, it wont be hard to make a simple model the earth.
And then, if you do decide to have some fun independent scientific study and model the system, and if it indeed shows that whats been determined through millions of person hours of research and modeling does not actually fall within the realm of theoretic possibility, then you can start asking the most important questions of all, such as ‘how did an error of this magnitude go unnoticed all this time’ and ‘why hasn’t someone already published these findings, or if they have, why have I not heard about them’.
But I doubt you will do anything of the sort. People do not like to challenge their own convictions too much, it causes too much dissonance.
If you can’t identify the variables, how in the hell can you set up an adequate control environment?
When we don’t know, it is fine to do so, but understand that our results only apply to the subset of those things that we could resolve; certainly not everything.
The problem, now, is that the dish runs away with the spoon, and it is portrayed as applying to everything.
@losthighwayz I haven’t watched the video.
But honestly, a black man being shot in the back? Multiple times? That’s nearly as egregious as George Floyd’s murder.
Tonight there’s more violence and looting in downtown Minneapolis. It started after a murder suspect committed suicide just as police were about to apprehend him. People began spreading false information claiming the police shot the man and now 16+ businesses have been damaged/looted over the past 4 hours.
@kawichris650@ScottW58 he was responding to Klez reply about Blake. The response has nothing to do with Blake, don’t you agree? When did I say only talk about Blake? I made ONE comment under this thread. Just as easy to enter a different comment… Since you are here, what are your thoughts about shooting a human being 7 times in the back?
@kawichris650@losthighwayz
Looks to me like he completely agreed with Klez response who thought it was egregious as George Floyd and then made a comment about something that happened in his town. Is that a problem with you? I have not watched the news about the shooting so I will not comment although I will say shooting anyone in the back 1 or 7 times for any reason is not something I am happy about. And since you brought the subject up and said absolutely nothing about your thoughts on what happened or anything at all for that matter I think it’s time for you to tell us.
@kawichris650@ScottW58 maybe I am missing something. Please show me when I said I had a problem. I did not see a connection with his reply to Klez reply about Blake so I asked for clarification and/or an explanation. That is what adults do, right?
In any event I have seen enough to know that black people are treated differently than others and if the exact same situation involved a white man the latter would be alive today. Agree or disagree?
@kawichris650@losthighwayz@ScottW58
What happened to Jacob Blake, by all appearances, was cold blooded murder and I hope the cop(s) who shot him are charged appropriately. That said, let’s talk David Dorn.
@chipgreen@kawichris650@ScottW58 do you agree that blacks are treated differently by police? I agree Doran is wrong but by you positing his killing is diverting from my original post imo
Let’s talk Doran. Thugs were involved and should be held accountable, no doubt. But I wonder if he would be alive today but for George’s unlawful killing by an officer and Trump’s inaction to denounce this immediately
@kawichris650@losthighwayz@ScottW58
It’s “Dorn” and I’m guessing your first thought was “David who?” before using google to find out who I was referring to. Which is exactly the point. These types of stories get buried and nobody protests when exemplary people like Dorn get killed while risking their lives to help others.
Although you agree that his murder (which was viewed by his grandson while being live-streamed on FB) was wrong, you then try to explain it away with conjecture and speculation, much like those who want to point to Jacob Blake’s criminal record and failure to comply with police demands before being shot. Interesting.
Two sides of the same coin, like the rioters who drag people out of their vehicles and beat them to bloody pulps in order to protest against violence.
maybe I am missing something. Please show me when I said I had a problem. I did not see a connection with his reply to Klez reply about Blake so I asked for clarification and/or an explanation. That is what adults do, right?
I clearly stated that I was in agreement with what @klezman said. He brought up George Floyd. The killing of George Floyd happened right here in Minneapolis and lead to protests, violence, and riots across the U.S. and in other countries throughout the world.
The fact that yet another death (albeit suicide) had occurred here last night and sparked even more violence and looting seemed relevant/connected (to the events surrounding the death of George Floyd) in my opinion. If you don’t see a connection and feel my comment was a detour, I truly apologize and that was never my intention.
You never actually said you had a problem but I assure you when you commented “What does this have to do with Jacob Blake?” many people would think that you might have a problem with what was said. And sorry I try to avoid all politics threads in every site that I frequent because in my opinion these days all it does it make people dig in even deeper to whatever side they might be on. Sadly I just blew my streak of avoiding politics is now over.
@losthighwayz 's comment certainly came across that way. However, there’s clearly no tone or body language to go off of when reading plain text on a screen. So giving him the benefit of the doubt, I posted a response and hopefully that helps clarify things.
Opinion-free newscast “NewsNation” set to debut tonight on cable television.
Later today, Nexstar Media Group will debut a new 3-hour prime time newscast titled “NewsNation” to air nightly on WGN America. The goal: bring traditional news back to cable television between the hours of 8 pm and 11 pm ET.
“Inspiring viewers and readers to think, not how to think. That’s the foundation of NewsNation”.
@chipgreen@rpm Why not evaluate it on its merits (once those can be evaluated) rather than on ownership? Some ownership is more hands-on (e.g. Fox/Murdochs) and others are more hands off (I don’t know any specific examples). Or maybe my assumption is wrong and all owners exert a lot of influence.
I’d like to see them on the media bias chart once there’s enough information.
@chipgreen@klezman Because I want to know if there’s even a chance of it being objective - if the people behind this are demonstrably right-wing or left-wing, it suggests the project is intentionally deceptive by purporting to be objective. Like when CNN says they’re not biased…
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. is a publicly traded American telecommunications company with headquarter offices in Irving, Texas, New York City, and Chicago.
Stock price: NXST (NASDAQ) $93.20 -2.81 (-2.93%)
Sep 1, 2:10 PM EDT - Disclaimer
Owner: John R. Muse
Headquarters: Irving, TX
Founder: Perry A. Sook
Founded: June 17, 1996, Irving, TX
Revenue: 1.1 billion USD (2016)
Subsidiaries: Tribune Media, Nexstar Digital LLC, WGN America, MORE
@chipgreen@klezman@rjquillin@rpm At the end of the day, I think bias matters less than journalistic integrity. Remember the media coverage of the Covington Catholic students in MAGA hats harassing a Native American in Washington? I wish traditional media outlets would let viral videos burn themselves out on the internet and focus on telling compelling stories. I know why they don’t, but I still wish they would. Is there even a market for unbiased news? And if so, how would that audience find it among the myriad cable news outlets already in existence?
@chipgreen@KitMarlot@rjquillin@rpm
I agree with KitMarlot.
CNN did better than most at sustaining a relatively unbiased news operation. They’ve been overtaken by opinion more and more over the last few years and the news bias has shifted as well. Today, cable news is all crap, sadly.
But it looks like for the best unbiased news is still Associated Press and Reuters. Why not read your news there?
@chipgreen@KitMarlot@rjquillin@rpm I guess my set point is different than yours. I also don’t think we had CNN in Canada quite that early. But I also never really watched any TV/cable news with enough regularity to have used it as a primary news source.
@KitMarlot@klezman@rjquillin@rpm
FWIW, I just copied/pasted the headline (in bold) and text (in italics) from an online article I saw this morning. The quote at the end is from a NewsNation Tweet that was tacked onto the end of the article.
I am happy to see this development and hope that they are true to their word. I agree with klez, basically. “The proof is in the pudding”. Let’s see how this shakes out, then decide if it is truly unbiased. I have shunned cable news for years but tonight I will be watching.
@chipgreen I guess they’re trying to bring back the old ‘World’s Greatest News(paper)’ identity. Though I was always partial to the Sun Times. Though it’s been decades since I’ve looked at either for anything other than sports reports and movie reviews.
@klezman
I probably watched 2 of the 3 hours, on and off. I was surprised that they didn’t recycle stories although they did do some stories in parts (“more on that later in the newscast…”). They also had a healthy dose of human interest stories once they got past the major headlines.
It did seem largely unbiased. They tried to present both sides of most stories but if you go into it looking for bias you will probably find it anyway. One could argue that just the mere fact that they are reporting on some stories or quoting certain individuals indicates bias. It seems like a bit of a mine field with the hyper-sensitivity that exists today but they pulled it off pretty well, I thought.
They also seemed genuinely excited about being a part of it, thanking the viewers and praising each other saying how honored they were to be a part of this effort, etc. I am glad to have caught the first show. It will be interesting to look back on in 5 years.
@chipgreen nice. Thanks!
That’s actually something I like about the media bias chart I linked above. They consider what is reported, not just how it’s reported.
@jawlz I guess it depends on exactly how hypocritical Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Senate Republicans are…
I suspect if they try to confirm a new justice and then Biden subsequently wins the court will expand by two seats.
@FritzCat@jawlz@klezman
While I agree that Republicans forcing another SCOTUS justice in under the current President would be hypocritical, the last thing we need from the Dems is another impeachment effort, especially less than 2 months out from the election? It seems that all they have done for the last 4 years is go after Trump. And those efforts have been stunningly unsuccessful, expensive and distractionary.
@chipgreen@FritzCat@jawlz@klezman what legitimate member of democratic leadership is legitimately discussing this? Junior members of Congress and pundits aside, I have not heard this.
I wish Graham could just step forward and call a mea culpa. Yes he’s a complete hypocrite but can’t give up the opportunity to pick the youngest supreme court justice around.
@canonizer@chipgreen@FritzCat@jawlz True, I’ve also not heard of anybody in a position of authority/power talking about another impeachment. I’m just saying the guy commits (imo) impeachable offenses approximately biweekly.
But chip, let’s be honest - the only reason the Republicans didn’t impeach Obama was that he literally never did anything even remotely impeachable. That’s why they spent millions of our tax dollars re-investigating Hillary and Benghazi over and over and over again.
@chipgreen@FritzCat@jawlz@klezman Eh, I’m bad at these forums. My reply was below starting a thread in this topic. She declined to answer the question and definitely did not bring it up.
@canonizer@FritzCat@jawlz@klezman
Guess I should have read the article more carefully although I knew that when I first heard about it, it was said that Pelosi was threatening to do it so when multiple people claimed it was nobody of import, just some junior members of congress, I did a quick google search at 6 am before work and posted the first link I found with that headline from a known liberal website.
FWIW, one quote from the article says; “After saying the House has a “responsibility” to protect the Constitution, Pelosi reiterated that impeachment was an option on the table.”
How do you reiterate something if you never said it? Is the leftist Daily Beast putting words in Pelosi’s mouth?
Whatever, my point was and still is that another impeachment attempt would be ridiculous, especially this close to the election. Glad to hear that it is just fake news.
@canonizer@chipgreen@FritzCat@jawlz Would it be ridiculous to impeach Trump again? Yes. But I’d argue it’s on the same level of ridiculousness as the pure power grab being played by Mitch McConnell with the Supreme Court. Like squabbling children, all of them, except the consequences are substantial.
But are they really? I thought something very bad was going to happen if Donald Trump got elected. I expected war with North Korea or a Nuclear Bomb or a coup after he was impeached and removed from office but refused to go*. But 3.5 years later the constitution is still intact, congressional approval rating is still 18%, Donald Trump’s approval rating is still 42% and our government is just as functional as before.
All this squabbling children stuff is Business as Usual for elected officials. It is only that there is so much ink being spilled and breath being wasted that makes us think the consequences are substantial. They only really matter if you face losing your job. The arguments are so loud because the stakes are so low.
*I’m aware that there is still time, that’s beside the point
@chipgreen@FritzCat@jawlz@KitMarlot@klezman I think it’s fair to say that we don’t know the full impact of an administration’s actions in progress. Shrill people on the left (ie, me) point to the gutting of federal agencies, disregard for environment, withdrawal from the world order/trade agreements and see consequences of a fraying nation, climate change, ceding power to China.
As an aside: I’m flabbergasted by the support for Trump and always has been. I personally know architects in Westchester that he’s ripped off. He’s never done anything charitable in his life. His skin is thinner than a wine grape. He lies as easily as breathing. This cult of personality that thinks he could personally fix America has always had me flummoxed. Things (pre pandemic) are worse with Iran, N Korea and China than they were before he stepped into office*.
*(allowing for those that likewise think this was the natural fallout of the Obama admin).
The only thing he has succeeded in doing is stoking division in what many of us are learning is a fairly fragile democracy.
I’m flabbergasted by the support for Trump and always has been. I personally know architects in Westchester that he’s ripped off. He’s never done anything charitable in his life. His skin is thinner than a wine grape. He lies as easily as breathing.
And yet his core constituency seems to be the honest, upright, hardworking, small town middle-American. I started learning just how much I didn’t know the night he got elected.
No, she didn’t - Stephanopolous asked “would you consider impeaching dt or wb” and she said “we have many arrows in our quiver which I will not discuss here.”
For those who don’t have access, the summary is simple and require no constitutional amendments according to the author:
Create an apolitical federal judicial nominating commission to select candidates based on merit to present to the President for his or her selection. Obviously because the President retains final authority under the constitution, rather than make using the three proposed candidates for any vacancy, the proposal creates incentives for the President to select them by, for example, bypassing Senate confirmation hearings and guaranteeing an up-or-down vote. Candidates selected not from the recommended slate would be subject to the current process.
Allow other Article III judges (including retired Supreme Court Justices) to temporarily fill vacancies until the seat is filled. This prevents an even number of justices, but also does a better job of encouraging a justice to recuse themselves.
Increase the court size to 13, mirroring the number of Circuit Courts. But rather than that being a “court packing” exercise, also change the rules so that the Supreme Court sits with 7 Justices, randomly selected for each case, and require any overruling of precedent to be heard by the full court en banc.
These ideas strike me as quite reasonable. Thoughts?
(for those who care about the authorship, the man’s name is F. Franklin Amanat, currently at a private firm after 24 years at DOJ, including a stint as assistant US attorney)
@klezman based on your summary, I’m not sure I see a large difference from how things are currently done. Ultimately the senate would still have to vote on the candidate, so they would still probably hold hearings for that candidate anyways.
But let’s see what happens with this nominee. Its entirely possible that the senate won’t hold hearings at all anyways.
@klezman The notion of it being possible to have an apolitical federal judicial nominating commission is risible. The American Bar Association has become so left-wing that they haven’t approved a judge to the right of the Gang of Four for decades. The idea is a left-wing power grab, pure and simple.
The second idea is unnecessary - the President could always make a recess appointment in the event he or she deemed it necessary, until a new justice is confirmed in the current manner. The President could always make a recess appointment of a retired Justice or another serving federal judge. Unless the idea is that someone else would pick the interim justice, in which case it’s an unconstitutional idea.
I would not increase the size of the court. The idea of a Supreme Court is that the whole court hears cases, since it is the final judicial determination. What would you do if the result went the wrong way? Appeal for a rehearing en banc (i.e. everybody) the way it is now at the appellate level? Then you’ve just created another intermediary (and expensive) step.
@rpm I don’t have anything invested in the ideas in the article. There’s also plenty of proposals out there for Constitutional amendments to fix the court at 9 justices and establish term limits. I’m in favour of that too. I agree that the current system is flawed, probably beyond repair, and it is having the effect of delegitimizing the judiciary. Nothing good lies down that road.
@klezman@rpm Is it flawed? I read an article this morning by someone who worked with Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the DC circuit and he talked about how she and Antonin Scalia were buddies. That suggests to me that the current system is not flawed. Or are you specifically referring to nomination/approval process?
@KitMarlot@rpm the nomination and approval process is deeply flawed. When one person can deny a president his rightful appointment based on a statement of principle and then turn around and hypocritically do the opposite, it’s a broken system.
The more I think about it the more I like the idea of 18 year terms, one seat changing every two years. If these weren’t lifetime appointments it would be less crazy.
When one person can deny… based on statement of principle and then turn around and hypocritically do the opposite, it’s a broken system.
I agree, and it has been broken going back at least 2,000+ years, when Brutus stabbed Caesar for the alleged crime of exaggerated ambition, and probably further. Politics is operated by people, people are hypocrites. In our representative democracy, when the hypocrisy goes too far we vote in a new guy. The alternative is tyranny.
Forcing a president to play nice with the senate is one of the many quirks of the American system of government. George Washington was incensed that the Senate wanted to evaluate his slate of judicial nominees, pacing angrily in the atrium until he realized that they wouldn’t finish discussions that day. I think we can all agree that Washington had impeccable personal integrity and judgement of character, but it doesn’t seem that it is asking too much to get another opinion, especially for a lifetime appointment.
I like the lifetime appointment, which differentiates the Supreme Court from the other branches of the government. It is supposed to be apolitical and has more or less approached that lofty ideal even in these divided times. Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s nomination had only 3 dissenting votes! How quaint. It’s not as if each President’s judge votes the way he hopes. Anthony Kennedy was nominated by Reagan yet infuriated conservatives as has John Roberts for some of his narrow rulings. Senators are accountable to the people and they all had to decide that it was worth it to block Robert Bork’s nomination or ignore Merrick Garland. Every system has flaws and I don’t see the merit of taking the risk on something new when we already understand the drawbacks of what we have.
@KitMarlot@klezman@rpm
FWIW, the argument I have heard as to why this is different is that the Senate majority is the same party as the President, while previously the Senate majority was Republican and Obama was a Democrat. The President-elect was Republican, so waiting for Trump to appoint a justice was “giving the people what they wanted”. Since they had voted for a Republican Senate and President, it was inappropriate for a lame duck Democrat to appoint the SCOTUS justice.
Currently there is no President-elect and the party of the President and Senate majority coincide, so appointing another justice under this regime is still “giving the people what they want”.
Just repeating what I heard (sic) on a PBS interview with Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming.
@chipgreen@KitMarlot@rpm Yeah, Senator Barrasso is making things up. There are innumerable statements from many Republicans stating, unequivocally, that during an election year the "people should have their say. Remember, Scalia died in February, nearly 9 months before the election. It had precisely nothing to do with a lame-duck President nominating somebody after the election.
Then there’s Lindsey Graham, just last year, saying he still believes that rule is the correct and fair one. And to hold him to his words.
I couldn’t find the video, but his words from after Trump was elected are just as clear:
“Justice Scalia dies in 2016. The primary process is ongoing. And if you look back at 100 years, no one has been replaced under that circumstance. If you listen to what Joe Biden said in Bush 41, you should hold it over to the next election. Joe is right a lot. So I felt like I was doing the traditional thing when it came to Sotomayor and Kagan, I thought I did the traditional thing.
“Now I’ll tell you this. This may make you feel better but I really don’t care. If an opening comes in the last year of president Trump’s term and the primary process is started, we will wait to the next election. And I’ve got a pretty good chance of being the judiciary –”
@canonizer@klezman
How so? Although Trump has fought to keep his tax returns out of the public eye, the IRS is well aware of him and has been for decades. If there was fraud, he would have been indicted long ago.
Not saying that his tax team doesn’t use creative accounting - I’m sure they do but Jeff Bezos doesn’t pay any taxes either. They take advantage of loopholes, accelerate depreciation and write off everything they can until the losses balance out the income. Oftentimes they will even cash out on bad investments, purposely taking huge losses just in time to claim them on their taxes and it’s all allowed under the current tax codes.
@canonizer@chipgreen Oy.
Jeff Bezos pays taxes, even if Amazon can wrangle their way out of it.
Yes, using the tax rules to the best of your ability has become something of a ridiculous sport in this country. Nonetheless, one cannot deduct expenses paid to a “consultant” for your company if that person is also an executive for your company. It’s doubly suspicious when that person is your daughter and it looks a lot like trying to avoid taxes on gifts to your kids.
There’s also the previous reports of Trump’s rather, um, situational valuation of his properties.
Did you read the entire story in the NY Times? I don’t care what you think about their opinion pages, but their investigative reporting is top notch and even-handed.
Yes, paying people who don’t work for him + we’ll see how the depreciation for taxes/appreciation for loan application plays out. Maybe his accountant goes to jail and property owners have substantially new guidelines.
He excoriated Mitt for, iirc, a 14.5% effective tax rate and said he would release his returns if he ran. Why do Republicans not care about the lies?
If you anyone feels like whataboutxyz Dem, please consider saving it. I know why no one cares: Trump has been a proper puppet so his morality, lying, and countless other flaws mean little.
@canonizer@klezman
I have not read any articles about Trump’s taxes other than the fact that he paid $750 one year and had a couple years where he paid nothing. I am pretty sure the media has not uncovered anything that the IRS doesn’t already know. Don’t you think the IRS has audited his taxes many times over the years?
If there are some shady expenses, he may end up paying some reimbursement $ and fines but “the biggest set of tax fraud cases in this country’s history”? Oy, indeed.
Ron, even if the assertions in that article are true, there has never been anything wrong with setting up a business for your, well, business. Also, the ease with which S-corps get away with paying little to no taxes in that way are in part due to the Republican tax shenanigans of 2017. (And I’m taking that website at its word even though its other headlines were pure clickbait at best and outright false at worst.)
@chipgreen@klezman@rjquillin omg, this is absurd. S corps are pass through entities which provide a liability shield. The scandal would be whether he paid taxes as income at the much higher marginal tax rate for someone earning 13M instead of using the corporation as a piggy bank and just leaving the money there while using it for personal endeavors.
If he’d been taxed at corporate rates, he still would not have been an employee requiring payroll taxes but taxed at 20%
And I love the idea that the nyt is partisan hackery but whatever the hell that was is trustworthy.
@chipgreen@klezman@rjquillin Sorry, I’m having trouble getting over this. The fraud/crime would be claiming to employ people at an s-corp that did not actually work in the normal course of business (ie, pretty much Trump is doing with his daughter).
If not for all of the other “whatabout xyz dem” bs, this would be the least informed.
@canonizer@chipgreen@klezman@rjquillin Friends, for the record I do not like Donald Trump and did not vote for him in 2016. The only comment I want to make in this discussion is that while the investigative journalism of NYT may be top notch, the prose and rhetorical flourishes make it difficult for me to read. Speculation such as
Is there a financial clue to his deference to Russia and its president, Vladimir V. Putin? Did he write off as a business expense the hush-money payment to the pornographic film star Stormy Daniels in the days before the 2016 election? Did a covert source of money feed his frenzy of acquisition that began in the mid-2000s?
and red herrings such as
Mr. Trump’s U.S. payment, after factoring in his losses, was roughly equivalent, in dollars not adjusted for inflation, to another presidential tax bill revealed nearly a half-century before. In 1973, The Providence Journal reported that, after a charitable deduction for donating his presidential papers, Richard M. Nixon had paid $792.81
combined with
The Times declined to provide the records, in order to protect its sources
makes me wonder which facts are being reported.
Further, I don’t see the point of this article. The man drove 6 entities into bankruptcy long before he became a reality TV star. The fact that he is good at manipulating the US tax code should come as no surprise. Is it a subtle argument for the Flat Tax and abolishing the IRS?
Sure - abolish the IRS and run our tax collection like other modern countries by limiting all deductions (including ones I like - charitable contribution, SALT & home interest). It should still be a progressive code.
It is staggeringly unfair how we subsidize the wealthy.
The only comment I want to make in this discussion is that while the investigative journalism of NYT may be top notch, the prose and rhetorical flourishes make it difficult for me to read.
I suspect this has to do with it being obvious where the leak was from. If he has amended his return at various stages, any figures contained therein might amount to a watermark.
@canonizer@chipgreen@KitMarlot@rjquillin
I don’t think those are speculations in the first quote. Those are (to me, valid) questions that many of us have wanted answers to for nearly 4 years.
I think a comparison to previous presidential tax information is valid. I think a more useful comparison is to other tax amounts paid by us normal folks.
I obviously agree that anybody who was paying any attention knew that Trump only pretended to be successful on tv. But how many people were paying attention? How many people still claim Trump is a brilliant businessman? It boggles my mind.
But this goes beyond legal use of the tax code. There are clear violations of the rules (NPR had a segment with a financial analyst this morning that explained it better), and more importantly it highlights just how ridiculous our taxation system is if it legally lets somebody have such a ridiculously lavish lifestyle while paying essentially no tax.
There’s yet another very important question: who holds Trump’s debt, and what are they asking him to do for them in his official capacity so that he gets more favourable terms? Those who think that the “natural-born American citizen” requirement for being president is an important safeguard against foreign ties should be mad as hell if it turns out to be foreign debt owners.
Virtually every “conservative” - but that does not mean that mean we should give equal footing to “patriotsreport.com” or oann or any of the zillion “news” sites that spring up to support Trump/division.
If not for all of the other “whatabout xyz dem” bs, this would be the least informed.
I find that when I try to discuss what Trump is doing right now, I’ll hear about something (likely false or inflated) about Hillary or something Biden said 25 years ago.
@canonizer@klezman@rjquillin
Your preconceived notions about “every conservative” are not amenable to an open discussion. Especially when taken to the point of attributing opinions that haven’t been expressed and giving pre-emptive warnings that anybody who has anything to say about “xyz democrat” should just save it.
@canonizer@chipgreen@rjquillin
Let’s take a breath for a sec, shall we? I think the attribution of non-expressed opinions has gone both ways here.
Chip, your first post about this tax topic did invoke (at least a basic form of) whataboutism when you said Bezos pays no taxes. That’s regardless of the accuracy of that statement.
For the “save your whataboutism” comment from canonizer, I completely sympathize. Just about every political discussion I’ve read or participated in seems to draw in at least one person who prefers the Republicans who feels that “Democrat X did something vaguely similar once upon a time” is a valid argument for why it’s ok for a Republican to do what they’re doing now. It’s a logical fallacy to debate in that way, and its repeated use has gotten extremely frustrating. Ron’s posting of something related to Joe Biden’s use of an S-Corp, even if true, is a prime example. It has nothing to do with Trump’s use of an (army of) S-Corp(s).
It appears the “NY Times partisan hackery” notion came from a combination of Ron’s post plus KitMarlot’s post that described his (?) view of partisan rhetorical flourishes. Maybe it tweaked a nerve because many people, here and elsewhere, have claimed that the NY Times is nothing but a partisan Democratic newspaper. I wholeheartedly disagree, but that’s ok.
Chip, I know you to be a great guy who is generally reasonable. It would be a shame to lose that sort of voice in this forum.
@chipgreen@klezman@rjquillin hey, I’m sorry, I shouldn’t be driving a wedge in the community. I’m so infrequently participating and shouldn’t be stirring trouble.
@canonizer@klezman@rjquillin
Bezos was just the first name that came to mind as a reference point that lots of rich people are very good at skirting tax laws without actually breaking them, although - mea culpa - I should not have said Bezos when, as you mentioned, it was really Amazon that paid no taxes. FWIW, a quick after-the-fact google shows that Bezos only collects a salary of a little over $80k per year, so despite his billions of net worth he does not pay a whole heck of a lot of personal taxes after all. I assume that he pays his fair share on the $80k, however.
AFA “whataboutism”, I think it’s generally fair to compare and contrast in the context of topical discussion as I (somewhat clumsily) attempted to do by interjecting Bezos. It wasn’t meant to be an indictment of Bezos or a justification for Trump.
I agree wholeheartedly that to try to justify illicit actions by saying “so and so did it too” is just wrong. Personally I think the “whataboutism” is usually more of an attempt to deflect attention than anything else.
While I didn’t appreciate what I felt were preconceived notions, I am not angry or upset with canonizer. Just pointing out that IMO, it’s the wrong approach if there is any hope for open dialog.
Most political discussion forums are filled to the brim with people preaching to the choir. This forum has consistently been a notch or three above the fray and I appreciate your efforts to help keep it that way!
@canonizer@klezman@rjquillin
No need to apologize. I understand the passion and know that it is difficult not to get jaded about “the other side” but this is a unique venue where us fellow wine lovers try to remain courteous and considerate while discussing hot-button topics. Not always an easy task!
I would also assume Bezos pays his fair share between his salary and whatever stocks he sells or however he gets his living money. The thing about owning and being CEO of a public company is that he can’t just skim off the top or turn personal expenses into “business” expenses. And that’s not a dig at Trump specifically - that’s a dig at the tax code that lets S-Corp owners who are less than fully honest get away with these sorts of things. The enforcement budget at IRS is dramatically lower than it should be. The last estimate I saw was that a few hundred million more spent on enforcement would net tens of billions of dollars more per year.
Personally I think the “whataboutism” is usually more of an attempt to deflect attention than anything else.
Might be my last post, in this segment of the forum, but have been watching the debate tonight.
I believe, as Klez did, on why don’t people just think about country first? I do, always did, didn’t take a military oath for me to do so, but Democratic rule, right now, would be terrible.
I don’t give a rats damn, about whether I am liked, or not. Never believed in the “Death of a Salesman” thing of Willie needing to be liked.
Earlier apologies, were for stepping into anothers domain, which I don’t want, as all are fine by me. I don’t have to agree, to be fine with a person, but crap is crap.
Happy, bs, Mr. Rogers ways of looking at things don’t exist in reality.
We are fine here, better before than now, but work towards the future, rather than sow cranky, little, decisiveness.
@klezman Great article, great commentary, and it raises a great question that I’ve been talking about with my friends and neighbors a lot over the last few months. I used to see public education as a means “to make democracy function”, but that doesn’t take 180 7 hour days for 13 years. I now realize that it is “state funded daycare”, allowing many households to move away from extended family and have all adults working. It is also a delivery mechanism for basic necessities, counseling, workforce engagement, etc. What has made the coronavirus related shutdowns so surprising is how many public school districts (at least in Central Ohio where I live) are not open for in-person education, while private schools and day care centers are. Despite their best efforts (and there has been tremendous effort in my area) public schools simply can’t meet their expanded mandate remotely.
@KitMarlot@klezman The dirty secret of public education in the United States is that it hasn’t done a very good job of either education or day care since the mid-1960s, and hasn’t done a very good job of education since WWII.
@KitMarlot@klezman My mother was very active in early childhood education from the very early '50s and later child care until her retirement in the '80s. She was a tireless advocate for good programs, which were unfortunately few and far between; a couple of centers she started were used by the California Dept. of Education as models, but replicating the model only works when you have first rate staff. I think it would be fair to say she had very mixed feelings about day care, as do I. Her preference, based on what she believed was best for children, was combination of (1) part-day early childhood education programs to provide an environment for developing social skills, free play with resources most families don’t have, and directed learning activities, including music and art, and (2) most of the day with a stay-at-home or part-time working parent (usually, but not always, mom). In structuring and running day care centers, where young kids were there all day and the older ones came before and after school, she would not tolerate ‘custodial-oriented’ staff. Many had graduate training in early childhood education at elite schools like Bank Street. Daily staff meetings were as intense as anything I’ve ever seen. In order to be able to place their children in the program, parents (whether single or couples) had to agree to attend monthly group meetings and parent-teacher conferences at least every couple of months, depending on age and how things were going.
Of course, my mother was born during World War One and was part of the last generation where education (though usually not early childhood) was one of the better careers open to bright and motivated women - had she been born when I was (which is long enough ago!), she undoubtedly would have been a successful doctor, lawyer, or businesswoman, and a successful politician (runs in the family - I have a 90 year old 1st cousin who was a state senator in a Western state for 30-odd years after she raised her kids). The people she was able to recruit were all very good, and she brought out the best in them, but she herself functioned at a much higher level yet…
All this is my long-winded way of saying that the chances of government-run child care being anything more than warehousing, despite good intentions (which I won’t always concede) are very slim. Even my mother worried about teachers with ideological agendas and the use of child care (and elementary education generally) to indoctrinate rather than educate.
@KitMarlot@rpm Interesting ideas. I keep coming back to the modern necessity of dual income families and how to square that with education the way it goes today. We are fortunate enough to have found jobs we like that pay well enough that we can send our kids to good schools. But even still, the hours we have now simply do not permit us to excel at our jobs while also attending to our older kid when he’s home from 3pm onward.
This is a matter of opinion. While it is commonplace, all choices come with trade-offs. This was thrown into stark relief with the school shutdowns in my area, when I heard many of my neighbors complain that “kids can’t learn from home”. Mind you, I live in a wealthy white suburb where most homes have a college educated mom and dad. What they were really saying is “I want the school to watch my children 5 days a week so I can get a break.” Despite all the evidence that parental attitude and involvement are the greatest drivers of educational outcomes, these seemingly conscientious parent just want state funded daycare. And apparently they forgot how much time is wasted in a 7 hour school day; home school curricula cover more material in half the time.
Unfortunately, public schools have become hopelessly entangled in myriad political snares, all with the best of intentions. The discussions will continue to miss the mark unless we get to some sort of consensus about the purpose of school: is it daycare? A “safe space”? Growth Engine? Indoctrination Station? Community services dispensary? The last bulwark against tyranny?
@KitMarlot@klezman - you’re certainly correct there is no societal consensus on the purpose of school. The schools would have you believe they are the sole appropriate place of learning, which is clearly not the case. I’m old fashioned, I think school should be for education in academic subjects, and possibly civic education, with parents in charge of moral and religious instruction and learning more generally. We certainly took that approach with our kids and my parents did with me.
@KitMarlot@rpm Believe it or not, rpm, I agree with you. While most of us can agree on basic tenets of morality, there’s not a single “true” morality code.
Thus far, though, we’ve opted to send our kids to a religious school because I’ve seen what happens to non-orthodox Jewish kids who only have Judaism at home. Turns out they abandon most of the traditions, and I want my kids to carry it on. Or as the old saying goes: you can tell a good Jewish parent by the fact that they have Jewish grandchildren.
@KitMarlot@klezman I would also go so far as to say that the schools rarely go beyond the average level even in academics, which means that parents who expect excellence generally, mastery of more advanced material, and a broader scholarly perspective must take an active role in the way in which their children’s education is delivered, what their children study, and the viewpoint(s) presented to their children. Again, we did. My parents did. You simply can’t trust professional educators. We certainly didn’t with our kids, and my parents didn’t when I was a child. Apparently my grandparents’ and great-grandparents’ educations were also closely overseen by their respective families, and were not typical of their respective times.
The discussions will continue to miss the mark unless we get to some sort of consensus about the purpose of school: is it daycare? A “safe space”? Growth Engine? Indoctrination Station? Community services dispensary? The last bulwark against tyranny?
I think it’s pretty clear that whatever we believed education to be we must now acknowledge that a substantial part of its import is ultimately daycare.
@canonizer@KitMarlot@klezman If the kiddies were working, we wouldn’t need day care… just sayin’… Historically, over the past 2000+ years, school was not even remotely considered day care until the 20th century. For most of that time, only a small fraction of children got more than rudimentary schooling. Most children worked - whether in agricultural situations, households, trades, etc. The whole notion of childhood as a special part of life where children had no responsibilities or were not expected to contribute, is a modern invention. Schooling - education in academic subjects - was a privilege, and those who received it knew that and (usually) appreciated the fact they were getting something unusual. That was even true in America through much of the 19th century, when schools were entirely local, usually only a few months a year, and voluntary.
@canonizer@KitMarlot@rpm That’s also why our kids learn about responsibilities from the minute they can understand the term. I guess it’s a bit flipped around from what used to be the norm. Parent now have to instil values like hard work and responsibility in their kids because that’s not really a focus of schools these days. We’ll see what happens when mine are old enough to be in academic school - still in preschool overhere!
@KitMarlot@klezman@rpm Productivity gains in manufacturing and agriculture + improved infant mortality has made it necessary to find something for people to do; there is no vocation now that is not improved substantially by edumacation (not necessarily what’s taught k-12 but dealing w computers & communication(s) are part of everyone’s daily life).
I would recommend the book BULLSHIT JOBS by David Graeber. It has a lot to say about the performative nature of many of our roles.
Was going to vacate the thread, but decided to ask a stupid question. Why do people fixate on the individual, rather than the result?
I can find many faults in any individual, myself included, but results are what matters. If your child were dying, would you care if it was a witch doctor, or a physician, that cured them?
No, of course not, but it seems that true argument and reason are lost now.
Too many times, nowadays, argument and reason are confused with noise. Noise equals increased decibels without any supporting argument. To many, the old adage of “the squeaky wheel gets the oil”, might seem a proper way of positioning themselves. Just remember, that the ‘squeaky wheel’ can also be replaced.
There will be those that disagree, fine, but remember that this system gives, and protects, your rights to be that way, if that is what you choose; others do not.
Try living, trying to be happy, and seeing that those you care about can do the same; this is the essence of life.
I’m going to leave these here. I’d be very curious to hear from our more historically-inclined friends here. I was actually quite surprised to read about the evolution of originalism from a fundamentally historical endeavour to a fundamentally ahistorical endeavour.
Two interesting posts about originalism as a method of constitutional interpretation. These are both from historians - both Stanford professors.
@klezman I only have time for a brief glance, but at the end of the day its semantics. The constitution was written as a result of the culmination of historical events that proceeded it. In my opinion, understanding those events as they would have been understood at the time the constitution was written is paramount to being able to interpret it. Everything else is just semantics.
And, being semantics, it wont make any difference in the here and now. The supreme court will make their decisions, regardless of what history says.
@Twich22 But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it? The “originalism 2.0” as it’s called in the second article explicitly disavows historical inquiry into anything beyond isolated words and attempts to divine the semantics. It apparently leaves out exactly all those other things that a historian would use to figure out the “original meaning” of the text.
@klezman Well, these happen to be a couple of historians whose hostility to originalism drips from their pens… I was trained as an historian before I studied the law and have always believed that the profound ignorance of history displayed by almost all lawyers has had a baleful effect on their jurisprudence. So, I’m probably closer to a ‘historical originalist’ than most current ‘semantic originalists’, but as an intellectual historian I do take the words seriously and think that justices trying to determine whether particular laws are compatible or incompatible with the strictures of our written social contract ought to do their very best to try to understand what was meant at the time. I note that none of the Framers thought that the Supreme Court would be in the business of determining the Constitutionality of legislation - that was the work of Chief Justice Marshall (incidentally nominated by John Adams after it was clear he had lost the 1800 election to Jefferson, and confirmed by a lame duck senate…) in Marbury v Madison in 1803. But, I digress… Despite my understanding, as an historian, that one can never know with certainty what was meant by the Framers and the ratifiers, I think that being guided by a close reading of the contemporary documents, and a thorough understanding of the intellectual context in which they were written and the knowledge with which the Framers worked, is a damned sight better approach to Constitutional law than the ‘living Constitution’ cr*p that has been espoused by so many leftist jurists for the past hundred years or so. There is a lot of historians ‘inside baseball’ in both articles, which I won’t bother to get into. Let’s just say that I think that the politicization of the historical profession over the past 40-50 years has been profound and that I tend very much to deep skepticism of the motives of historians when the step out of pure historical analysis into areas in which they are not trained - such as understanding legal documents and reasoning.
@rpm Fair. If I read your critique correctly, you would be more aligned with “originalism 1.0”, which (again, if I read correctly) sought to understand the entire context of the constitution’s drafting and ratification in order to ascertain its meaning. And truth be told, that version makes a lot of sense to me.
I read another article, which is where I got these links, that was asking the question of whether the reconstruction amendments altered the meaning of the original parts of the constitution and/or that the social compact re-entered to in that era supersedes the prior one. I thought it was argued well, but again, neither a historian or a lawyer over here.
@klezman Without having read the other article (link please) or any underlying sources for it, I suspect I could make a plausible argument either way.
Part of the difficulty here is that, while historians are (or used to be) trained to ferret out and evaluate evidence, unless they’re also lawyers (or perhaps philosophers of law), they’re not trained in how lawyers analyze statutes (or contracts, for that matter). A lawyer looking at an amendment to the Constitution might well ask does the amendment fundamentally alter the meaning of the original document?. For example, does it delete a right expressly preserved or enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Or does it give the federal government, say, the general police power which was explicitly reserved to the states? Amendments of that sort might well be reasonably seen as superseding. But would they be superseding as to all matters or only as to their limited sphere? In keeping with the limited powers delegated to the federal government, it seems to me the more correct reading would be superseding only within the specific grant. Amendments which might be seen as superseding are 16 (income tax, which was forbidden under Constitution) and 17 (direct election of senators), but neither was (or should ever be) seen as giving the federal government a free reign. Both were, in my view, grave mistakes, but they were duly enacted (as was 18 - Prohibition and 21 - its repeal). Most amendments, and specifically the Reconstruction Amendments should probably be seen, both historically and legally, as not superseding, but clarifying amendments which ratified the outcome of the War of the Rebellion (for my Yankee friends, btw that’s what it was called in the Official Records) or War Between the States (for my Southern friends - btw, I’ve never heard a Southerner use the term “War of Northern Aggression” other than to get some damnyankee’s goat or in some sort of jest or jocular manner).
From a lawyer’s drafting perspective, which you should take into account when you read a lawyer’s document, small changes in a document call for an “amendment”. When lawyers make very large changes, they at least “amend and restate” or even “replace” the document.
Perhaps “supersede” was the wrong word to express my understanding of the author’s point. It’s probably better termed as altering and/or clarifying our understanding of what the words mean and the intent behind them.
@klezman
Hello, and I find more than most things overstated in the article; glad it was an opinion.
Mr. Trump is not your traditional politician. Maybe that is how he gets things done, much to the dismay of many, who confuse the person with the result.
Results are what matter to me, and not the incessant diatribe that tries to discredit our nation, and all she stood for, simply because their little wheel wasn’t greased.
There comes a point where people get sick and tired of all of the would be ‘martyrs’ and ‘victims’ who would rather whine and remain as such, rather than take responsibility for their own shortcomings. To address, and vanquish, them is what gives people a sense of real worth and pride, and stands in the face of just handing people things, or making everyone ‘make believe’ heroes; that doesn’t work.
I’m sure we all want the same things, but some methodologies just fail over and over again, and it would be nice if we could just have business move forward, without expensive, time and effort draining, distractions.
@CroutonOllie sure, such high minded principles are fairly easy to agree with.
What I didn’t see was any substantive disagreement with the article. Or are you saying that only results matter, and so might makes right?
Uhh, written by people who are not part of the republican party, and who certainly dont understand it. The republican party was dead before Trump came along. Trump built a new party from its ashes, thank god. This is what republicans were meant to be.
@klezman
Just noticed the ‘might makes right’ insinuation that you interjected; clumsy.
Since you went there, yes, might does make right in some instances, especially if against the Constitution and rights of the American people as guaranteed.
Some of what we have been seeing here is outright sedition, and those in power who sanction this should be removed from office for violating their oaths.
@CroutonOllie So, being specific, then, you agree that Mitch McConnell and all but one Republican senator should be removed from office for violating their oaths to defend the constitution when he didn’t even seek the truth in Trump’s impeachment trial?
Bill Barr should be removed from office and sanctioned for politicizing the Justice Department?
Everybody involved in forced family separations should be tried by the international criminal court for violating their human rights?
@Twich22 I’m confused - you seem to disagree with their perspective, which aligns quite tightly with many Republicans’ thoughts? Because you don’t like the messenger?
If this is a new party that Trump has formed (and I think that’s true in many respects) then I hope to god they never hold a single seat in Congress ever again. The Trump Party seems to have no moral code that I can agree with. The former Republican Party, while I didn’t agree with their policy positions often, I could at least respect the thought process behind them.
@klezman just because you are not aware of the moral code of the new Republican Party does not mean it does not exist. It could merely mean that you, and the people writing this article, do not know what those morals are or what the Republican Party stands for. Which is what I’m saying. As a Trump Republican.
@Twich22
I didn’t say the Trump Party has no moral code, just not one that I agree with or could ever support.
In any case, I’m all ears, honestly. What is the moral code of the Trump Party? What about it do you agree with?
@klezman I wish I had the time to tell you all about it but I don’t. The Republican Party is about empowering the individual, opposing corruption, supporting the lower and middle class economically, and so much more. It values the rights of the individual above the rights of the business or the government. It values eliminating government intervention in areas where the government does not need to intervene. So many things, so little time. This website is very Democrat biased, and some of these points are incorrect, but if you truly want to learn more about what the values of the Republican Party under trump is then you need only look at the policy positions. But note that any position not supported by a direct public statement about it by the president is as likely to be wrong as it is to be right from what I can see. https://www.isidewith.com/candidates/donald-trump/policies
@Twich22 I recognise those ideas/principles from the Republican party of before 10 years ago, but none of that rings true for the Republican party for the last (roughly) 10 years after they dedicated themselves to anti-liberalism. I honestly, no matter how much I’ve tried, cannot see those ideas present in the Trump party. Especially opposing corruption and supporting the lower and middle class economically (unless you believe in trickle-down economics despite the lack of evidence for it).
Regardless, none of that is a moral code, except perhaps empowering the individual. The rest are (theoretically) policy positions.
@klezman I have no interest in disabusing you from your beliefs. All I can say is that it’s clear to me, from the article you posted, and the things you are saying, that you don’t understand the Republican Party at all, and do not have a good perspective on what it represents.
@Twich22 I’m sorry you seem to think I’m such a dotard that I can’t comprehend a reasoned explanation and that it’s not worth your time to explain your beliefs about the Republican Party or the Trump Party. I’m well acquainted with what the Republican Party says it stands for*, which is what you repeat, but to my eyes it bears little resemblance to reality.
*It’s not even clear it still even says it stands for those things in this election. The party did not devise a platform for reelection and Trump has not actually outlined any plans for a second term.
@klezman I don’t blame you, nor do I think less of you than any other human being. That is a value that republicans believe, that all humans are equal. The sad truth is that our country is so polarized that the republicans and democrats no longer understand one another. We live in two very different worlds, although we are physical neighbors. Strange times.
@CroutonOllie Sort of. I’m pretty clear what my opinions are vs facts. It is a fact that Trump is self-dealing and directing millions of our tax dollars to his businesses. It’s a fact that self-dealing in government is corruption. You are, of course, absolutely entitled to the opinion that you don’t care that Trump is lining his pockets with your money, but you aren’t entitled to “alternative facts” whereby it’s all my opinion that he’s doing so.
@Twich22 At the risk of going down a rabbit hole, I am curious how you can justify the statement that Republicans believe all humans are equal. Why, then, do Republican policies so frequently leave identifiable groups at significant disadvantages?
@klezman I would never claim that all republican politicians are not corrupt. Any person has the capacity for corruption. And no doubt sometimes policies have bad consequences. But those things do not apply to president Trump, nor to the beliefs of the people of the Republican Party. We would never support a policy that was a detriment to the people of America. And as for your facts, it sounds like pure derangement. The president was investigated for over 2 years by the most corrupt and biased group of lawyers and investigators. They had full power to investigate all aspects of the presidents life. And they were unable to bring a single charge against him. That is a fact that I know to be true. So whatever corruption you may accuse him of, it has never risen to the level of a crime. And his policies have done nothing but elevate the lowest of the American people to new levels of prosperity. So to claim that he does not care for the people of this country does not match up with the results of his policy.
@Twich22 Wow. Clearly one cannot compete with Fox News. If they repeat it enough times, apparently enough people think it’s fact.
You argument is circular: the Republican party only does good things, so all things the Republican party has done are good.
I’ll note here that you didn’t respond to my questions, but you simply disagreed with the premise and didn’t engage with the topic. I’ve provided links to sources chronicling Trump’s corruption, which you’ve also referenced, but you’ve chosen not to engage with that either. Oh well. I keep hoping against hope to have a fruitful conversation here, but keep getting rejected.
@klezman Look, I already told you, I have no interest in changing your beliefs, nor engaging with you in a debate. One of the most beautiful parts of this country is that you have the freedom to believe what you want, and I have the freedom to believe what I want. And thats fine with me, live and let live. But at the end of the day, elections matter, and this country is based on the will of the majority. and that majority will decide the fate of this country on Tuesday, regardless of anyones beliefs. And thats just the way it is.
@Twich22 I guess you didn’t understand. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m trying to understand why others with different opinions from me hold those opinions. You’ve refused to engage in it, which is your perogative. I remain disappointed that almost nobody who leans Republican is actually able to articulate why.
And you know as well as I that the majority of this country disapproves of the Republican agenda. The only reason Republicans have power is due to anti majority structures in this country’s system.
@klezman I see that you are trying to understand the opinions of others. I applaud you for that. But I do not have the time to educate you on my beliefs. And I know the futility of it. People must make their own decisions, and make up their own minds, and rarely does a debate on an internet form lead to an change of opinion. I used to debate endlessly on the forms. Then I grew tired of it and eventually stopped altogether. Now I am merely content to my own beliefs, and content to let others make their own way. God bless America.
@klezman Facts require proof, and I’ve seen none. Further, I find it interesting that you somehow ‘know’ what my opinion is, that I am supposedly entitled to; how magnanimous! You worry about alternative facts? First grasp the concept of what a fact is. Anecdotal evidence, no matter how widely accepted as representing ‘facts’, do not necessarily a fact make. It may, or may not, help to establish what is fact, but it is not enough on its own to meet any burden of proof.
@klezman@Twich22 Klezman, give it up. Twich22 is a troll who gets his jollies yanking your chain…and he’s yanking it hard! These republicans have no interest in reality or truth, and none of them will debate issues. Their only interest is in not admitting that they’re wrong, because that would show weakness. At this point, all we can do is vote, and I have done so. And, contrary to what Twich said, and as you intimated, it is not a majority of the populace that elects the President, because podunk hillbilly rednecks have an advantage with the electoral college. Again, give it up, and vote. (my apologies to all you hillbilly rednecks from podunk)
@FritzCat you belie your own ignorance by blaming the electoral college. I could not possibly begin to explain to someone what my perspective is if they do not even understand the purpose of the most foundational and important documents in america, meaning our founding documents and laws. We are simply too far apart to be able to meaningfully communicate. I am content to merely win this election and let my voice be heard in that manner. May you be content with your truths and beliefs.
@FritzCat Yup, I give up. Everything is so obvious that it’s an utter waste of time to explain it to us imbeciles.
This country needs a mega dose of empathy.
@klezman sorry. It’s just not something that can be explained. It has nothing to do with intelligence. It’s just the way it is. I wish I could explain it in a way that everyone could understand. But I cannot. It’s a very personal thing. Everyone makes their own decisions.
But understand that, whatever you may think of republicans, our one and most fervent intent is to give every citizen of this country the greatest chance at prosperity and happiness, especially those of the low and middle class. I know that you may not believe that, but that is my truth that I believe.
Just as I know that most Democrats wish for the same thing.
@Twich22 Gotcha. To paraphrase: I think we both want the same things but I am unwilling and/or unable to explain why I think the Republican party in the year 2020 espouses values and policies in line with my preference.
@klezman I cannot explain my perspective in a way that you would understand. Our viewpoints are just too far apart. Maybe if we were talking in person, and had a long time to discuss things, I could make you understand. But not online via written word, at at least not quickly and not in an amount of time that I would be willing to spend trying to explain to you.
@klezman perhaps, if you want to gain some perspective, you could watch some videos i think are representative of my values and beliefs. I can think of a few that do a decent job of conveying such complex ideas.
One, from Michael Moore in 2016, if you have not seen it. I think he was trying to be ironic, but ironically he hit things closer to the mark then probably he will ever know.
Also, this next video is long but shows what the president is all about and why Americans love him so much.
I think these two videos are probably the best way to show you my perspective in the shortest amount of time. It’s still pretty limited but if you really want to know then you are free to watch and, if you want, you can ask me questions about the videos. I may have to rewatch them myself.
Well regardless of the outcome of this year’s election… I’m not sure why we shouldn’t eliminate the Electoral College. As I have read, it was originally agreed upon as a compromise. Some of the founding fathers believed that Congress should select/elect the President… while others believed it should be by popular vote… and hence the Electoral College was agreed upon by men trying to figure things out… slaves back then only counted as 3/5ths of a person when accounting for a State’s population (and couldn’t vote). We’ve obviously progressed a bit from our horse and buggy days… but not when it comes to electing the most important Political Official in our Nation. Thoughts?
I can appreciate that… and I know that’s one of the reasons it was originally written that way… but we are the “United States”. Today the Candidates are concentrating on a handful of States to get over the line… makes the rest of us feel like we’re a surplus to requirements. I think it may be time to rethink that logic. A popular vote would mean a vote from Western Kansas means as much as a vote from NYC… don’t know… just a thought.
@Savagesam one of the intents of the constitution is to provide states equal rights. It is not merely the people who elect the president, but the states as well. The whole idea of America is that we are a republic. We are not all one people, but a group of peoples, each with our own state, and each state has the power to govern their lands as they will, within the bounds of the government. If the federal government begins to do things that most of the states don’t like, then the states are granted the right to legally revolt against the federal government, and one of those legal methods is by electing a president of their choosing. What you are proposing is to undermine the very framework of our nation. I cannot even begin to explain how detrimental the longterm consequences of that action would be. The idea that someone could even suggest it shows that they either don’t understand the foundational framework of our country, or they have not thoroughly considered the long term consequences of their actions. It would likely destabilize the entire country and throw it into chaos, and after that who knows what the outcome would be but it would be horrendous.
Thankfully, the point is entirely moot. To get rid of the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, which right now is not something within anyone’s reach, or anywhere near anyone’s reach. Another intent of the laws of this country, the constitution was meant to be damn near impossible to change, and for good reason.
I appreciate your thoughts… but a popular vote for President (in my opinion) doesn’t undermine a state’s right to govern how it’s people choose. That doesn’t change. I could be missing something…
@Savagesam it removes a massive lever of power, and tilts the scales of power away from the states in a profound way. Instead of doing what a majority of states wanted, presidents would start doing what 2 or 3 states wanted. You don’t see the problem with that? States could simply population pack in order to gain political power on a federal level. You don’t see a problem with that?
@Savagesam@Twich22 Um, we already have the situation where a very small handful of states dictate much of national policy. Ethanol subsidies, anybody? If this country should be controlled by each state as an individual entity all on equal footing then each should get a single vote for president. That, imo, would be equally as terrible as the electoral college.
The revolt you’ll see is if a candidate gets 5 or 10 million votes more than the other candidate but still loses the election because of the electoral college. I understand the compromises that went into the electoral college, but like many things from the 1780s they have not all worn so well.
Well, I don’t see how you could population pack… although I wouldn’t discount that… and I will consider your thought about “doing what 2 or 3 states want”… hadn’t considered that… although 5 States deciding who our next President is… is troubling as well.
@Savagesam Which is becoming more problematic when the population at the state level becomes as out of balance as it has become. If trends continue, (I forget the exact numbers) something like 20% of the states will have 80% of the population, or something equally out of whack. True minority rule, even more so than the senate today.
@klezman I am sorry you feel that way. I think it’s rather wise to focus on the decentralization of power and provide states a significant amount of power over the federal government. I certainly understand the disappointment of people that live in a large population state when their vote means the same as someone in a low population state like hawaii or Iowa. But to me, that’s the most wonderful thing. I cannot think of a better way to ensure that no ones voice goes unheard for too long.
But an even more beautiful thing is that states have the power to decide their own fate, largely free of the federal government and the rest of the country. Even when a majority of states vote in a way that differs from the preference of a large state, the large state can still forge ahead with its own ideas and plans. And because they are so large and have so much power on their own, their decisions can have wide reaching consequences beyond the boarders of their lands. How wonderful and marvelous such a system is. One in which the rules that govern a majority of the lands of the country can do one thing while the rules that govern a minority can do something completely different. It’s simply astounding to me.
I wish I had the time to tell you all about it but I don’t.
Look, I already told you, I have no interest in changing your beliefs, nor engaging with you in a debate.
I see that you are trying to understand the opinions of others. I applaud you for that. But I do not have the time to educate you on my beliefs.
You keep saying you don’t have time, yet you continue to post in a thread that’s meant to encourage civil conversations about politics. Color me confused.
As @klezman stated, he’s simply making an effort to understand why others with different opinions from him hold those opinions.
I personally commend him on his efforts. He’s very respectful about it and his comments and questions have oftentimes resulted in very informative conversations amongst some tremendously educated members here on the forum. I find it enlightening and at times, dare I say, even entertaining. No one is twisting anyone’s arm to post here. You either choose to engage in the conversation or you don’t. It’s really that simple.
@kawichris650 it’s not that I don’t want to post. But he’s asking me to do something that I simply cannot do. We can discuss more specific things, but I cannot easily make someone understand my perspective, or the perspective of the people who support the president, if they do not already. That’s a near impossible task to do in person, and closer still to do via written word.
I must be clear that I believe the other person’s intentions are good. If I imply that the other person doesn’t want the best for everyone, I am sabataging discussion rather than have one.
I must understand that everyone on my side (as well as the other side) is at least somewhat uninformed and misinformed. No matter how cleverly I put together my news cocktail in an attempt to be informed, my news/opinion sources have substantial bias and are mainly out to give me the narrative I expect.
Be determined there is something to learn from the other person. If I’m truly open-minded, I am delighted to have their opinion altered. A close 2nd: better understanding of other view point, and see that it’d not as “dumb” as I previously thought.
Patience. If after some back and forth, all both parties have achieved is a vague feeling the the “other side” seems to be trying, then that is better than most people accomplish.
And the list could go on. Some of you can certainly add great things to the list.
I’ve been wanted to jump in here for a while, but a few times after taking the time to catch up on where the discussion currently is, I’m usually out of time to post anything.
How about this: I’m a Trump supporter, and a reasonably good communicator. Any non-Trump person have a question or two?
@PatrickKarcher Absolutely! (You knew that, of course.) I’ll start with two somewhat loaded questions.
Why does Trump’s well documented spending of government funds at his businesses (what I’d call self-dealing) not bother you? Or if it bothers you, why does it not disqualify him from holding office?
Why do Trump’s constant lies and attacks on democratic institutions not disqualify him from a second term?
A key attraction of Trump is the lack of corruption. Democrats can do do get filthy rich from politics. Check out the net worth of Clintons and Bidens! Be a good liberal, and you will be seriously taken care of. Biden, clearly, didn’t want to wait for the speaker/book circuit. The “Big Guy” has been getting his cut. And when Trump wanted it looked into, HE gets impeached.
Trump is squeaky clean, certainly compared to recent Democrat rivals. An exhaustive and very expensive witch hunt was conducted for the purpose of getting ANYTHING on Trump, and came up with nothing. The mainstream press made utter asses of themselves with the Colusion Hoax, which we now know was based on Russian misinformation paid for by the Clinton Campaign. Yes, the Clinton Campaign colludes with with Russians, and then Trump gets investigated! Imagine the Clintons or Bidens undergoing a Meuller-type investigation; THAT would be entertaining.
I saw some links above hinting about horrible things Trump has done. How many such articles you want about Obamas/Clintons/Bidens? Here’s one that came out this afternoon. News articles desperately trying to find something, anything that Trump did wrong, continue to erode what little credibility the press has left. Narrative Group (former newspaper) New York Times got a hold of Trump tax return (for a year he’s still being audited for), which could only have happened with someone breaking the law. As usual, a nothing-burger (as CNN chief calls them) are release as if it were a smoking gun bombshell. NBC made the mistake of having an accountant on, who simply explained how this stuff works. If you’re a real estate developer, you borrow money, which you leverage into profitable property; you make more on the property than the interest on your loan. It’s called business. You also pay taxes unevenly in fits and starts, paying massive amounts some years and little or none other years. Trumps paid over $60M in taxes since 2000, and if it was an even amount each year, it would be strange. In the year in question, he had credits for previous over-payment and previous losses that carried forward. But if you listen to people with TDS, or who don’t understand how real estate investment work, it sounded horribly ominous.
It is seriously nice having a president who is already rich, and doesn’t need to “play the game” to get rich off of the system. Since he can’t be bought, he is not welcome in DC. As happy as we are with Trump and his copious kept campaign promises, one where he’s come up short is Draining the Swamp. He took too many (republican version) swamp rats into his administration. I hope in the next administration he does a much better job cleaning house.
Lies? Well, he’s playing politician. He’s certainly having a hard time keeping up with Biden’s lies. I don’t know of any lies Trump has told that’s as evil and harmful as the fine people hoax, which Biden and Harris have repeatedly served up. Very, very disturbing.
Attacks in democratic institutions? He’s certainly failed to clean up the highly politicized justice department and FBI. Insane what went on there.
Attacking the press? He criticizes the press and calls out their BS (a full time job!), but I’m not aware of him siccing the IRS on them like them like Obama administration did. Attacking . . . the House Intel Committee? Where Adam Schiff lies every time he opens his mouth? Talk about a liar! The justice and FBI have disgraced themselves with the double standard, where Republicans are harassed and framed, while Democrats get a free ride. A lot more for Trump to do, and the main reason we need to send him back.
@PatrickKarcher I was hoping for something that wasn’t just repeating Fox News talking points.
The NY Times pieces on the tax returns, btw, have been very clear at what is and isn’t normal. And what may be unlawful. The re-tweets and such are clickbait, but the actual reporting was rather in depth.
It’s also not true that they could only have gotten hold of the tax returns in an illegal way. I’m not sure why Trump supporters keep repeating that.
@klezman Just so you know, fox news is not a great source, though no modern news outlet is any better. Most republicans only tolerate Fox news because there is no alternative on most cable TV. But in general, most republicans do not get their news from Fox. And anyone can use the line “CNN talking points” or “MSNBC talking points”, but that is not an argument nor does it validate what you say. If you expect us to engage, then you should hold yourself to the same standards.
@klezman Also, I think fox’s viewership during prime time generally runs about 2-4 million. Thats about 1% of the US population. Just for some perspective.
Well, that kills any discussion. “I was hoping for something that wasn’t just repeating Fox News talking points.” Oh well. It was worth a try.
@klezman, I don’t have time for Fox News. Like other Networks, they are out to give their viewers the expected narrative. Their opinion people / morning show people are just the mirror image of CNN/MSNBC/NPR etc. (Tucker Carlson is independent enough to almost be worth the time, sometimes, but not enough for me). Their TV news people are (just like all other TV news) don’t give you enough information to really understand anything. Actually, Fox doesn’t even have their own narrative. Last I checked a few years ago they spent their time reacting to MSM narrative. So, I have no idea what Fox News talking points would be.
That’s certainly good technique, for dismissing what someone says rather than addressing it. I figured you probably had very slanted info, from the MSM news silo, but I was determined (for the sake of discussion) that you were trying to get the best info you could, and not just repeating someone else’s talking points.
(NYT does spend a lot of time with long exhausting articles attacking Trump. By the end of them you’re sure there’s definitely something there. Even Russian Collusion has just gotta be true, after some of those articles. It’s just gotta! I once read there how Michael Avennati was gonna take Trump down. With all the, you know, stuff.
Now, if you rely on NYT as part of your news and information cocktail, realizing they’re job for 45 years has been to Set the Liberal Narrative, and you mix with other imperfect sources from various angles, including some favoring Trump, then I absolutely respect that. The best any of us can do is try to get different sources and angles, even though each individual one is suspect.)
Cheers! And, let’s all vote, and get along, and remember that 90%+ of the people on the other side want the best for everyone. (best achieved by staying off twitter, ha ha)
@PatrickKarcher you are quite right about Fox News not choosing their own narrative. This has been one of my biggest issues. If you are just reporting the things that others have already decided are newsworthy, then are you really breaking any news, or are you merely parroting what others have authorized you to report. Granted, they covered some of the Hunter Biden scandal when all other news stations refused to report it, but that is the only exception I can think of.
@PatrickKarcher I respectfully disagree. You talked about TDS, and unless you mean testicular dysgenesis syndrome that’s an ad hominem attack.
I asked about corruption and you simply asserted that Trump is not corrupt. No evidence, no reasoning, nothing. You simply talked about your perception of corruption of other people. Classic straw man argument.
Calling a thorough investigation by a largely Republican FBI a “witch hunt” is also needlessly inflammatory. But since you brought it up, do you feel like you should also take the opportunity to lambaste the previous Republican-led House for wasting many millions of taxpayer dollars “investigating” Benghazi over and over and over again?
You assert that Biden is corrupt because his son got a job he wasn’t qualified for from a private overseas company, but you neglect to mention the nepotism Trump has bestowed on his own family and benefited from himself.
I’m more than happy to engage on the issues, but leave the logical fallacies out of it and provide evidence.
As for criminality, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Trump indicted in New York for tax fraud. He’s already had his “charitable foundation” disbanded for self-dealing and fraud.
It seems the story behind all this is rather complicated. For example, a significant portion of lower wage income growth is due to increases in minimum wage at the state level. Lots more tidbits and analysis in the full length report, written before COVID. The full report is at https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/.
@klezman well at least we can agree on something. However I have two issues.
The focus on wage gap is not a great one to have. It puts emphasis on the wrong thing. It doesn’t particularly matter what’s happening at the top percentiles, as gross as that may be, as long as what is happening for the lower percentiles is good. No one is arguing that it’s not sick how much money some people make, but it’s not like it’s necessarily their fault (though it may be in some cases), and what’s more, hurting the upper percentiles may not help the bottom percentiles. I think it’s a perversion to put so much emphasis on wage gap, because at the end of the day that does not matter to the person making minimum wage trying to make ends meet. The only thing that matters is real wage growth for those at the bottom and middle. And as we can both agree, the growth over the last 5 years has been better for those at the bottom than it has been in a long time. And that makes a tremendous difference to millions of Americans. We can argue about the ultimate cause of that wage growth, but the president promised such results, and he has delivered those results to the people who voted for him. And they will vote for him again to insure that those good results continue.
As for minimum wage hikes, I totally agree that minimum wages are way too low. It’s a sign of how broken our economy has been for a long time. And I think it’s great that states are trying out different methods of increasing the minimum wages. I have never been opposed to trying out new things to see what works. And that is what this country was built to do, to allow cities and states to try out different things independent of the rest of the country in order to try to make life better for its citizens. The great experiment as it were. But I would not support doing such a thing at a federal level. Each state should be able to control these things on their own, and not only is their no reason for the federal government to intervene, but it would be bad if they did. In some areas, it is appropriate to raise wages artificially, although the best solution would be for them to have risen naturally. The fact that they have not risen is again a sign of serious flaws within our economy. But in other places, where their wages are more appropriate with the cost of living, forcing such areas to comply with a federal minimum wage well above their cost of living would be no good. Thus, I think the best thing to do would be tk proceed on the current path and watch to see what works and what doesnt.
I have seen first hand what artificial minimum wage increases can do. On the one hand, they provide a means to provide necessary income to those living in high cost areas, and is a blessing for many people. But it also drives away others who cannot afford to cope, and it also causes a destabilizing effect in the surrounding areas that do not change their wages, so a disparity develops and life becomes more difficult for those outside the area where wages are increased. We will have to wait to see how things Pan out long term. Hopefully for the better.
Now, back to the original discussion, it’s debatable whether artificial minimum wage increases are solely responsible for the majority of wage growth or not. Obviously increasing the minimum wage de facto causes wage growth for the lower percentiles, however those numbers don’t tell the full story. For example, if you have 100 people working at $10 an hour, and then you raise wages to $20 an hour, and as a result you have to shed a certain number of workers to make up for increased costs, then while the percentage wage growth may go up for the remaining workers, the other workers become unemployed and either have to find new work, or move, or remain unemployed. If they remain unemployed or go find a job making equal or less money then they used to make, especially if they moved, then either they get dropped from the statistics all together, since they are no longer making a wage, or they increased the perceived disparity because they moved from a high wage city which increased its own wages to a low wage city which did not increase its own wages. The ultimate effect on the statistical analysis is a double effect: you have less workers working for a higher wage in the cities that increased wages, leading to a higher percentage wage growth in those cities, and at the very same time you have increased numbers of people working in cities that didn’t increased wages artificially, potentially at a lower wage than previously, leading to a negative skewing of the data in cities that did not increase their wages artificially.
What’s more, depending on how many workers get laid off, the total amount of wages paid out could be more or less than original. If for example 40 of the original 100 workers is laid off, the total wages paid goes from $1000 at $10 an hour to $1200 at $20 an hour. If however 60 of the workers is laid off, the total wages paid out actually drops from $1000 to $800. So again, the numbers do not come close to the whole story, and I would have to study them in far greater detail to be able to make a particular judgement.
Overall however, I am neither endorsing nor opposing minimum wage hikes, merely pointing out how the data may not be always saying exactly what it appears to be saying.
In conclusion however, I think it’s safe to agree that things have been working out for the lower percentiles lately, and I think myself and those who have been the beneficiaries of those wage increases would like the trend to continue, and thus will continue to support president trump until such time as he fails to deliver to the people prosperity the likes of which has not been seen in a long long time.
@Twich22 Actually, the report I linked to does not bear out the idea that the lower wage earners are doing all that well under Trump. Since the table didn’t print, I’ll put a couple numbers here of annualized wage growth for the same periods listed in the table for the 10th percentile of earners:
2000-2019 -> 0.5%
2000-2007 -> 0.4%
2007-2019 -> 0.6%
2018-2019 -> -0.7%
The picture looks better at higher percentiles, where the 20-50th percentiles all show wage growth over the 2018-19 span.
Note, I didn’t say anything about a wage gap. This report notes several times that so-called “top-coding” makes it impossible with the official data they use to calculate much at the top end of the scale.
Insofar as this relates to Trump, I think it is actually quite important to understand whether low wage earners are doing better (if, indeed they are - see above numbers) because of state-level actions or federal policy. I’m not claiming one answer or the other, but it’s clearly not entirely anything at the federal level that’s driving low wage changes.
On a different note, I disagree that minimum wage increases are “artificial”. Ask yourself the question: who should be paying for things that low wage earners need? Should companies (Walmart, cough cough) be able to subsidize their corporate profits by paying their employees less and relying on our tax dollars to make up the difference? Or should a company that cannot make ends meet by paying their employees a living wage remain in business? Put another way, if a business can’t charge its customers enough to pay its employees properly, I submit that said business should go bankrupt.
@klezman As to the data, the two sets of data that you and I have cited clearly do not line up. The only way to clear such a dispute would be to figure out why the numbers do not match up, and what the real numbers actually are.
As for the “artificial” thing, I just add that in to make it distinct from natural wage growth. Normally wages grow because of supply/demand forces, not because some politician decides to make it so. Thats all that i mean by “artificial”. it is not meant to be derogatory, merely informative. There is a distinction between wages that naturally inflate and wages that are legeslated higher. as I said, its a sign of a sick economy that wages have not naturally inflated over the last 40 years, and is one of the most important causes of disenfranchisement in america. If we were able to isolate the cause for this problem, we might be able to solve it and get back to prosperity.
Disputes aside, Donald Trumps number one campaign goal and promise has always been to improve wages for americans of all walks of life. All of his economic policies put this goal as number one in terms of objectives. So while I am fine arguing the details of what policies caused what changes to whom, most people who are the benificiaries of these changes, if indeed wages have grown at acceletated rates lately, will thank the president for these wages because he has always promised to make it so. And I find it difficult to believe that all of his efforts have not had a fairly significant positive effect. As would almost anyone who votes for the president.
Also, as an aside, I pointed out the discussion about wage gap not to dispute something you said, but to throw doubt on the sincerity and intent of the source you cited. It makes me think twice about the source im reading when they focus on an agenda that is not academically one that a normal statistician would necessarily focus on. Thus, it gives rise to the possibility of slight or significant bias in the source.
@Twich22 It was just the first link I found that seemed to be a proper study of the issue. I, like you, cannot speak to the details of the analysis.
As one who works with data for a living, I know that one can often slice and dice data to come up with a result they want to talk about. That’s generally dishonest. I see no such motive in the report I linked, as it covers a pretty wide variety of wage growth issues over the last 40 years.
its a sign of a sick economy that wages have not naturally inflated over the last 40 years, and is one of the most important causes of disenfranchisement in america. If we were able to isolate the cause for this problem, we might be able to solve it and get back to prosperity.
This I agree with. Although there are many economists and analysts who have done the work of trying to isolate many of these factors. Near the top is the outside gap in remuneration to those at the top of the corporate ladder vs the rest of the company. When the official goal of a corporation is to deliver maximum returns for its shareholders (public or private - and enforced by myriad lawsuits) then the pressure is naturally to pay as little as possible to your workers. That is a dominant force in wage growth issues. With the economy increasingly out of line with the markets, the signals that used to keep these things in check appear to no longer be working.
EPI’s statement about themselves: EPI is an independent, nonprofit think tank that researches the impact of economic trends and policies on working people in the United States. EPI’s research helps policymakers, opinion leaders, advocates, journalists, and the public understand the bread-and-butter issues affecting ordinary Americans.
And about the report’s author: Elise Gould joined the Economic Policy Institute in 2003. Her research areas include wages, poverty, inequality, economic mobility, and health care. She is a co-author of The State of Working America, 12th Edition. Gould authored a chapter on health in The State of Working America 2008/09; co-authored a book on health insurance coverage in retirement; has published in venues such as The Chronicle of Higher Education, Challenge Magazine, and Tax Notes; and has written for academic journals including Health Economics, Health Affairs, Journal of Aging and Social Policy, Risk Management & Insurance Review, Environmental Health Perspectives, and International Journal of Health Services. Gould has been quoted by a variety of news sources, including Bloomberg, NPR, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, and her opinions have appeared on the op-ed pages of USA Today and The Detroit News. She has testified before the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, Maryland Senate Finance and House Economic Matters committees, the New York City Council, and the District of Columbia Council. Gould received her Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
(as a foreword, I just want to note that this is one of the reasons I dont generally like to get involved in these types of debate over the internet. The burden of proof becomes so onerous that it just takes too much time. If we were talking in real life, it would take a matter of minutes. Instead, it can take a long, long time on the internet. like, way too long. But I actually learned quite a bit in the process so im not entirely upset about it)
In response to what you said, a statement about the company made by the company itself is not something I would use to judge the merits of said company. And I care little for the credentials of an individual, and credentials also do little to ensure that their motives are honest. But regardless, I only wanted to note that reading the article gave me warning signs that I could not disregard. I did not look into it, so I cannot actually make a claim one way or another.
The user interface is a bit cumbersome, but actually provides a lot of data once you get used to it.
The first table and graph is Median weekly earnings among all workers in current dollars.
Okay, so we see steady increase. Big deal.
But heres where things start to get interesting. Next I looked at the same value, Median usual weekly earnings, but this time in constant (1982-84) dollars. At first when I looked at the numbers, They all looked the same to me. It seemed like wages had not changed at all after you adjusted for inflation.
But then I learned how to use the graph, function, and once I graphed it I saw that there was, indeed, a not insignificant increase in median weekly earnings when adjusted for inflation.
Wow. Just look at that. That picture speaks a thousand words in my mind. Now granted, this is just median income were talking about, not lowest 10%. Still, When you adjust it for inflation, the result is quite staggering. Whats more, when you start looking further back in time it tells an even more interesting tale!
This next graph is the same data, median weekly income adjusted for inflation to constant 1982-1984 dollars, except in includes data all the way back to 1979.
I was truly shocked when I saw this. I was skeptical about my own facts after reading what you posted. To be honest, im not even exactly sure how to interpret this. But in general, it shows that indeed there has been terrible wage stagnation since at least 1979, as we are well aware of, but it also shows that things have begun to change since around 2015 and have accelerated greatly in the last 2 years. We were on an amazing trajectory until covid hit. I dont know about you, but I think this is pretty cool. It does not prove much about who’s policies are responsible for such a dramatic change. But it does prove that there has been a significant change from the status quo, and as I said, I believe many people will thank the president for such a change, as that has been his number one platform.
I am going to continue sleuthing through the data and see if I can drudge up info on the bottom 10% or 25%, etc. But Its gonna take me a while to post more, might not happen till tomorrow. In the mean time I’ll let people digest what I have posted.
@Twich22 The report I linked uses the same data that you’re plotting. I just reported annualized change while you’re looking at an indexed version, which is (more or less) a cumulative measure. You can find these plots basically replicated in the paper I linked as figure E. The conclusion the author drew (fwiw) is that real wages only grew during periods of very tight labour markets. At least all can agree at that point, that being unable to find employees at a lower wage will lead to a higher wage. Some economics still works.
Who’s responsible for the tight labour market, as told by the proxy for who was in the Oval Office at the time? In this case, Clinton, Obama, and Trump.
The plot for the bottom 90% of workers is Figure D and shows the same story. Figure F shows something more like what you want - same cumulative percentage change (which is more important than actual dollar amounts) across time. It shows that until 2015 the 10th and 50th percentiles were basically in lockstep with each other until 2015, when the 10th percentile actually outperformed the 50th. (It also shows the 90th and 95th percentiles dramatically outperforming the median, putting the lie to the old saying that a rising tide lifts all boats.) They also do a bunch of subgroup analysis, which certainly is useful for informing policy decisions, but I’ll not go down that rabbit hole.
I’m happy to be in a spot where two people can at least agree on the facts and derive/debate different meanings from them.
@klezman Thanks for the info. I will take a closer look at the article you posted when I have more time.
As to the rising tide lifts all boats, Obviously its not that when the top rises the bottom also rises, but its pretty fair to say that, in general, you cannot get a rising bottom without an also rising top. and now we have come full circle, we are back to the whole “wage-gap” argument, which I basically said was a red-herring. Its, in my opinion, silly to focus on what the tops doing. The only concern should be on what the bottoms doing, and the top can sort itself out.
With the stagnation of the last 40 years, obviously the disparity is going to be enormous. Which is the main reason that donald trump was elected, as I keep saying, and also the reason that he will win tomorrow. And, as I said, the last graph I posted shows an amazing story. It shows that the last 2 years have been true outliers, far outperforming any year in the last 40. I would like to see that continue for the next 4 years and see where we end up.
Also you left Reagan out of your list of presidents.
@Twich22 the years of real wage growth were 1994-1999 and 2014-2019 according to that analysis. That’s Clinton, Obama, and Trump.
I’m also not making an argument about a wage gap. It was just an interesting aside since that report discussed it.
@klezman looking at the last graph I posted, you seem to be talking about wages reaching levels previously unsurpassed. No doubt an important value, but, void of context, meaningless. Since it all depends on your starting point, as we are all well aware of given What happened in 2008, it’s fair to say that real wage growth does not tell the whole story.
@Twich22 Yes please. It may have sounded like a good idea 35 years ago to criminalize all this, but with the experience under our belts it’s clearly bad policy.
@klezman I tend to agree. I am generally all for allowing the individual to choose their own destiny, even if that destiny is to do drugs. But I have trouble coming to grips with the fact that there is little gray area between decriminalizing drugs and legalizing the death of your citizens at the hands of drugs. Should we allow the government to sell the drugs to its own people? And if not, how does it even make sense? These are the questions I struggle with. However, I do wish we had better education programs to prevent people from becoming addicted to drugs. It’s pathetic that we do not. I have seen the effects of substance abuse first hand on hundreds of people and more. It’s a horrible fate. I just wish we had better ways of managing it. Perhaps Oregon will find a way.
@Twich22@klezman There are actually important competing interests here. On the individual liberty side, I’m very much in favor of letting adults do what they please with respect to drugs.
I am not in favor of allowing minors (and the definition of a minor is debatable) to use drugs before they are old enough to make a responsible decision about drug use.
There is a very difficult question about whether and how the state should intervene to protect children if their parents abuse drugs. On balance, I probably come down on the side of removing children from adults who abuse drugs to the point that it harms the children - easy in theory, the practice is difficult. I’m not sure the state should be the one to care for children so removed, it’s track record is terrible. Religious and private charities have a better record, but there are issues there as well.
Then we get to the elephants in the room: who should be responsible for paying for medical care of the health conditions that result from drug abuse? And, should those who abuse drugs be eligible for government benefits for housing, disability, or welfare of any kind?
To both of these questions I answer an emphatic NO. The law abiding taxpayers whose behavior with respect to drugs is socially responsible should not under any circumstances be required to subsidize the medical care or any other sort of benefit provided by federal, state or local government. If you believe in the freedom to choose to behave irresponsibly, the flip side of that is you should also take the view that those who do are responsible for ALL of the consequences of thir choices.
I qualify that only with the view that voluntary private charity to assist those who behave irresponsibly is permissible, and might even be regarded as a superogatory act. But it must be voluntary on the part of those who donate time and money. And the charity must have the right to set whatever conditions it chooses on the provision of assistance.
It’s a little like immigration: if you have a welfare state, you should very, very picky about who you let into your country and who can become a citizen and enjoy the benefits of that welfare state. No one who will be a net burden on the society or who will not assimilate to the language and civic and moral values of the country. On the other hand, if you have no public welfare state, and only voluntary private charity, then pretty much open immigration (subject to health condition and subject to excluding those who are potentially subversive) as we had before the Chinese Exclusion Acts and before birthright citizenship for aliens, makes much more sense.
@klezman@rpm you bring up a lot of good points. I agree that, generally speaking the government should not be involved in charity. That is an individual decision. However, I think the Oregon solution is an interesting one, namely that those who are caught using drugs or in possession of drugs may pay a fine or attend rehabilitation. Depending on how the math works out, the rehabilitation programs may be able to pay for themselves with the amount of money brought in via fines. Which could be an interesting solution.
@klezman@Twich22 But the abusers still receive government benefits, including in many cases Oregon’s equivalent of medicaid, disability and welfare benefits. Just no.
@rpm hmm, I understand where you are coming from, we dont want to be paying people to do drugs. But at the same time, are you saying that drug users should receive less benefits than every other citizen is entitled to? I am not sure I would agree with that position. We should not be subsidizing drug use, but neither should we be unequally punishing those who abuse drugs. I think they should be entitled to what all citizens are entitled. Just because they use drugs does not mean they are scum. However, we can certainly argue about what exactly the benefits are that should be entitled to citizens. Its a fine line to walk I guess. I think the best solution is to invest in programs that prevent drug abuse in the first place, and programs that help people to stop abusing. A safety net if you will. Who knows, maybe some day one of my family members will end up abusing drugs, and I would want some kind of safety net for them if that happened.
@rpm@Twich22 I’ve been marinating on this topic a fair amount recently. I don’t like recreational drugs. Never used any of them (unless you include alcohol and caffeine.) I think pot is a gateway drug (I’ve seen it personally, don’t waste your time showing me studies for or against my opinion.) I don’t think people should do drugs, but should they also wind up in prison for usage? And if so, why don’t all the users wind up there? But then, when you decriminalize drugs you could end up with Amsterdam. But maybe there is a middle way (beyond the obvious solution of parents raising their children in a loving home and teaching them about making good choices.) Perhaps employers could make decisions about hiring based on drug screening (even if it were legal, they could still choose not to hire users), penalties for infractions while under the influence could be onerous (suspended driver’s license for first time infraction) and the price of health care could be higher (already happens for tobacco users.) Perhaps it is even possible to continue to enforce statues against drug dealing while allowing users to use. Enforcing consequences for anti-societal behaviors might reduce the pressure on prisons, remove an apparent source of societal disparity and prevent chronic abusers from using more than their fair share.
Of course, this discussion of the ‘how’ ignores the questions of ‘why’. Why do people choose to abuse drugs? Why did an ‘opioid epidemic’ happen, why was there a meth epidemic some years ago, cocaine/crack before that, etc? Perhaps understanding why those people were abusing drugs will inform policy to remove the allure. Or maybe I’m just naive.
@KitMarlot as to the why, its a combination of a lot of things, but most importantly our failed economy and failed education system. Fixing those things will help to fix the root cause of the problem. But I think we all can agree that Drug use has been increasingly becoming a major issue in this country, and we need to find new and better ways to deal with it. Doing nothing at this point is really not a good option.
@Twich22 I’m not saying less benefits per se (of course we can discuss what benefits should be generally available, but that’s another question…), but that conditions specifically (though not entirely) resulting from drug use should not be paid for. And, if they can’t hold a job or pay the rent because of their drug use, there are not jobless benefits or subsidized housing.
@KitMarlot@Twich22 The gateway drug issue is real, but why is it that some (many?) people can smoke some pot, even experiment with hallucinogens, and snort some cocaine, in their late teens and 20s, eventually give it up and live perfectly responsible lives, and for others (many?) it really does seem that they tried some pot and either totally freaked out (anecdotal: a kid in my HS class, not a close friend, but a friend, went off to college ~55 years ago, smoked pot a few times, had a psychotic episode and was never even close to right after that - couldn’t do school, hold a job, etc. ended up on disability - don’t know what happened when his folks passed away, but he’s been gone some years now…) or they do pot and move on to more and more potent drugs as they slide down the slippery slope into addiction and degeneration. It really is a mystery.
@KitMarlot@rpm medically speaking, it’s no doubt that marijuana can be a dangerous drug, and can result in psychological issues in some which can be completely disabling. That’s why I think we need better education on these things, people need to be aware of the risks involved, and I think for the most part people are not really aware of these risks. These risks are especially potent for those who are not full adults and have not fully developed in terms of brain architecture. Now the age at which someone is “mature” enough to smoke marijuana is up for debate, but in some cases people may not be fully developed even into their mid to late 20’s.
I also agree that it’s clearly a gateway to harder drugs. I don’t think that is a realistically debatable point. I struggled with issues in my youth myself, mostly with alcohol but the end result is the same. From my own experience, people turn to drugs, with increasing frequency and increasing severity, such as harder drugs, when they have nothing better to do. That’s why I said that the education system and the economic system has failed these people who go on to be persistent drug abusers. They were not given the chance to bloom into a full adult and take on the responsibilities of adulthood because the system is so out of balance.
@KitMarlot@Twich22 It’s not fashionable to talk about, but I think individual character has something to do with it as well. I understand that everyone has predispositions, etc., but I am really uncomfortable with making everything about a lack of education or a lack of opportunity, or … or anything else that is not the fault of the individual. At some point, you have to accept that individuals are responsible for their own behavior, regardless of how they got there. Building character isn’t necessarily easy, and it’s certainly not all about fun.
There are plenty of rich kids who have had every opportunity and resource in the world, and every educational resource known to humanity, and still become drug abusers and/or low life scum. And plenty (well, at least a not insignificant number) of kids from the ‘wrong side of the tracks’ who develop solid characters, avoid abuse of drugs, and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Rich (meaning upper-middle and higher class) kids rarely have to endure the consequences of their actions in youth, poor (meaning lower-middle and lower class) kids are often stuck with the consequences and end up permanently adversely affected by a pregnancy, drug arrest, or addition behaviors. It’s not right, but there it is.
The lack of lee way the middle and lower classes have is a major reason why the ‘strictures’ of traditional middle class values of honesty, hard work, abstemiousness, thrift, and monogamous marriage are so important for them to build stable lives.
@KitMarlot@rpm yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am all about the character of the person, and some people do not develop the right character to pull themselves out of the pits of substance abuse.
That all being said, the government play little if any role in those sorts of things. From a policy position I cannot think of something that would help prevent drug abuse from destroying lives due to character flaws, besides educating people. However, society can play a role in promoting a productive environment. Let’s do a mini thought experiment to emphasize.
Say I’m a drug abuser and one day I grow tired of it and decide I want to pull myself out of the gutter and start a normal life again. If my economic and societal environment is one of high unemployment, low wages, expensive education, no support for rehabilitation, and lots of free shit from the government, then I’m going to have a pretty damn hard time pulling myself out of the gutter no matter what my character is or how much I want to change. However, on the flip side, if you lower those barriers to kicking the drug habit by providing a stable economy, lots of jobs with an amazing worker supply/demand environment, resources to help those trying to change, cheap education that leads to real skills that can be used immediately in a well paying job, then it becomes significantly easier for people to pull themselves out of the gutter.
Now I’m not saying that maybe they never should have gotten into that gutter in the first place, but I am saying that I believe in second chances, and I believe that people CAN change for the better, learn from their mistakes, and become productive members of society.
So it’s these things that I advocate for, even though as you say the individual should always take responsibility for their actions, and I strongly believe in that value. I do not think it’s appropriate to blame society for your problems, however I do think that society can play a role in helping you to solve them.
@KitMarlot@rpm@Twich22 I agree with much of what you all have said, and I also believe in fostering character in your kids, in individual responsibility, and in returning to a society that values two-parent families. (I know, from a left of centre guy! I kid…I kid…)
A very important issue, though, is the settled science that addiction is primarily a medical problem, not a character problem (edge cases and exceptions, of course, apply). There may be some people who can just pull themselves out of it, but most cannot. It’s like depression, if people think depression just means “not being happy”. It’s a disease and needs to be treated as such, but as with diseases that manifest in psychology/psychiatry, part of the treatment means giving those people tools to deal with the cards they’ve been dealt by genetics.
@KitMarlot@Twich22 I’m not against second chances, but the larger question is how much should those who behave responsibly be forced to pay to provide those chance, and how may chances should be provided… 3rd? 4th? And, of course, general economic policy matters.
@klezman genetics play a role in all aspects of life. That does not excuse people from their actions. As humans we have been granted the power to have self control over our actions, a power to change our destiny. To simply chalk it up to genetics provides people a false out from taking responsibility for their actions, and that is an unacceptable position to take, especially as a medical professional. Just as in most things in life, despite genetics, you are still responsible for your actions, and you need to take responsibility for those actions. Some things in life are out of your control, but if you just stop there and throw your hands up and say “whelp, its genetics”, then you have robbed yourself or another from the power within you to take charge and change your life. No, that is not okay.
That doesnt mean people dont need help, of course they do. But any medical professional knows that if a person does not want to help themselves, then no amount of doctoring will lead to that person rising from their own ashes. To tell anyone that they were destined to their current situation is to literally rob them of the will to escape that situation. Its a terrible perspective to take, and i wont tolerate it. And that applies for mental health as much as it does for drug abuse or any other struggle. Its okay to acknowledge when there are things out of ones control, but its not okay to absolve someone of all responsibility when they are not without any responsibility.
I also disagree with the idea of settled science. That term is an oxymoron, and only serves to say to another person “im right and you cannot prove otherwise”. Its absurd, any scientist worth their salt knows that science is an ever changing and ever evolving entity, and that any scientist who implicitly believes that anything is inherently settled has already failed to be a scientist, even the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow.
@Twich22 You misinterpret what I said. Understanding that genetics predisposes some people to addiction neither takes things out of their control nor absolves them of their actions. It’s simply recognizing that there are factors that are out of one’s control and that affects how one needs to address the issue.
As for the concept of “settled science”, you could not be more wrong. It does not mean one cannot later prove something wrong, but it does mean that the evidence is in, and the amount of evidence needed to prove something false (literally the only thing science can do) increases. Unless you’re saying that basic physics and evolution are not settled.
@klezman I think most people do not understand science, and take things way out of perspective. Most of today’s “settled” science is little more then pseudoscience and statistics that have been taken out of context and then used to make a claim. They then call it settled science and thats it. What a joke.
Whats more, theres this emerging religion of “science” that people are begining to worship these days. Its really the modern day hucksters, people claiming to have scientific proof for things based on data or studies they have done. But a study showing a statistically significant result these days is just as likely to be incorrect as it is to be correct. Perhaps its even more likely to be incorrect as it is to be correct. So to place any amount of faith in such science is foolish, and no scientist worth their salt should do so. With enough money, I could pay a company to perform a study and end up with whatever results I want. I could call it settled science, and then sell whatever product I wanted using my new science, and then all the people who follow my science would buy my product. Hucksters.
Elections got me all fired up. What I really mean is that people, almost a majority of the time cite “science” when really what they are citing is a study, or a series of studies. They claim that these studies make their claim “settled” science. But logically that does not follow. There are a million ways for a study to get things wrong, and even more ways for people to misunderstand what a study actually means. They may confuse causality with correlation or not be able to understand how bias plays a role, etc etc. Whats more, as I said, its entirely possible to fabricate any study results you want these days, and then fabricate another study to verify your results. So, as I said to begin with, a scientist understands that study results ≠ “settled” science. That’s just a way to manipulate the ignorant into believing what you want them to believe. Thats not science.
@Twich22 I’m glad you saw the errors of your first post and revised. I am a scientist and engineer with a doctorate. I know how it works.
So yes, honest research is not always “correct” in the long run, but that’s why science rests on replication, and peer review usually does a good job of finding errors in study design/execution. Others may use the term incorrectly, but when I say “settled science” I mean something that has been replicated and stood the test of time. Nobody can say with a straight face that a single study leads to settled science.
You are incorrect that honest science could lead to fabricated results. We all know there are some dishonest people out there who make shit up, and they eventually get found out. Take Andrew Wakefield or that stem cell guy in China, for example.
As part of my work I investigate and model bias resulting from industry funding of studies. Like most things, it’s complicated. There is a definite bias from industry vs government funded studies in some areas, but in others it’s not there.
Any scientist worth their salt will acknowledge that contrary evidence must be accounted for in any theory. That’s how we got quantum mechanics and relativity, after all, once the limits of Newtonian physics became apparent. It didn’t mean Newton was wrong, but the scientific method is self correcting over time.
@klezman Im glad we agree. I think a particularly stark example of this today is the polling errors. Some people might consider the national presidential polls as settled science, claiming statistical significance and margins of error as proof. But clearly, we can all today agree, that they are no where close to settled, let alone science.
@Twich22 Nobody said interpreting polls is settled science! More of a dark art…
Conducting polls, however, has a rather robust literature behind it. Even if it leaves room for more than one method and the consequent quality differences in the results.
@klezman I know, I was just being obtuse as im wont to be. But it is an interesting topic. The fact that all the polls were so very wrong I think says a great deal about a great many things. And it does show how science can be very misleading for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is less than honest intentions. The wrong model leads to the wrong results, just as bad data leads to bad results. The list goes on.
Yet, often, there is no way to readily identify such flaws that I am aware of. I am sure you will argue that peer review and reproducibility ensure honest results, but I am quite dubious of even that these days. But if the intent is dishonest to begin with, its entirely possible that the verification process is also compromised, in which case you have verified science that is in fact wrong. Working in the field, what are your thoughts about my musings?
@Twich22
Peer review rests on the assumption of honest intent, which I think you know. It’s not meant to catch lying authors or manipulated results. It’s just not. Whether other processes should be implemented to try to catch these things is a good question, and the journals that have started doing that have been successful, as far as I know. A few image manipulators have been caught this way. It’s not a compromised verification process, because that’s not what the process is designed to do.
Honest scientists, which are the overwhelming majority, like 99.9%+, detest the dishonest ones. It’s a field that seeks truth, best as we can figure out, so it’s extra painful to see miscreants making stuff up.
But what you have to also always remember is the credo of replication. A single incorrect result (whether by honest mistake or ill intent) can’t move the needle that much. I build models that evaluate this exact issue, and the whole thing rests on consensus. (Sometimes there is no consensus.)
As for your musings on models, yes that’s right. The old aphorism “all models are wrong but some are useful” is the key. You have to ask the right question and you have to give the model an honest appraisal if it’s going to be useful.
As for the models the pollsters use, the inaccuracies seem to stem from two forces: a rather unusual election (particularly with turnout), and an electorate with fairly rapidly changing correlation between opinion and demographic. Models of human behaviour are way harder to get right than models of physical processes. We bags of mostly water are complex.
@klezman thanks for the info. Though I think you cut the pollsters way too much slack. They had the info from 2016, they could have used it, but they didn’t. That’s just willful ignorance, or perchance dishonest intent.
@Twich22 Disagree - they had the info, but didn’t know how to look at it. Having the polling data that wrong likely secured Trump the win, as well, because it could easily have depressed Democrat turnout because they thought they had it in the bag.
They were much more circumspect this time around. They also (especially sites like fivethirtyeight.com) spent a lot of time explaining how these things work and how to interpret the results.
I don’t understand why you are so quick to assume ill intent by most people. That’s by and large counter to my experience.
@rpm@Twich22 this separation feels impractical if their existence results in theft or a body in the street. Our lives are very interconnected and assessing whether someone is entitled to a benefit or not could easily be more expensive than providing it.
yes to government out of charity - remove all tax deductions.
I’m going to bungle this but…I can understand that from a small government perspective the effects of both the Rockefeller Laws and expansion of opioid/opiate distribution represent failures of intervention. However, since the ramifications from criminalizing (and over policing populations of color) AND addiction from pain management continue, it feels at best hypothetical to say that perhaps millions of people should be cut out from support.
I don’t understand the limited migration thing. We have an aged population which is not a wonderful fuel for economic engines.
I literally cannot make sense of your first paragraph.
To address what I think is part of your concern, the closer to the point of need those who make the decision on providing/not providing are, the lower the cost deciding – on at least one level that was an argument in favor of local charity rather than government poor relief or welfare at a state or national level. Those who actually know the mendicant have a much better idea of whether relief is warranted than some bureaucrat far away. From my perspective, there is no such thing as an individual entitlement to stuff from government.
Immigration is not just an economic issue, but on the economic side, no nation (and certainly not this one these days) is wealthy enough to give lots of free stuff to everyone who wants to come and have some.
In my mind, the non-economic argument is more important: you should not let anyone in (on a permanent basis, at least) who is not committed to assimilation into American society (which includes English fluency) and our fundamental political values as enshrined in our founding documents. We don’t need to import people who want to change the system.
But, I’m a bit of a curmudgeon on that point. My ancestors were among those who settled the colonies, fought in all of the colonies’/America’s wars from suppressing Bacon’s Rebellion forward through WWII, and who settled the West. I’m kind of attached to our republic, and I’m exceptionally unhappy about what’s become of it on multiple levels.
I should have better referenced the quandary of what to do with the people who exist in our system if not supported (ie - addicts who resort to theft or die of exposure).
On the economic point, the trade off between what immigrants take and give strikes me as more nuanced wrt their contributions. Clearly the thirst for labor has been an important driver in immigration patterns for a long time.
Separately, I suspect (perhaps incorrectly) that you would want the benefits of our republic generally to extend to those citizens or legal residents, as applicable. I do not think it is possible to do that without, in some cases, more government. To me it means doing all of the bureaucratic things like testing water, creating environmental standards so home/business pollution does not infringe on neighboring premises, having labor safety standards, making sure medical treatments/procedures are safe before made widely available, enfranchising those entitled to vote with access, etc.
These very bureaucratic responsibilities are often ignored without State/Federal enforcement, especially in working class and minority communities.
@canonizer@Twich22 I understand, but do not entirely share, your quandary.
There is no doubt that thirst for labor has been a driver of immigration - to a greater or lesser degree over the years. There is no reason why letting people in temporarily to provide labor cannot be managed successfully. My larger point is that the question about permanent admission should focus primarily on the ability of immigrants to assimilate - not a fashionable concept these days, but I remain with people like Teddy Roosevelt on this one: welcome anyone who will assimilate and accept our values, but there is no room for those who wish to bring the values of elsewhere (e.g. totalitarian political ideologies and religion) here -
On your larger point that providing benefits only to citizens requires more government, I would argue two things: first, government should not be in the business of providing so many ‘benefits’ and second, it should be up to the citizen to demonstrate his or her eligibility, not up to the government to sniff out cheaters.
settled science that god exists: mere days before an election that will be decided by the supreme court, a supreme court justice dies and is replaced by a conservative justice, giving just enough votes to tip the scales to one side. Thoughts?
@Twich22 Interesting, I’ve been reading lately about the benefits of psychedelic drugs and talking with God. However, I don’t think our SCOTUS wants us quite that close to God. An awareness of, but not too chummy.
@FritzCat@Twich22 I dunno…this Supreme Court has been pushing the country closer and closer to god. Developments that I am NOT fond of, regardless of the fact that I adhere to a religious tradition.
@FritzCat@klezman since we have been talking about statistics a lot, what do you think about the fact that Wisconsin voter turnout was 5 standard deviations above the mean?
@FritzCat@Twich22 Low probability != impossible
This is why discussions of statistics in the media are usually terrible. The general level of innumeracy and the lack of scientific literacy in the United States doesn’t help matters either.
@klezman@Twich22
Hey, if Toyota can do six sigma…
The air is pretty rarefied way up there!
I am impressed that we are finally getting out the vote.
And finally; yes, that is so statistically significant that one might suspect hanky panky.
@Twich22 I’ve not heard of this law, but I have heard of the phenomenon. I have a hard time seeing why it would apply to an election where it’s almost (but not quite) a zero sum game. But unless you describe exactly how those plots were derived I can’t comment on their accuracy - especially the level of aggregation being applied to the data. Not to mention what data - percentages or vote counts or something else.
@klezman I have not looked into the data either. who knows whether its accurate. I was more curious about whether this stuff would apply to an election or not.
So - I will candidly say that I’m in the dark about this statistical analysis. Could you clarify how it adjusts for batches of votes coming from different constituencies at different times? If this is saying that Biden’s vote is anomalous because the totals are so different in the last tranche of counted votes (ie mail-in ballots when Biden encouraged people to trust the system and Trump discouraged people from sending ballots) then I’m not sure I understand the value.
@canonizer@Twich22
Best I can tell, the statement is that many times, a naturally occurring bunch of numbers will tend to sort itself out rather asymmetrically if you only look at the first digit. There will be a lot more numbers starting with 1 than with 9, and the frequency appears to be roughly exponentially distributed.
How does that apply to voting? This is what I’m not sure of. Since the tweets above didn’t load for me, I can’t even see what the above analysis was attempting to do. But if you’re looking at partial returns, then obviously it’s an incomplete data set.
More importantly, though, I think is how the data are being organised in the first place. If you’re looking at vote counts at a precinct level you won’t get the same distribution as looking at percentage of the vote by state or even county level.
I understand how analysing data against this pattern can help detect fraud, but I still fail to see how it applies to an election.
Thanks - that’s sort of my point. It’s an incomplete set coming in arbitrarily. And subsequently there isn’t a reason to think a vote (as opposed to a set of phone numbers) should be a normal distribution.
@canonizer@Twich22 Actually, you picked a great example of something that doesn’t follow Benford’s Law. Phone numbers, especially within a small geographic area, are highly constrained and don’t follow that law.
(And I’ll nitpick that voting doesn’t follow a Normal distribution either.)
I don’t see any of these conditions from that article being met
Too many voters
They are talking about turnout in excess of 98%. We are in the mid 60s percentage.
A high turnout in specific areas
Has this been discussed? I haven’t seen any chatter but could have missed it.
Large numbers of invalid votes
There is no indication of invalidating large numbers of votes in this election.
More votes than ballot papers issued
Again, no evidence of this. I worked at a polling station in NY on Tuesday. We could check if someone in the County had already voted - there were lots of juniors and iii’s so we had to pay attention. There’s a whole subsequent round of reconciliation.
Results that don’t match
huh?
and, lastly,
Delay in announcing results
We normally don’t count every vote when the mail-ins/provisional/etc are outside the margin of victory. It’s taking longer to count them, not announce result.
All of this fear mongering (along with 4 years of norms breaking) feels very bad for our democracy. Trump’s undemocratic push to stop counting votes in areas moving blue and keep counting them in areas potentially moving red is awful. He is making future transfers of power more tenuous and rotting our republic from the inside.
Ok - I did not watch or read. The democrats literally spent the last 4 years trying to improve election security only to be thwarted by Dear Leader McConnell at every stage. And forgive me for not wanting to read something published by andmagazine after looking at their Trump Train Twitter.
Willard Cleon Skousen was an American conservative author and faith-based political theorist. A notable anti-communist and supporter of the John Birch Society, Skousen’s works involved a wide range of subjects including the Six-Day War, Mormon eschatology, New World Order conspiracies, and parenting.
… and this about the John Birch Society according to Wikipedia
Businessman and founder Robert W. Welch Jr. (1899–1985) developed an organizational infrastructure in 1958 of chapters nationwide. After an early rise in membership and influence, efforts by those such as conservative William F. Buckley Jr. and National Review, critics of the Society, pushed for the JBS to be identified as a fringe element of the conservative movement, mostly in fear of the radicalization of the American right.[9][10] More recently Jeet Heer has argued in The New Republic that while the organization’s influence peaked in the 1970s, “Bircherism” and its legacy of conspiracy theories has become the dominant strain in the conservative movement.[11] Politico has asserted that the JBS began making a resurgence in the mid-2010s,[12] and many political analysts from across the spectrum have argued that it shaped the modern conservative movement and especially the Trump administration.[13] Writing in The Huffington Post, Andrew Reinbach called the JBS “the intellectual seed bank of the right.”[14]
See that…conspiracy theories and the Trump Administration all in one paragraph… which begins us back to the election…
@Savagesam I see. Calling something a conspiracy makes it a conspiracy. Got it. I just found the flyer quite fascinating. Never seen it before. Thought others might find it interesting as well. I wouldnt call that a conspiracy.
The flyer was made up by, and attributed to, the “patriotic american youth”, an anti communist (whatever that means) high school group. They sound like the proto McCarthy propaganda youth brigade.
Well it might be very interesting. I wasn’t calling the document you presented a Conspiracy Theory.
More the Trump Administration’s handling of this Election… and unfounded claims he is making about the vote… but it’ll all be sorted out in the Courts.
@KitMarlot Of course, count every vote - but the election itself is outside the margin of victory. If the 8.9M outstanding votes were located in PA, GA, NC, NV and AZ instead of nationally it would be a different story. I’m not suggesting that States expedite certification.
I’m not sure I understand how/why anyone would defend Trump’s failure to concede the loss unless they were tired of the peaceful transfer of power. For all of the Mitch McConnell talk of the Democrat attempts to ‘invalidate the 2016 election’, they actually did the exact opposite - Hillary conceded that day and no one with standing ever suggested that Trump didn’t win the election*. They/Democrats/We/I did (and continue to) whine about the election system being anti-democratic.
If you wanted to point to FL in 2000, the entire election hinged on 1 State’s electorates. It doesn’t here.
*they believe he acted criminally while president and, for better or worse, impeached him, which should not be confused with invalidating an election.
That is absolutely not true. The allegations of fraud (under oath in many cases) are substantial enough that, if proven, the results in several swing states would be changed from the current media projections.
We shall see.
What we certainly won’t see is remotely fair reporting.
I have been observing national elections closely, and fraud allegations, since 1960 - the election which is widely acknowledged to probably have been stolen as a result of the Daley machine in Chicago and Johnson’s machine in parts of Texas. Nixon should have challenged those results, but didn’t. Orange Man Bad will not take it lying down like Tricky Dick did.
@canonizer@KitMarlot@rpm Which states in particular have credible allegations of fraud serious enough to swing their statewide votes back from Biden to Trump? Why has every judge that’s looked at these so far thrown them out of court?
I can’t get worked up over such a disingenuous challenge. It’s a shame about the country though. Encouraging people to assume fraud because votes are being counted after deciding not to count before election day is damaging.
@hershelk oh, I’m not. I think Trump’s efforts are four season landscaping worthy. He needs 115% of the outstanding vote in pa to take the state and that wouldn’t get him to 270.
simultaneously accepting the additional house seats while alleging voter fraud is unconscionable.
Y’all have fun here, now. From my perspective - and I’m not going to discuss it, just stating my view - the 2020 election has been stolen by voter fraud of many kinds. Most of you are fine with that because you like the result, or you are pretending it didn’t happen. Just as you are pretending the Biden family is not thoroughly corrupt. Things are only going to get much worse in this country - the economy will go down, taxes will go up, and liberty will be steadily eroded, and, if what the Democrats are saying about revenge against anyone who supported Orange Man Bad, and about “truth and reconciliations commissions” is to be taken seriously (hint, it is), political persecutions in this country will be at banana republic level. And, racial division will reach levels not seen since the Jim Crow era. I’m very sad. I’m very angry. And, there’s not a damned thing I can do about it.
@rpm I just don’t know how to square your belief that the election was stolen with the myriad statements by federal and state prosecutors, independent watchers, and every judge who has seen a case. I also don’t know how to square it with the fact that Republican candidates generally outperformed the polls and made some gains in the House.
Not trying to drag you into an argument, just stating my befuddlement.
As for politically-motivated prosecutions, I don’t share your belief that those will happen. But if they do then I would be just as angry as you.
@klezman Acknowledging you responded, but not going to engage. On wine, we can agree in large part. Politics, not so much - there’s just no basis for a discussion anymore.
@rpm I’m sorry you’re feeling that way. I don’t have strong feelings about the election, but I have a lot of friends and family who are very disappointed. I share some of your concerns about what is to come. I had different concerns about Trump, for what it’s worth.
@rpm What you say is true if Biden were to become president. I still do not think he has a chance of becoming president, and am quite optimistic that Trump will prevail, but there is still a long ways to go until we know for sure. Just hang in there for now and dont beat yourself up over what is not yet decided!
@rpm I’m sorry you see this election as transformative and fraudulent. For the former, I hope it feels moderate and on the latter, I hope whatever plays out in litigation is satisfactory.
I don’t think it’s productive to focus on the criminality of Biden’s family (brother or son (subject of an inquiry)) or Trump’s relatives now.
In any event, I’ll toast to a better 2021 and even better 22, eventually.
There are enough inconsistencies to where I am suspect, but I will watch this play out in the courts, and will follow the arguments.
I don’t expect the courts to ‘want’ to be involved in this, as I can’t recall a time where they’ve ever moved to overturn a ‘seeming’ result, unless the person in question was found guilty of a crime/felony. The burden of proof will be great, much more than usual, because it would show our system to be lacking in the internal safeguards that most take for granted.
I can see a myriad of ways that it could happen, very good evidence of some, but have to see the evidence, and how it all plays out. Like it or not, I may just be stuck with the result, and will remain an American regardless; not the first time. I do feel a greater concern, now though, that people who truly do not understand, will place a burden on us, themselves, and our future, that we may never recover from. It’s like the old saying: ‘Be careful of what you wish for…’
@rpm No idea if this is any good or not, or their veracity, but the maps are astounding.
I will still watch this play out, but if there is any wrongdoing in our election process, they need to be addressed, and the perpetrators prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law, regardless of which side is doing it.
This guy was trying to get himself nominated for mayor, it sounds like. And presumably the mail in ballots he tried to get would have been used to vote for himself.
The defendants were trying to get the registrar’s office to send them mail in ballots for the fake voters. No votes were ever actually cast. The registrar caught on quickly and flagged the applications so nobody actually voted.
Usually, the argument against this, is that those without the means to afford a state ID, would be left out.
If we can hand out $1200 to each American citizen because of the pandemic, we could certainly afford to underwrite the cost of an ID to those (verified) that can’t afford it.
If elections are that special, I think that we should verify that only those eligible can vote.
@CroutonOllie@rjquillin@rpm believe it or not, I mostly agree with you on the identification thing. If States can guarantee that all of their citizens can easily get a photo ID then requiring them for elections makes sense.
Sadly, too many states don’t make it easy to get ID and there are a surprisingly large number of people who don’t have the documentation required. I was shocked to learn that, but so it goes. Apparently it’s a hard problem to solve when people get stuck in a loop of not having the requisite identification to get the other needed piece of identification.
@CroutonOllie@rjquillin@rpm how many more not identified? You know you can’t prove a negative…
Every investigation ever done finds extremely low rates of either voter or election fraud, though.
@CroutonOllie@klezman@rpm
So, if they (potential legal voter) can’t be identified, how can it be determined if they are legally entitled to vote? A rather basic question I would think.
@CroutonOllie@rjquillin I can’t tell if you’re willfully missing the point or are that unaware of the problems many (mostly poor) people have in getting photo identification.
@CroutonOllie@klezman@rjquillin
I would surmise that every election in our history, as well as all future elections, will have a non-zero (borrowing some recent legalese) level of accidental (human error) and intended (fraudulent behavior) error. But going back to the original premise of this post, why should we consider the 2020 election as being uniquely fraudulent/erroneous that we as the electorate should invalidate the results? As counties and states audit/certify the votes, there will certainly be some issues identified. However I have seen no analysis/proof that these issues are so unique, widespread and one-sided (I never have understood the assumption that errors/fraud only happens in favor of Democratic candidate) that there must be an organized effort to defeat Trump. One of the benefits of state/county controlled elections is that it makes such organized widespread fraud very difficult, especially without any evidence. Is the theory that this election had so many corrupt individuals acting on their own that a sufficient number got past the established election systems to change the results? Again, these same individuals still kept Republicans in control of the Senator and gained seats in the House and Governors.
@CroutonOllie@rjquillin I’m a practical guy. I agree with the principle, so there’s little to debate. There are implementation issues and difficulties that need to be solved so that eligible voters are not disenfranchised. I presume that you are not in favour of disenfranchisement.
So let’s put it into practice. Figure out all the issues with it, solve them, get a prize, and we can all move on.
@CroutonOllie@klezman@rjquillin on ID - I’m all for removing barriers such as forcing people to go to a rarely open office far away… I’m not in favor of relaxing documentation requirements. Make it easier to obtain copies of your official documents if you’ve lost them, but absolutely require certified copies of a birth certificate or a passport (which required a birth certificate to get) and/or naturalization papers if not native born (or legally acknowledged equivalents). The idea is that to register to vote one must be able to prove US citizenship. Without the documents, the presumption is you are not a citizen. Sorry. I’d also require English proficiency - no voter forms in any other language. Yes, there may be legal citizens who don’t speak English, but if you want to participate in our English-speaking government, you should have to be competent in English. [possible exceptions for native Americans]
@rpm I largely agree - making the original documents easier to get would be an important step.
Don’t most states already require proof of citizenship to register? I thought it was only about needing it physically at the polls.
The “system” here continues to confuse me.
@CroutonOllie@klezman@rjquillin@rpm It strikes me as the only effective way to do this would be a national system, which would likely create a furor about national id numbers etc. That seems like a step away from alleviating States of the burden of administering elections.
Also, there are places where it is legal to register but could be a crime to vote depending on the person’s level of enfranchisement (eg convicted felons in FL). I’m sure there are a host of other contradictions depending on where one resides.
Are most conservatives convinced the election was stolen? Or is the majority waiting for investigations, lawsuits, and recounts to play out first? Or is it just obvious to those on the right that enough fraud occurred in enough places that a legitimate Biden win is not possible?
@hscottk obvious that the fraud was overwhelming. Numbers don’t lie. But moving such a thing through the legal system is a different matter entirely. It seems hard to imagine a scenario where Biden gets away with such an illegitimate election, although its not impossible, especially given the fact that such widespread fraud could ever even occur in the first place.
@hscottk@Twich22 Still confused as to where the fraud allegations are coming from. Literally everything that’s gone in front of a judge so far has been thrown out.
@hscottk@Twich22 what numbers are lying? Is it the popular vote that has Biden leading by ~5% or, despite that, the Republicans taking back a substantial number of House seats.
Trump is challenging in every state. Barr is enabling him by allowing for challenges ahead of state certification. If there is a case to be made that fraud affected the election, they will make it.
For all of that, I personally believe the allegations are fiction. Some states were not allowed to count mail ballots ahead of election day but that’s why the total count has taken longer to complete, keeping in mind that Biden encouraged mail in voting and Trump encouraged people to show up day of. These purported numerical anomalies don’t exist.
And impugning the work of bi partisan and non partisan poll employees/volunteers is a disappointing tactic. We spend so much of our own time carrying out the election and following commission regulations.
@canonizer@fritzcat@klezman With all due respect, I was really hoping to hear from conservatives who support Trump. Thanks @twich22 for the response. Would love to hear from others. Just trying to understand how much distrust and division exists right now. It feels like virtually all Trump supporters feel this way, but I could be wrong.
@canonizer@FritzCat@hscottk@Twich22 I’m in the same boat. I’m particularly keen to understand how these voting or election fraud allegations have come into being. The distrust and division seems at record highs.
I hear there have been some predictions of the future that have been disagreed with.
In case any of the disagreeing parties want to put their monies where their mouths are, I offer this unattributed quote:
longbets.org is a site recording long-term (several year) public bets
about the future between different people. Lots of famous people like
Steven Pinker and Eric Schmidt have entries, though it seems to accept
bets by regular people too. Betting against Warren Buffett looks like
just as bad an idea as you would think.
From a fiscally conservative, socially liberal person (my ballot consistently is split between parties), I continue to be amazed that so many people believe in this widespread fraud conspiracy theory (I have seen no proof). How does this theory work? It only applies to ballots in states that democrats won and doesn’t apply to states where conservatives picked-up/held senate, house, governor, and state legislative seats?? There is this secret/“deep state” group somewhere that can be so organized that they are able to secretly change, throw away, create (whatever you want to claim) ballots across so many states/counties just so Trump doesn’t win?? If this group was so good, you would think they could figure out that they needed to rig votes to flip the Senate to Democratic control.
Just maybe more Americans voted no to the Trump Administration and the division he sows, but wanted to keep split government,
Do people blindly believe this theory just because Trump and his administration says so, with no proof? This theory comes from the person that pushed the Obama birth certificate theory, claimed there were 3 million fraudulent votes last election (which the person he personally selected to investigate could not prove), said his inauguration was the most attended ever, and rejects science when it comes to wearing masks to protect our fellow Americans. I wish those that believe that this election was rigged and stolen, would actually produce proof/evidence that actually holds up in a court of law.
@rjquillin Interesting article, and I’ve seen other similar articles. It is still a big leap to go from a statistical oddity to believe there was fraud/corruption in our election system.
If there is evidence of potential fraud, then this bears more consideration. But without the evidence, then this election can simply be an outlier from a statistical standpoint, which happens all the time. Heck, is it unreasonable to state that this election was already an outlier in terms of turnout? Does the increased voter turnout change the predictably of these counties? Also, are these counties primarily suburban, urban, rural or a representative mix? How does that impact predictably of these counties based on this year’s turnout? It would be interesting to see more analysis on how/why these bellwether counties missed the winner versus jumping to the conclusion that it means widespread fraud.
@Twich22 This is basically a table presentation of the previously posted article, not adding any new information. As I said before, outliers in statistics happen all the time and it’s still a big jump to go to widespread fraud without proof. I googled to see if anyone had analyzed this data relative to voter turnout this year, but I couldn’t find anything. If someone has, I would be interested in reading.
@dirtdoctor It looks like people have a tendency to vote for incumbents and older, whiter counties would be even more likely to vote for Trump. Some states that used to lean red now lean blue and vice versa. The historical correlative value of these counties does not overwhelm me.
I guess I’m tired of waiting for any help learning more about the purported fraud and will try to keep my maw closed.
@canonizer@dirtdoctor
These bellwether counties also don’t account for the massive demographic shifts we’ve seen over the last several years. People have been moving to cities more and more, people leaving California and other liberal-leaning areas have been settling in places that have been redder before. The people who make up the electorate also change by growing older and such while others come in at age 18.
So yeah, might be a statistical outlier. Might be a sign of shifting political coalitions. Might be a sign of changes in voter turnout. So many explanations that are far simpler than a fraud perpetrated nationwide when thousands of counties each have their own system.
@rpm I’m just going to drop this here with you in mind. Yes, it applies to you.
Trying to imagine what the outcry from Republicans would be if two Black, Democratic canvassing board members tried to stop white, rural counties’ votes from being certified because they have suspicions about how the votes there got tallied.
The fact is, EVERY place where this B.S. is going on is a black voter stronghold. Philadelphia. Detroit. Milwaukee. When Trump and the GOP say they only want “legal” votes counted, what they are dog whistling is they only want white votes counted. Why else would Monica Palmer agree to certify all the communities EXCEPT Detroit, which had a better accuracy in its poll books than a neighboring white area?
While it’s amusing to see Rudy Giuliani crap himself in the courtroom and Trump lose case after case, we have to remember one thing: This is the largest, serious and well-funded effort to disenfranchise and delegitimize Black and Brown votes since Jim Crow laws were passed. We have to push back on it, call it out for what it is, and pass laws to make sure they can’t insert these kinds of dangerous, partisan and racist roadblocks ever again.
This … this is why conservatives are crying foul. Everything is “Racist” to Liberals when that has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!
You want to talk racism, let’s talk about the repeated racism from the Democrat Party, where someone “can’t be Black” unless they vote Democrat.
The divide is also there because the Left have people taking names and threatening future consequences, as well as our Constitutional rights, over feelings and false numbers.
Unite us? Biden is going to divide us even more. !
I don’t remember selecting email notifications for this thread but I should really turn them off.
@Twich22 These townships purported to be in Michigan are actually in Minnesota because Ramsland is an incompetent partisan hack.
I’m sick of this. No actual evidence of fraud has made its way into court, which is why Trump has lost every legal battle, fired Powell and allowed (a)gsaemily to initiate the transition; it’s because he lost. He lost a fair election, which was fairly counted.
Unless FL or TX flips, Republicans will continue to do well in future elections because our republic’s rules and regulations. Notwithstanding the reestablishment of the “blue wall”, this is likely a brief hiatus in the inevitable march towards a Republican republic, financed with so-called “coastal elite” money.
If I were a devout republican, I would be focused on the GA senate races. The real win for the GOP was proving that it could turn out an unprecedented number of voters. Without Trump’s name on the ticket, I would not be confident of their showing up. I am similarly uneasy, as a bleeding heart, of the Dem turnout in January.
@canonizer also, the data you are referring to is taken from the Michigan Secretary of State. So either the data has townships from out of state in it and is inaccurate, which if true needs to be looked into, or there are simply townships with the same name in both Michigan and Minnesota.
@Twich22 Please read @savagesam below. The information did not come from Michigan - it came from Texas data analyst Ramsland who transposed MN townships with those in MI and incorrectly tabulated the anticipated voter turnout.
My feeling is that by grasping at fabricated straws, Republicans are making future fraud more likely.
@canonizer@Savagesam you are right, looks like this guys an idiot? Nonetheless, some of what the affidavit is talking about are things that will be coming out in court. For those who want a preview.
@Twich22
I did not read the entire article, just skimming through most of it. My takeaway is the author is arguing that large groups of vote totals had significantly higher ratios of Biden votes than would be expected, and therefore must be evidence of fraud. In addition, they argue that these significantly higher ratios should only be expected in smaller vote totals. I did not see (maybe I skimmed over) where the author accounted for how the votes were cast. Instead of fraud, could it not be possible that the votes were simply reporting the results of a group of mail-in/early votes from a heavily democratic county? If such a county voted 65-70% Biden as a whole, I wouldn’t be shocked if mail-in/early vote totals had an even significantly higher ratio for Biden. Many of these counties processed in-person voting first, followed by mail-in/early votes. Again, I may have skimmed over such a discussion/analysis, but it seems like a logical explanation that the author should evaluate before automatically jumping to the conclusion that fraud occurred. That’s unless there’s a preconceived narrative prior to looking at the data/statistics.
@dirtdoctor you are right, the analysis is not intended to serve as proof, merely to say that there are some anomalies that need to be rectified. However, what they are suggesting is that these vote totals are well beyond the norms in any other county of the over 8000 they looked into. So while large numbers of votes going to Biden in a democratic county is not an anomaly in and of itself, when compared to the patterns seen in the other 8000 counties, you may be able to spot a significant outlier that may be an indication of fraud, which is what this analysis has done. Outliers are not fraud, but given the size and degree of what we’re talking about, it certainly deserves an official investigation and explanation.
@Twich22
I would argue that it is irresponsible to even suggest fraud without presenting some evidence or at a minimum a discussion about other reasonable (I would argue more likely) explanations. I didn’t notice such a discussion when skimming, but I will admit I was likely more aware of claims of fraud since I skimmed the article assuming the author would proclaim fraud as the cause. I just think it’s very dangerous to suggest fraud without any hard evidence, only statistical anomalies and affidavits that have no supporting evidence. I’m sorry, but I will not blindly believe an affidavit presented by an administration with a sketchy history with the truth. I will wager that this President’s continuing claims of fraud will likely end in a similar manner as Kris Kobach’s investigation into 3 million illegal votes that apparently caused Trump to lose the 2016 election popular vote. This absence of truth is a primary reason I was ready for a change in leadership, but at same time voted to keep a split government. And as I have said in previous posts, such a split in presidential and non-presidential election results does not support the mass fraud theory. I am truly amazed that so many people actually bought into this election fraud conspiracy theory. I think I heard that 70% of Republicans now believe that there was widespread fraud that impacted the election results.
And as I have said in previous posts, such a split in presidential and non-presidential election results does not support the mass fraud theory.
It’s actually batshit crazy to think that Dems would lose so many house seats, perform so poorly in the senate but simultaneously orchestrate such a calculated fraud only to win the presidency. And every so-called study has begun with this theft conclusion in mind, despite the fact that voter turnout was 15-20% higher than normal. The whole election is anomalous.
@canonizer@Twich22
This theory of fraud also means that the Dems were smart enough to organize all these efforts without leaving any evidence, but too stupid to flip Senate control so that they could pass whatever legislation they wanted.
You realize that complaints are not actually evidence, no matter how many pages you pile onto one? I suspect those will be thrown out for failure to state a claim or for pleading with insufficient specificity.
Regardless of what you think about Biden’s agenda and potential policies, he and Harris are putting together a really diverse team with very impressive resumes and tons of experience. It’s a nice change.
To love our neighbors as ourselves is a radical act, yet it’s what we’re called to do. And we must try, for only in trying, only in listening, only in seeing ourselves as bound together in what Dr. King called a “mutual garment of destiny” can we rise above our divisions and truly heal.
@Twich22 Here’s the thing about people who aren’t experts in medicine and epidemiology - they don’t always get it. You can slice the data a number of ways and find something to say that supposedly goes against the grain. But economists aren’t necessarily that good at these sorts of things (I work with several, their skill sets are important but not always on target) and the assumptions behind the analyses can lead you astray.
I read this article, and don’t think it clearly shows what you intended it to show. Yes, old folks are, and have always been, the ones dying in greater numbers. And a chart showing percentages of deaths shows that. But, what we need to look at is absolute numbers, and for that, excess deaths is the metric to be considered. The following article shows that COVID is indeed killing a lot of Americans, and oddly more Hispanics between the ages of 25 and 44. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
@FritzCat You are quite right that the first graph is not very useful, however it is only discussed in the opening paragraphs. Indeed, most of the article is discussing total numbers, not percentages, as you astutely recommend.
For example the following excerpt:
Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.
These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.
This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?
To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.
Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.
“This is true every year. Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes,” Briand pointed out.
@Twich22 I disagree that your article clearly states that. In fact, at least on my phone, the data is obscured, and I don’t see any clear data that would support your contention. On the other hand, the CDC article and data show that deaths have increased. I will look again when I can get to a better device, but for now, I’m calling BS.
@FritzCat I don’t know how else to help you. I pasted a quote directly from the article. It directly states
not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.
It specifically says total number of deaths, in juxtaposition from percentage of deaths. It goes on to discuss this in more detail throughout the rest of the article.
@Twich22 Yes, I read those words in the article, but didn’t see any data, numerical or graphical, to support them. Did you do me the courtesy of reading the article that I linked to?
@FritzCat is correct. I linked the original CDC article above as well from the authoritative Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. MMWR is considered the bible of epidemiology. @Twich22 the article you linked is highly misleading at best and outright meant to lie at worst. Honestly, I think it’s an article about an analysis by an honest skeptic who doesn’t really know how to get and analyse the relevant data.
@FritzCat@klezman I suppose it’s all a matter of perspective. The total number of deaths for 2020 is 112% of expected, so 12% more then expected based on average.
But I agree, most people don’t know what’s going on with epidemiology or medicine. Which is why I posted this article in the first place, because I feel that it accurately reflects the data and what the data is telling medical professionals. You are free to disagree with that.
@FritzCat@klezman@Twich22
I’m confused. @Twich22, you state that most people don’t know what’s going on and that “you FEEL it accurately reflects the data”. Does that mean you have analyzed the data yourself or seen other analyses with data, or just that you “believe” that this one article is correct? I ask the question not out of disrespect. If you have seen additional analyses/data that helped develop your opinion, it would be great to share. As an engineer/scientist, I personally try to avoid words like “Feel” when discussing analyses. This is about data, facts and analytical methods/assumptions. Data can be used in all kinds of ways to support a preconceived opinion, that’s why it’s so important to see the raw data and understand the methodology of the analyses.
One of the biggest problems today is people blindly believing things they they read on their Twitter and Facebook feeds, never digging into the background, data and analyses. Just last week a co-worker was telling me about a horrible Democrat backed law in NY that allowed abortions all the way to birth, and that’s what Kamala Harris would support. I knew nothing of this law, kept my mouth shut, and did some Google searching afterwards. It turns out that statement was inaccurate, and after forwarding the information I found to the coworker, they apologized and admitted they just read it on Facebook. I’m sure that’s just one example of something that happens every day.
@dirtdoctor@FritzCat@klezman yes this stuff happens to be in my wheelhouse. The data is all publicly available, mostly from the CDC as you have already cited.
@Twich22
This subject is not in my wheelhouse, but a quick search brought up a website, https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid, that published excess mortality rates for several countries, clearly showing an increase this year when compared to the previous 5 years. What is your take on this data?
@FritzCat@klezman@twich22
FYI, I just clicked on the link that @twich22 provided to start this conversation and was not too surprised to see the following note:
“Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.
We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we explained on social media. However, it is our responsibility as journalists to provide a historical record. We have chosen to take down the article from our website, but it is available here as a PDF.”
@dirtdoctor@FritzCat@klezman indeed, I am not surprised either. I was surprised that they posted the article at all, as it’s generally not the type of information that they want people to know, for whatever reason. There are archives of the article however, for those who still wish to read it:
@Twich22
So what’s your take about the data published on the website I posted earlier? It’s time for me to move on until you provide data that shows Covid has not increased the mortality rates. I will consider it your “belief”, just like the “belief” there was widespread election fraud. As @klezman mentioned in a post earlier this month, I get the sense you just like to troll, especially after you once stated you don’t have time to explain things.
…it’s generally not the type of information that they want people to know, for whatever reason.
This is the issue. It’s a misleading article, it’s not that the information is stuff the “deep state” or “the people in charge” want to withhold from the public. Disinformation is dangerous. I’m not 100% sure whether this article is disinformation (i.e. meant to disinform) not simply misinformation (i.e. potentially honest mistake).
@dirtdoctor@klezman@Twich22
Not going to buy that. The “information” was carefully crafted by someone who claimed to be an authority, in such a manner as to skew people’s beliefs on the subject. The same as Twich22’s intent on this forum. It’s just that it didn’t work in either case. People apparently aren’t that stupid…at least not the majority of people.
@dirtdoctor@FritzCat@klezman actually, they didn’t say the information in the article was inaccurate at all. It’s not innacurate, it’s very accurate. They just don’t like what it says.
@dirtdoctor@FritzCat@Twich22 I dunno…if something that may not be counterfactual is presented in a way that leads readers to a false conclusion then I’d say that’s dishonest and a proper example of disinformation.
It seems that most of what you find on the net, is written after someone has taken Propaganda 101.
I studied this, for a time, and see many aspects played out on a daily basis.
To look at the 20th century, and its most influential person, it would certainly seem that it was Goebels, as it seems as if every government, institution, and crackpot individual, try to further their causes using his formula; and to think it was once a notion of what was right and wrong. How abhorrent.
An original TLDR I wrote awhile back. I’m sure it will just about have something to po just about everyone
TO: The “Once Upon a Time” Icons of American Industry and Manufacturing
CC: Amazon, Target, Walmart, Consumers, et al.
What do you call it when the quality of goods in our landfills, exceeds the quality of goods on our store shelves?
Progress?
It is the death of American retailing and manufacturing, as no-one stands behind anything. Products are shoddy, poorly engineered, and designed for short term gain, rather than long term existence in the marketplace.
Brands are meaningless, as once trustworthy, reliable names, have been prostituted for immediate returns, and their value siphoned off. What took years of sacrifice and effort, by generations to build, has been drained away in a comparatively short time. Once reliable manufacturers, have assumed the role middleman junk peddlers, importing everything, and only exporting dollars and jobs.
What they once contributed to society is but a memory, leaving them to exist as not much more than parasitic entities on the greater society, their host. Dollars leave in a pipeline, but return through a straw. This has to change.
If an American corporation can’t build here, they shouldn’t be able to sell here, at least not without some penalty. There are foreign corporations that are
better corporate citizens than many of our own, and these American “failure” corporations should find a special designation in the tax code, just for them.
Commerce is taxable, and commerce requires wealth. When a company exports dollars, that wealth is then taxable in a foreign jurisdiction, but lost within ours. In a sense, your purchases are helping to build new roads and bridges in faraway lands, while our own are crumbling. We are helping to build foreign militaries, while being taxed to support our own to counter them.
Doesn’t seem to make much sense, does it? Let the modern day carpetbaggers foot the bill for this disparity, or let them take their toxic business practices elsewhere. Revenue is lost whenever wealth changes hands outside of our economy, and makes that much less available inside of our own society.
This wealth has always been taxed, over and over and over again, as it changes hands inside of our economy. It builds our infrastructure, helps to pay our public servants, and provides for the safety net that more and more of us seem to need. What do we get for this, now, besides higher taxes, or deficits and debt, to fill the gap in revenue? Junk, junk, and more junk!
Oh, I almost forgot, we also get money that is incapable of purchasing anything other than junk. Junk pollutes our retail space, and has effectively reduced the value of our
money, and labor, by making it impossible to attain the standard of living enjoyed by the working/middle classes of the past. We may see larger numbers in our paychecks, but we can’t even buy a reliable product anymore; something that we used to be able to take for granted.
If something was crappy, word got around, and if it were good, word got around, too. Lousy manufacturers were weeded out, or produced better quality products; the market worked.
Now, almost everything is crappy, so the choices are to buy crap, or do without and keep your money; more progress?
The market still works, and since most purchases aren’t for necessities, anyway, it might be prudent to keep your money until acceptable products are offered again. You’ll have more money to spend on necessities, or on something actually worth having; you might even get closer to being rich.
Most people don’t like taking crap, so why are they paying for it? You work for your money, make business work for theirs. Who knows, they might even get it through their head that they actually have to provide acceptable merchandise to generate income; who would have thought?
Retailers might find an easier time of it, too, if they quit loading up on the garbage. It’s hard, when that’s almost all that there is available, but put your buyers to work and scour the marketplace. You’ll find more loyalty from your consumers when you offer them quality goods that fill a need, and not just crap, conceived of only to generate a profit. Your retail space is an asset, make manufacturers compete for it.
A certain amount of demand has always been generated by people who shop to fill voids in their life, in a misplaced attempt to find meaning within it. I’ve done it, a short term catharsis for life’s little stressors, bringing a slight euphoria along with your measured indulgence.
Much better, and safer, than chemical means, which can have unintended consequences and carry risks which far outweigh their usefulness. It was a kind of a “first world” benefit, that just seemed to come along with the consumer environment, but I don’t notice this as much anymore. It may be that I am older, or don’t perceive the voids that I once did, but it seems to be gone.
What I do feel is a sense of stupidity, almost anytime that I make a purchase, whether necessary or not. Why?
Because I’m feeding junk magnates. No pride in their product, or their name, just concentrating on volume, and cutting costs and liability. No-one stands out, and no-one wants to: Just move as much junk as you can, and more than your competitors do.
Purchasing a television, or appliance, was a major capital expenditure for most families, and these items were always referred to as “durable goods.” Extra consumer protection, in the form of long warranties, was
the industry standard. The only thing durable about these goods, now, is their ever increasing price tags, and the bad taste left in your mouth when they prematurely fail. The warranty periods have shortened, with “manufacturers” not even standing behind the crap that they ordered/branded themselves.
Perhaps the word “durable” was redefined, and I missed it.
New industries have been born, some to insure products never fit to be in the marketplace to begin with, and others to peddle this defective junk, once again, as refurbished. Amazing.
As business salivates over the prospect of expanding into new markets, they have forgotten how to service the ones they’re in; not exactly a recipe for success. They have sold their identities and collective souls in the pursuit of greater volume, seemingly blinded to realities
which threaten their very existence.
What happens when their shareholders rediscover the dirty word, nationalization, and find that assets allocated to capital improvements, in faraway lands, have been seized, or when regional or global conflicts make the companies they invested in unable to service any market?
Is cheap labor now, and the lack of regulation, worth asset forfeiture later? I don’t think so, but someone had better be graphing this. Market based savings, and retirements, will evaporate, and the threat to civilized society will be great.
Robin Hood isn’t just messing with your money now, he’s
messing with the fabric of your future, not to mention the ability to retool these foreign facilities into producers of war materials, which can then be used against ourselves, our allies, and our interests. It seems that genius knows no bounds.
The practice of relying on foreign production, to supply domestic manufacturing, is flawed. The domestic industrial infrastructure, necessary to fill holes in the supply chain, simply doesn’t exist anymore, and it is not built overnight. It would require major investment, local sources of production machinery and controls, and a labor force that knows how to use the equipment.
I’m sure we could find countless people to tell us how to do something, but very few who have actually done, or are capable of doing, anything. Just how long can a production line sit idle, before a bottom line and market share are in irreversible decline?
Are we so self absorbed, by our selfies and texting, that we can’t see the firing squad before us? Well, we had better all take a selfie of our posterior, then, so we will have something to kiss goodbye when it all catches up with us.
Communism has always had an obsession with who owns the means of production, and without domestic industrial capability, they will.
We’re paddling ourselves up that proverbial creek, with foreign made oars, and our best hope, right now, is that the oars don’t work right, either.
It might help if business didn’t have to contend with ridiculous governmental restraints and litigation, but in a society that litigates every dizzy notion, this may be too much to ask; this does not obviate the need for a reduction, though.
There is no grand transformation taking place in the tenets of Communism, and they are not our friends.
It means nothing for an atheistic state to sleep with the Devil, as long as the end justifies the means. There will be plenty of time for their “Utopian Society”, once Capitalism has been destroyed with its own tools and greed. I’m sure that the irony of this isn’t lost on our competitors, and it must make for quite a few smiles in their political circles.
Compete fairly, compete amicably, but never lose sight of this.
In case you haven’t noticed, all of this has much graver implications than just our underwear flying to pieces after two washings. It affects our standard of living, our ability to be self reliant, and, ultimately, our national security. I’ll not go into detail here, but it is not difficult to project the
consequences of such shortsightedness, throughout all of the industrial sectors we rely on.
If “We the people” want to continue to exist, we had better address our vulnerabilities, and quickly, because the “Neverland” that many think we live in, doesn’t exist.
Let’s hope our descendants can say “America is…” in English, rather than “America was…” in Mandarin.
AFTERTHOUGHT: Trade imbalances will never go away, or be conducted on a level playing field, until this society reins in counter-productive litigation.
No-one is going to invest, and risk their wealth, simply to have the courts effectively steal their money, and profits, and award it to a bunch of useless whiners who never produce or risk anything.
As it stands, we have institutionalized the theft of wealth.
I know of no nation, that has ever tried harder to become a Third World country, than this one.
May God bless America, and please protect her from ner own.
@CroutonOllie
This is an interesting topic, although somewhat frustrating as an engineer. Your post focuses on the many problems we have in America, without any discussion about ideas to solve these issues. As an engineer, I’ve been trained to identify the problems but focus on and spend more time on identifying the potential solutions. What do you propose as a means of addressing some of these things?
@dirtdoctor
The short answer is that I don’t really know.
It is frustrating, as it would require the efforts of people wearing many different hats, in many different roles. It was written by myself, mainly to myself, out of frustration, and along the lines of “Houston, we have a problem.”
It seems that the ethos of the country changed, when we went from a society composed mainly of producers, to one composed mainly of consumers. Just another perception, which may or may not be valid, but such is the nature of perception.
Two people can look at the same thing, and see two entirely different things, and even when everyone is in agreement on what they see, they may be collectively in error. (Consider the case of the sun rising in the east; it only appears to.)
Without getting too philosophical, the only thing that I really know, is that I don’t really know anything.
@dirtdoctor
I don’t mean to suggest that my perceived change in the ethos was caused by this change, but rather that it was symptomatic/coincidental to other factors.
If I were to hazard a guess on what was the chief culprit, in many of our societal ills, I would blame Zeus, as the curse of Narcissus certainly seems to be upon us. ie: The ‘It’s all about me, and to hell with you’ syndrome.
I’m sure that the followers of Bacchus, and all true hedonists, would disagree.
Crouton, your message is quite dispiriting, and it involves the macroeconomics of the world as a whole. What you describe is quite complex, perhaps more complex than I (and perhaps even yourself) can fully grasp. I hope someone here can clarify the situation…not just someone who claims that this is “in their wheelhouse”, or spouts poorly thought-out drivel that they have seen somewhere else, but someone who can explain clearly, at an elementary level not out of fear, but out of sound economic thought. My opinion opposes yours in several respects. First, we do export a lot of products, and we export more armaments than anybody. We also export our unsafe jobs and our filth to other parts of the world, as well as using people from around the world as our virtual slave labor. Also, you talk about product quality…think about cars for example. They last longer, are safer and more economical than they have ever been. And, in real terms, they are no more expensive than they have ever been. What about technology? The utility of the products that we have now are incredibly robust and actually cheap for what they can do. The world is an incredibly small place. How ‘bout we try to increase the standard of living for everyone, not just whatever limited group that you claim. Basically, I’m not sure it’s all as simple as your writings imply, or as hopeless. Great topic for discussion and clarification.
@FritzCat Additional (related, I think) topic: one of the issues with current American style capitalism is the relentless focus on the next quarter’s earnings. This, combined with the supposed highest level duty of a company being to its shareholders, massively distorts markets and leads to many of the effects noted above.
@FritzCat
Yes, I agree that it is a dim view, but is what I see.
As for macroeconomics on a global stage, that is not my concern, I am an American.
The wealth that is being, and has been, drained, makes our ability to effect beneficial change, anywhere, less and less possible. It also makes our ability to exist, less and less possible; not something I want to pass on to the next generation.
I’ll not respond to other insinuations, as they fall within the pretext of personal opinion.
@FritzCat
Oh, almost forgot: They could build cars that lasted a long time for a long while. Look at all of the old cabs that were on the road when we grew up.
Certainly our recent trend toward isolationism hasn’t helped. Here is a link to “How Chinese Financing is Fueling Megaprojects Around the World”. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/global-chinese-financing-is-fueling-megaprojects/ (Oh, and of course, I understand that those projects are designed to benefit China.) By the way, the website containing this map is amazing.
@FritzCat
Sorry for the late reply, but isolationism, in the economic sense, is sometimes necessary, when state resources, on one side, are pitted against private resources on the other.
It isn’t all about money, it is about the ability to be self reliant.
@Twich22 The author’s Democracy Institute seems to be a think tank with a pro tobacco slant.
Twich, why are you investigating the democratic turnout and not the completely unprecedented republican one? why is one so much more anomalous than the other?
Why is it that an argument in favor one’s position requires no supporting authority, but there is no supporting authority, or quantity or quality of authorities, that would be sufficient to substantiate an opposing argument?
Want to avoid an argument, place the burden back on the writer, as if they couldn’t have an original thought? Ask for sources. Dance while looking studious.
Being a bit facetious, but think of Moses now.
Up the mount, once again, after that idolatrous episode. Comes back, once again, with the Covenant/10 Commandments, then he hears: Sources?
“What sources would you have? It is the Word of God.”
Will Moses throw them, yet again, or let them know he’s not about to go up there another time, with thunder, lightning, burning bushes, and soiled robes? Will a great code be lost for all time?
(Based on 2 trip, fictionalized Hollywood scenario, not as written (I’m not blasphemous.))
@davirom
Oops, forgot to add why it is a Propaganda 101 trick: It shifts focus from the argument itself, to that of ‘sources’, which are then attacked, thus avoiding what was being said, altogether.
@canonizer From what I’ve read, no. I’ve wondered, however, if Paxton (or other Trumpian lawyers) could be disbarred for filing a complaint filled with lies.
At what point do all these efforts to overturn the election turn into sedition? At what point do the offending senators, congresscritters, and state-level officials run afoul of section 3 of the 14th amendment?
Ha, the free speech/sedition line is probably something we want to avoid testing in the judiciary. Just hoping that the spineless sect of Republican elected official will put their pandering behind them by inauguration.
I’m interested in seeing how the gop handles Trump in 2021. It’s not inconceivable to see him both being on media all day and/or being deplatformed on Twitter. Since he requires obeisances to satisfy his venality, there’s a rush to align with him. But any such alignment will ultimately be compromising for those looking to inherit his mantle. Some of these politicians may have actual red lines (not Cruz, obviously). Shocking to see Barr thrown under, although no one will be surprised to see him push his own agenda if he chooses to appoint special prosecutors before closing the door behind him.
@canonizer Yeah, that’s true on all accounts. I’m just wondering who will actually stand up for facts and reason in this country. The Republicans have proven themselves to not give a crap about facts, while the Democrats (in this instance) have facts and morality on their side. So who stands up for the country, its institutions, and living in the world of facts?
And yeah, Barr has proven himself to be a dude with his own agenda. Not that different from our two most activist justices: Alito and Thomas.
funny how @rpm is hiding under a rock these days. Very quiet for an attorney to say the least!
In this thread? Perhaps.
He’s been pretty active in the Denier-Handal thread. Which fostered a very interesting and informative conversation with Clark and Lucas about alcohol levels in DCV Zin.
Yeah, he politely took a leave. No reason to tag him. I’m sure presently he’s hoping for the republicans to maintain the Senate, subscribing to the theory that the government that governs least governs best.
@CroutonOllie@klezman
I haven’t checked this board in a while, but I’m with you. No clue what any of that meant. Maybe CroutonOllie is experimenting with some alternative “medicine”.
Had I died, when assigned in the CONUS, one of your countrymen would have vaporized with me. My Inputs and Countermeasures Officer was Canadian, and a very fine man and officer.
@dirtdoctor@klezman
When people decide to cordon off an area, prevent law enforcement (only because they have been directed to do so) from entering, there exists a real case of sedition.
Americans/residents no longer are under the rule of law, but by clowns that are not being addressed by the local government; local authority thinks it’s fine.
@CroutonOllie@dirtdoctor@klezman
I think you mean Seattle, WA and their “Autonomous Zone” although Portland, OR had ongoing nightly protests that gained a lot of notoriety for awhile.
@CroutonOllie@dirtdoctor If the local government, the one supposedly closest to the people and most able to respond to their desires, thought it best to let them do what they did, isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work?
Also, it’s beyond specious to claim that Americans are not under the rule of law because a small section of a mid-sized city had an “autonomous zone” for a couple weeks.
I submit that those not living under the rule of law are the Trump family who are stealing from their campaign, funnelling government money (i.e. OUR tax dollars) into their private businesses, and giving pardons to their friends who have actually ratted them out and been found guilty by our laws. Shouldn’t be controversial, but in 2020 apparently half the country doesn’t believe in facts. Sad.
@CroutonOllie@dirtdoctor@klezman
When you make blanket statements such as “half the country doesn’t believe in facts” it does not support your stated goal of engaging in open-minded discussion to gain additional perspectives. IMHO.
Maybe he means ammonn bundy’s 2016 Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation.
Some overwhelming majority of polled Republicans believe Trump won. My hope is that they are just screwing with pollsters but I mostly believe that they trust my pillow guy more than facts because they’ve been conditioned to believe only Trump approved outlets. Thank God his pillow solved the pandemic.
@canonizer@dirtdoctor@klezman
I’m not familiar with the circumstances in the occupation you reference above, but if the sovereignty of the public was violated, then my remedy would be the same: Move on, or be removed, using whatever force is necessary to accomplish this goal.
The public has every right to expect, that ingress, and egress to all public areas be enforced, and that lawful activities regarding traffic and commerce be able to be conducted in an unimpeded manner.
Private property is another matter, as probable cause would need to be shown in a court of law to obtain a warrant, unless the law were clearly being broken, and life or public safety was in imminent danger without immediate action.
It is about the rights of every American to live under the guarantees of our Constitution, and in protecting those rights from a subset of the citizenry. Freedoms only exist until they impinge upon the rights of another, and this needs to understood.
@chipgreen
This may be, as I really don’t stay as much up to date as I should.
I quit consuming the ‘news’, on a regular basis, quite some time ago, as I find it too often misleading or aggravating.
I find it interesting that the conclusions, so often jumped to, are in error, and that ‘political diaper rash’ is so prevalent. Most would assume I am a registered Republican, for example, but my only registration is as a voter.
It is about the rights of every American to live under the guarantees of our Constitution, and in protecting those rights from a subset of the citizenry. Freedoms only exist until they impinge upon the rights of another, and this needs to understood.
It makes me quite happy to hear that you fully support all of the following:
-The right to unionize
-The right of LGBTQ people to marry, adopt, and to live life free from discrimination
-The right of non-religious people or those with different beliefs than some religious adherents to be free from having those religious beliefs imposed on them
-That government should not favour one religious belief over any other, including those who have no specific religious beliefs
-The absolute right of every single citizen to vote with as few impediments as possible
I’m sure there are more, but that’ll do.
Merry Christmas
Once again you come up with a litany of items that ‘you believe’ I am against, without knowing.
While the attempt that you made to associate these items with me might be commendable on an elementary level, for the purposes of trying to substantiate a non-existent argument, it really reflects far more on you than it does on me.
Clumsy, and something much more befitting a troll or zealot of some kind.
Thanks for the holiday wishes, though, if they were in earnest, and wish you a great holiday season in return.
@canonizer@CroutonOllie@dirtdoctor Nope, I assumed nothing beyond what was written there. I believe, given the quoted statement, that you are for the things I listed, not against.
Sure, I’ve observed that people who argue the points that you’ve argued here tend to also argue against the freedoms I outlined above. However, I express zero opinion on whether you are among that group or not. A correlation doesn’t tell me about one individual data point.
I’m disheartened that you would consider I may have offered an insincere holiday wish. It’s a sad commentary on society these days. I know we’ve never met in person, but I assure you that is not my style. I also don’t take personal offense to debates conducted in good faith.
It appears that my perception, and assessment, were a bit off, and it reinforces my faith in the nature of human beings, that your holiday wishes were as stated; mine were as well.
With that said, please enjoy the season to the fullest extent prudently possible now, and I hope that all here, do so as well.
Columbus, Ohio, (I am going to speak on behalf of the city.) sincerely apologizes for Gym Jordan.
Gym is because he was complicit in rape while at OSU. He has not learned a damn thing, and acts like a fucking lunatic when he gets a microphone. As a sane city, and citizen, we apologize.
@klezman@KNmeh7
Columbus is pretty nice. We staycation there once or twice a year on weekends. Glad you made it up to Akron, it was great to spend some time with you.
The restaurant we ate at is struggling to stay afloat right now as you might imagine. Here’s hoping the Covid numbers start going down in a hurry now that they are starting to vaccinate!
@chipgreen@KNmeh7 it’s a great hope, but ultimately we need at least 6 months before we’ll make a big dent. The prevalence nationwide is still only around 5%, maybe up to 15% if the not detected rate is really high. That means there’s a ton of susceptible people out there. We need about 500 million doses to get 2/3 of the country vaccinated and there’s no line of sight to that for quite a while.
Not trying to be a downer. Just analysing the data.
@chipgreen@KNmeh7
Sort of. We’ve already locked in astronomical death and hospitalization rates over the next couple months. Those lag several weeks behind the infection rates. The infection rates continue to climb and break records at the national level. Unless transmission has already declined and we start seeing it in the numbers over the next few days, we’re in a really bad spot right now.
For my own sanity, I am treating it as the end of June when there will be a light at the end of the tunnel. I’ll happily be surprised if we beat that by a substantial margin.
But is there the beginning of a light at the end of the tunnel? Yes. It’s just a damn long tunnel (with Indiana Jones style booby traps).
I’m just happy that frontline healthcare workers will finally have some measure of protection against this thing.
@chipgreen@klezman@KNmeh7 I agree, Christmas/New Years is going to be like Thanksgiving. Too many people celebrating…even I am not as careful as I should be, and I’m pretty liberal, and science-minded. We’ll have an acceleration of the 2nd wave that will not subside until at least mid-February, at which point our health care system will be inundated. It’s not going to be pretty.
@FritzCat@klezman@KNmeh7
Small sample size perhaps, but Ohio is not seeing the post-Thanksgiving spike that we expected. Daily case numbers (and % of positive tests) have been coming in below the 3 week average.
You can see the detailed trends for the state of Ohio HERE which show that the daily number of cases has been trending downward.
Hospitalization and death numbers, as we know, trail those of infections. Hospitalizations are just now starting to come down while deaths appear to be peaking.
@chipgreen@FritzCat@KNmeh7 Yeah, there are a lot of lumpy data things with this. Testing over the weekend lags, for example, while Wed/Thu numbers usually overperform. That’s why all the models and such look at smoothed averages, usually 7 days for infection rate and a 3 or 5 day average for hospitalizations and deaths.
@chipgreen@FritzCat@klezman@KNmeh7 also living in Ohio, and the number I’ve been watching is hospital capacity. I’m thankful we’ve plenty of headroom and as such am not really worried (being young enough and healthy enough helps too.). Hearing about all the people travelling for Thanksgiving I was a little surprised there wasn’t a turkey spike. Now that front line health workers are getting vaccinated they’re not going to spread it, I wonder if we’re observing the peak right now. Public health and well-being aside, one of the lessons of this thing is how bad it is to have data without context widely distributed.
Now that front line health workers are getting vaccinated they’re not going to spread it
We actually don’t know if that’s true. The early phase 3 results upon which the EUAs have been based were not powerful enough to actually give us answers to this particular question. At least not yet. It’s a super important question, too. That’s why getting a vaccination isn’t going to change masking protocols and such.
@FritzCat@KitMarlot@klezman@KNmeh7
Heh… didn’t someone make the point awhile ago that most people don’t bother looking at others’ links? I accidentally posted the link to the backlogged antigen story twice, when the second link was supposed to be to the current Covid-19 trends in Ohio. I guess nobody noticed.
The Would you drive an electric car? thread evolution seemed to suggest we could use this here as well.
Let’s get right to the point…why should we stand for so much gun violence in this country? Of all sorts - from murders to suicides to accidental Dick Cheney-type incidents. How many dead children is the right sacrifice so that unfettered gun access goes on?
@klezman, Once again, it’s actually enforcing the existing laws, and ACTUALLY following through by FBI that is needed.
The Air Force didn’t forward information to the database that would have stopped one shooter from getting a gun. The FBI has dropped the ball not only this last time, but others as well, including Orlando!
And once again, it’s not just guns, the FBI also dropped the ball on the Boston marathon bombers!
We only have to look at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, the vehicle incidents in London and France to see it’s not really a gun problem, but a people problem. Desensitization to human life is the cause.
@klezman, [33 dead in China due to knife wielding terrorists (2014)] 1
@klezman, Israel has answer to school shootings
Implying that I don’t care about children or human life in general is not the way to start a reasonable conversation. Couple that with the very predictable litany of new policies and laws the left trots out after every tragedy that would not have stopped or mitigated said tragedy in any way and I don’t see a point in engaging.
@airynne Not sure who you thought was implying what. I don’t know you or your views, and the reverse holds too.
I am sick and tired of school shootings. And shootings in general. And the fear that some asshole on the street might decide to shoot me because they don’t like my bicycle (you’d be amazed at the vitriol people spew from their vehicles on occasion). I think a basic expectation of society ought to be that I don’t need to fear for my life while going about my daily duties. And I sure as shit shouldn’t need to ever worry that my kid (currently a bit older than a year) fails to come home from school one day because some crazed nut can get a rapid-fire gun.
I guess I am, however, stating outright that the people who write the laws of this country don’t care about human life. Their actions speak louder than any words. I am frustrated and pissed off.
I’m not a crazy person nor an ideologue - I’m pragmatic by and large. While I’d love to narrow the range of the types of firearms one can buy, have strong gun registries, bullet tracking requirements, and strong licensing requirements, I don’t actually know which of those will reduce gun violence. “Gun violence” doesn’t just mean mass shootings or school shootings. This includes suicides and accidental shootings.
@MarkDaSpark
We only have to look at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, the vehicle incidents in London and France to see it’s not really a gun problem, but a people problem. Desensitization to human life is the cause.
That may be true as far as it goes, but it misses the point. There always have been and always will be evil in the world - and I doubt the incidence rate of evil has dramatically changed. The ability to procure weapons that can kill dozens makes it far too easy and deadly.
@klezman I think it’s naive to think if all guns were banned that suicide rates would decrease, so the stats from suicide don’t factor for me at all. Asking how many kids have to die is absolutely implying that me or anyone else that advocates for gun rights is indifferent to human life. These are emotional topics. Policy should not be written by emotion.
We’ve both heard all the arguments on both side so I’m not going to rehash them here, but I will emphasis that we have a lot of other root issues here besides the tool used. Mental health, desensitization to human life (our entertainment is watching people shoot other people in movies or doing it ourselves in video games), and a phrase I’ll borrow from Simon Sinek, a series of failed parenting strategies, have all led to a lot of people that don’t know how to cope with life or handle emotions in a productive way. I’d love to see those issues addressed instead of ban the scary guns.
@klezman, No, you missed the point. We didn’t have this problem back in the 50s and 60s (or before). There were just as many guns per person ratio back then, and people brought guns to school. What changed?
Removing guns WON’T solve the underlying problem. Evil people will still find a way … thus Manchester, Boston, London, multiple times in France, the Knife killings in China. Japan has a very low gun ownership, but a very high suicide rate. They still find a way!
Demonizing guns is not the solution. Demonizing the NRA or “the Right” doesn’t help. We could demonize the Left as well for the idiotic “Gun Free Zones”. We have the innate right to defend ourselves and our families. One of the points in my other link (the 6 reasons) was the Left constantly tries to push “blood on our hands” … why would ANYONE think that would help?
You can look to the Far Left for major desensitization … everyone not with them is “intolerant” and shouted down. To be excluded. Just look at the women excluded from their so-called “Women’s Marches” for supporting Israel!
Read the Israel link. That makes a lot of sense.
@klezman, posting this again, but here.
6 reasons your friend isn’t budging on gun control
@klezman, I think the last sentence in your initial post is what is confusing to people.
“How many dead children is the right sacrifice so that unfettered gun access goes on?”
It’s awkward, and one could read it as “how many kids are the Right willing to sacrifice to keep unfettered gun access”.
I think you meant to mean something else, but that, I believe is what @airynne refers to in her post.
Sure, policy ought not to be written on emotion. If all policy was evidence-based then our laws would look rather different.
I didn’t say anything about removing guns writ large. In fact, I went to lengths to avoid saying that. No need to put words into my mouth.
I also am not committing any of the fallacies your 6 reasons article suggests. I’m not saying you or any individual doesn’t care about loss of life. But I am saying that the federal government does not seem to be interested in reducing the likelihood of mass shooting events at schools or otherwise. Or of reducing gun-related violence more generally. The last policy enacted by the government was eliminating mental health checks, for example.
Nor am I demonizing guns. They have their uses. I think it is a mistake, though, to suggest that firearm ownership can do anything about a tyrannical government. The U.S. Army isn’t afraid of a pistol or semi-automatic rifle.
I also did read the link about Israel. It’s sad that the best answer people can come up with is to employ the same procedures that a country beset by terrorism uses. We can and should do better, imo.
I addressed this using the scientific literature back on WW. I don’t have the patience right now to go dig that post up, but it turns out that removing suicide methods that are the most expeditious and lethal does reduce suicides.
Obviously there are more problems than simply the “tools” used to wreak havoc. But again, I think this is disingenuous. If the tools weren’t readily available then the havoc would be lessened.
For example, I largely agree with this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/opinion/sunday/no-country-for-young-men-with-ar-15s.html
Again, I never said we should ban all guns. I’m not saying the second amendment is the worst thing in the world. I’m simply saying that we don’t need to accept the status quo, and that there’s value in reducing gun violence. The choice isn’t between zero and what we have now.
@airynne @MarkDaSpark Fair enough…but it is truly starting to feel like that is the trade-off that is happening. It’s a provocative way of asking what the correct balance is between the right to bear arms and the right of people to walk around in public free from being shot. We both agree that neither completely unfettered gun access nor a complete ban is either correct or desirable. The argument is only about where the balance point lives.
@MarkDaSpark What you are saying would have a lot more credibility if the US didn’t lead the 1st world by far in gun deaths. You repeat the same few incidents over and over and what has happened in Europe certainly hasn’t happened as often as the incidents in the US. In the last 9 years that I have lived in Poland, not one person has been murdered, by any means. While not the only reason, the huge amount of guns available in the US has a direct effect on the amount of gun violence. Personally, I would prefer a repeal of the 2A but that will never happen. It isn’t out of the question that the anachronistic 2A will receive a much needed overhaul. The sooner the better. Changing society will take generations, stemming the bleeding while that happens isn’t being unreasonable.
@klezman Nobody should seriously be worried about school mass shootings, and so long as its brown people killing brown people and old white men killing themselves, I doubt many people will care about the other stuff either.
@edlada ROFLMAO where do you get your [dis]information from Ed? Poland, as a US state sized entity which is 70 years post nearly complete ethnic cleansing, officially has almost no crime to speak of, but even so there have officially been thousands of murders during your 9 year stay.
I’m positive when I say it’s not worth the trade off.
@edlada @MarkDaSpark I really don’t much care for Wiki, but are you suggesting these numbers from the site are flat out lies?
In 2011, Poland had a murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000 population.[1] There were a total of 449 murders in Poland in 2011. In 2014 Poland had a murder rate of 0.7 per 100,000. There were a total 283 murders in Poland in 2014.[1]
@mother @rjquillin I am not sure why you didn’t read what I said closely. I said in my town, not all of Poland. Even so, the murder rate in all of Poland is quite low, and similar to most countries in Europe where firearm ownership is highly restricted. Mother, I am not sure what you are trying to imply about the Holocaust, the Germans did that, remember?
@edlada Ehhh, because that isn’t what you wrote?
And first of all, no matter what laws get passed to try to revise history, it wasn’t just the Germans, but it doesn’t really matter who ethnically cleansed Poland, it happened. It’s now a country almost entirely made up of white ethnically-Polish Catholics.
A situation that helps explain a lack of internal conflict as well as the dangers of not being in a position to oppose tyranny.
@mother Fair enough, I had the words ‘my town’ in my head and they didn’t get typed. I don’t think it would be realistic to think that I would believe there weren’t any murders in the entire country. I am a bit of an unreformed idealist but I am far from naive.
Now to address your slander of the Polish people, because it does really matter who perpetrated the Holocaust. It was the Germans, they were responsible, not any of the occupied countries. (Actually Poland was’t occupied, it was absorbed into the Reich, but that’s another story.) I will not deny that there were some Polish people who were anti semitic but that was pretty normal all over Europe. I will remind you that about 1/2 of all of the Jews in Europe lived in Poland. The reason for that is they were for the most part welcomed there for centuries and allowed to live as they pleased. I might also add that Poland lost 20% of its population during WW II, 2nd only to Belarus in the percentage of the country’s population killed. Yes, Poland is predominately white and about 80% Catholic. Ethnically Polish is not really true. Due to the nature of Poland’s history of being repeatedly invaded and occupied throughout most of its existence, as well as borders that expanded and contracted significantly over the years, it is hard to say what is ethnically Polish. People might identify as such however you wouldn’t have to look far to find other nationalities in their blood, particularly on the western and eastern sides of Poland. Actually there isn’t any country in Europe that can claim any more than a little over 50% of their genes to a particular nationality, except maybe the British Isles. A diverse gene pool is a very healthy thing, Polish women are generally beautiful, for one thing. Although the current Right wing, ultra Catholic government is anti immigration, that hasn’t always been the case. Unfortunately, the same desire for Right wing despots that the US is experiencing is a thing in Poland as well. One reason that Poland doesn’t have a lot of immigrants is because it is a relatively poor country. There is far more money to be made in neighboring Germany, among other countries. I am not sure why you have such a dislike for Poland and Polish people but your comments are very insulting.
I am glad to see you are as combative, obnoxious, opinionated and abrasive as you were over at WootWine. Are you Jewish perchance, that would help explain the rather obvious chip on your shoulder. You must be a very unhappy person.
@edlada Ah, and I see you still respond to being wrong by launching ad-hominem attacks.
PS I don’t recall ever engaging with you on w.w outside of topics pertaining to wine, but I saw you pull this stunt against many others.
PPS If you think that significant numbers of Polish people were not horribly complicit in the murder of 3 million Jewish Poles, why should we not think you also believe in no murders in Poland, or the tooth fairy for that matter?
@edlada @mother Perhaps I missed it Ed, but below is what I read and responded to:
and I did not see reference specifically to your town. Not an attack, but we can only read what is written.
BTW For the record some of my favorite people in this world are of Polish and/or Catholic decent. My “slander” was against your attempt to hold up modern-day Poland in an effort to attack the rights the 2A protects.
The fact that Poland is currently attempting to rewrite history to hide their sins is as frightening as it is disgusting, but not relevant to this topic.
@mother I’ll tell you what Mom. You go ahead and give me concrete proof with reliable sources. I have been studying the history of WW II in Europe for the past 40 years. I am familiar with what the Poles did to the Jews during the war and your accusations are specious. As for a person accusing me of ad hominem attacks, I see you are capable as well. If you want to engage in a real discussion, lets try to stay in the realm of facts.
@rjquillin Yes, and I explained above. Part of the reason I originally responded as I did was because I was sure I had written ‘in my town.’ Apparently I was mistaken and I apologize for my statement to you. I was the one that was mistaken. I will reiterate that I think that it was an obvious mistake, I doubt that anyone would truly believe that a country could have no murders.
@mother You can rationalize anything you like. If you think you can explain away your ludicrous, unwarranted lies about Poland in WW II by claiming you like Polish people but I provoked the attack, is disingenuous at best.
I am as appalled as you are with the current Polish government, as are many Polish people. Just because the government is trying to cover the anti- semitic behavior of some Poles during the war, doesn’t mean that the activity was widespread, and it wasn’t. Poland has nothing to be ashamed of its treatment of Jews during the war, it was far better than other countries in Europe. There are many stories of Poles that sheltered and aided Jews but those stories don’t support your narrative. I don’t know why you have such animosity toward a country that suffered more than most others during WW II, and also gave more resistance to the Nazis than any other country during the war, as well as providing significant support to the Allies.
Does this forum really not have an ignore feature yet. Sigh.
@edlada Yes, I could see how this could happen. I too think I’ve said something, when my fingers said something different. I’d not seen your reply/explanation when I replied.
I enjoy the discourse, less so accusations, from any point of view.
@edlada @mother
Sorry Ed, but it’s been well-documented. Yes, there have been those who saved Jewish people (like Irene Sendler), but far more did nothing or helped the Nazis. Why do you think most Death Camps were IN Poland?
Polish Anti-Semitism before, during & after WW2
Interview with Polish born child camp survivor
@edlada @mother
– from Cambridge University Press 0521773083 - “Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe before the Holocaust” by William I. Brustein
PDF Introduction: Anti-Semitism in Europe before the Holocaust
@MarkDaSpark @mother So a YouTube video and a biased source are proof? Your last statement is astounding, and reveals your true agenda. Why the f**k do you think the death camps were in Poland. Because after the Nazis, with their special hatred of the Poles and other Slavs, partitioned the country, stripped of its independence and borders, they a) Sent German pioneers to settle on the land and start farming; and b) Built a series of extermination camps, because the methods they had used at first were totally inadequate and since half of the Jews in Europe were all ready in Poland it made the logistics easier just to build the camps there. In addition, they had an easier time hiding the industrial slaughter of millions of people in Poland rather than soiling the Fatherland with such a specter.
I would appreciate if you would just be honest with me as to what your real agenda is. You have some kind of axe to grind, and you are woefully misguided with your revisionist ideas. I will be happy to go toe to toe with you and Sparky when it comes to the history of WW II in Europe. I have read hundreds of books on the subject, I don’t just cite the first source that looks good in a Google search.
@MarkDaSpark Can we please stop feeding the troll? It just doesn’t matter in the context of the 2A…
Poland is proof that the framers were correct to protect our right to defend ourselves with the 2A. Perhaps if both countries continue to exist for another 5,000 years, the US will have cumulatively lost an equivalent portion of their population due to being armed as Poland did in 6 years due to not having the equivalent to our 2A and “gun culture”.
@mother
Sorry, I keep hoping he’s changed, but he’s still the Troll he’s always been. The link I posted was using US Intelligence (State Dept.) reports post-WW2. Hardly “biased”. And the second link to the PDF had literally dozens of notes to other sources.
And that our only “agenda” is Truth.
@MarkDaSpark @mother
I’m not going to get deep into this, but Ed is most definitely not a troll. An internet troll says things just to get people riled up and cause a stir. It doesn’t mean “somebody I disagree with”.
@klezman
The issue isn’t that we disagree with him, it’s that he’s intentionally dragging the conversation OT in an extremely and intentionally obnoxious way.
That’s why I want the ignore feature.
@MarkDaSpark @mother Sorry Sparky, i would engage in a battle of wits with you however I am morally oppose to fighting unarmed people. You r intellectual paucity is simply stunning.
@mother You really have some nerve to say something like that. You try to make Poland implicit in the Holocaust and then you call me a troll? I asked you and your intellectually challenged friend Sparky to debate me with facts, and this is how you respond. With all due respect that you absolutely don’t deserve you are a disingenuous anal orifice. HTFU, you don’t need an ignore feature, just don’t look at my posts.
@klezman @MarkDaSpark @mother Thanks Klez, I am glad there are people here that understand.
@edlada @mother
I know I’m feeding the troll, but dude, I used that line (battle of wits with an unarmed person) on WW on you!
For the record, I did use facts, unlike you. You have yet to respond without ad hominem attacks or with any links to “facts”! Where are your documented facts? Links?
US Intelligence docunented anti-Semitism in Poland before, during, and after WW2. They passed laws against Jewish people before the war. You have yet to discredit those facts or any of the other facts.
I’m sorry klez, but this is what ladeeda does. When he can’t respond with facts, he attacks you personally. He did it in WW to loweel, myself, and others.
He is very generous sharing his wines, however. He just can’t seem to discuss other topics reasonably.
@MarkDaSpark @mother Quite honestly, I am tired of you calling me a a troll. I made a reasonable comment expressing my opinion on the 2A. Mother responded with a trolling attack on me insulting the Polish people and making ludicrous statements. Mother also implied that if people had private weapons, the holocaust wouldn’t have happened. That is patently false. WW II began a little more than 20 years after the end of WW II. There were plenty of privately owned firearms all over Europe. When Hitler was consolidating his power in the 1920s and '30s, there were battles between Hitler’s Brown Shirts an opposing parties. Polish people had plenty of privately owned firearms when Germany invaded Poland in 1939 to start WW II. In the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, the Poles put up a valiant fight against the Nazis, for over 2 months before they were finally overwhelmed. Of all the countries controlled by the Nazis, the only country that put up any sustained, meaningful resistance against the Nazis were the Poles, no matter what the French claim. After the Jews, the Poles and the rest of the Slavs were the second most hated people that Hitler singled out for extermination. As far as your links, the YouTube video is simply one man’s experience during the holocaust, that is hardly a definitive account of the entire Holocaust. Here is another Jewish man giving his view, of a different nature. It is long but I highly recommend you watch the entire video, it is very good. Your other links don’t work. I clicked on your link to the site and it didn’t work. I went to the website and I searched for the story you linked and it didn’t come up. In addition, it is quite clear that the site has an extreme bias to a certain viewpoint. Your PDF link doesn’t work.
I never denied that there weren’t anti Semitic Polish people. There were anti Semitic people all over Europe. There are many other reasons that Polish people committed acts of violence against Jews. Poland suffered more than many countries in WW II, life was a brutal struggle for day to day existence. Of course some Poles collaborated with the Nazis, but they were definitely in the minority. The fact that 3 million non-Jewish Poles were killed in the war. I will also reiterate that half of all of the Jews in Europe lived in Poland. That wouldn’t be the case if Poles are as Antisemitic as you and mother claim. Even though the Poles did increasingly put restrictions on Polish Jews, they were never denied citizenship, the right to vote and other things that Jewish people were deprived of in other European countries. I don’t know why you and Mother are trying to make a point about Polish Antisemitism. I am beginning to thing that Mother must have a grandfather or something that was in the Nazi SS. I can’t imagine why he and others chose to deflect the responsibility of the Holocaust from the perpetrators of that horror, the German nation. The deflection of the responsibility of the Nazis for the Holocaust is revisionist and does nothing to promote an honest discussion. The entire subject is complicated and certainly can’t be thoroughly and accurately discussed by posting links to this or that. It is far to vast and complicated to discuss in any meaningful way, in a forum like this. I have spent more than 40 years studying the history of WW II in Europe and there is still much that I don’t know. I don’t deny that the current Polish government is passing frightening laws, it appalls me as well as many Polish people. This is a manifestation of the current trend in the world, including in the US with Trump where populist, nationalist demagogues are spreading prejudice, bigotry and hatred, and it isn’t a good sign.
If you and Mother have some personal grudge against Polish people, that’s fine. You are entitled to your opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts trying to justify your incorrect stand.
I am willing to have a reasonable discussion but it is obvious that you and Mother have no interest in that. All you want to do is attack anything I say because of some kind of personal animosity you have against me. When I am attacked for no reason, I will respond, sorry about that.
You are right, I am a very generous person. I am also open minded, kind, compassionate, and a reasonable person. I only ask to be treated with the same respect that I treat others that are reasonable. If you think otherwise, I am sorry.
If you can find anything I said above as an ad hominem attack or trolling, please let me know.
@edlada @mother
Your attack on Mother, and before any impugning of you. You did indeed, change the tone from a rational discussion to a personal attack on Mother first.
Your attack on me, indicating I wasn’t being honest and that I was misguided.
Your second attack on me. Yes, it was after we called you a troll, but that was after your initial attacks and refusal to document any of your “facts”. I’m not sure why my links may not have worked for you, but they are valid facts.
For the record, I have nothing against the Poles. My grandmother came to the US in the early 1920’s from the part of Poland that was part of Austria before WW1. As I already said, there were people who supported and helped Jewish people, but they weren’t as many as you insist.
If you want to show you aren’t a troll, stop the ad hominem attacks and actually post links supporting your position.
@edlada
Is Newsweek unbiased enough?
POLES TREATED JEWS AS BADLY AS NAZIS, SAYS SECRET 1946 U.S. REPORT
This as well:
Poland’s Very Short Memory on Jews and the Holocaust
@edlada
ANTISEMITISM IN INTERWAR POLAND 1919-1939
Even the BBC:
Poland’s Jews: A tragic history
But as the BBC notes,
So yes, there is less Anti-Semitism now. But not before or during WW2. Even after there was still problems, as the Algemeiner noted in the post above.
@MarkDaSpark I never denied that there was Antisemitism in Poland, as there was in all of Europe. The subject is complex and finding links supporting this or that view is a useless exercise. History cannot be thoroughly discussed by taking isolated stories from the internet with little context, and a thorough examination of all of the events. As you see in the BBC link you provided and quoted, there are many facets to the story. Otherwise, it is just a round and round discussion with no actual benefit. Lastly, I am not sure why you are so intent on arguing about this, I agreed with the original statement when this started. Please get back to me after you have gotten a thorough background on the history of WW II, in about 20 years or so and we can have a real discussion. I have a feeling that the recent articles on the subject were provoked by new research which was in part stimulated by the current Polish government, which quite frankly a populist, regressive, ultra conservative, religiously oriented group. People, especially Jewish people are lashing out at the current government, and supporting their anger by bringing up the Holocaust. Thank you for you comments.
@edlada @MarkDaSpark @mother
@MarkDaSpark @mother @Thumperchick Ruh- roh! Now we’ve done it.
@Thumperchick Thank you for demonstrating that when danger is imminent, the authorities are only a few days away
@mother
6 reasons
I would like to see sane proposals from both sides. I want to see a national database fixed, I think we can all agree on that. I think we can agree on increased access and coverage for mental health and not just pill pushing. I want to see increased training and licensing. It should be harder for me to buy a gun then for me to go get a car. As for the japanese knife one, it was more than one person and it took longer than a few minutes. Obviously the solution of more guns has not worked. There is a reason I feel safer teaching in a maximum security prison where officers do not have guns than going to teach at cornell.
@tiger7610 When you figure out how to have a database that could NEVER be abused by a tyrannical government and provides for nearly frictionless due-process, you let us know. We all want people who obviously shouldn’t be allowed to have guns to not have guns, but not at the expense of the entire reason the founding fathers wrote the 2A. Reporting of mental health to the government also is a very tricky subject- you do more harm if you simply cause these people to not seek help.
As to your car comparison- an American can go out and buy a car with cash with absolutely no limitations or restrictions- if they have the money, they can buy it. However driving that car on public roads is not an intrinsic right of an American, having firearms is.
As for the more guns didn’t work thing- that’s statistically a false statement at least as concerns the US over the last however many decades.
BTW If you feel safer around maximum security inmates and COs compared to the Cornell campus, that’s really irrational. Something like 2.5% of people working in prisons in a given year are injured in violent incidents. That’s ~4 orders of magnitude higher than the risks you face of being shot on a school campus.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/opinion/moynihan-liberals-progressives-lost.html
Liberalism vs progressivism. I certainly identify more closely to the former than the latter. What about all y’all?
@klezman Progressivism is the belief that personal freedom and individual rights are irrelevant versus what is deemed as good for society. The current US incarnation directly fosters a “SJW” mentality that says unless you are perfectly in line with my ideology, you’re an enemy, and it runs allies off.
I am a social liberal (as in “an adherent to social liberalism”), and am therefore opposed to socialism and totalitarianism on historical and ideological grounds. The progressive movement in the US is, unfortunately, socialist totalitarianism wrapped in a veneer of free hugs and unicorn farts. It is inherently un-American, and IMHO just as evil and fact-averse as the “neo-confederacy” that is behind the Trump-GOP.
@mother Yup, that sounds a lot like my problems with progressivism as well.
We may disagree on several more immediate issues (like guns) but fundamentally we are in the camp that the piece decsribes as being able to compromise on such things.
Very interesting opinion piece about yet another form of cognitive bias. Despite the link/article title it’s actually completely without a partisan bias.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/28/opinion/sunday/why-trump-supporters-dont-mind-his-lies.html
Food for thought for all of us when talking about politics.
@klezman
Interesting piece. But it’s not without partisan bias. But accurate in part, and as noted, not restricted to only the Right. Just look at Obama and Hillary, same type of blinders on the Left.
@klezman @MarkDaSpark Kind of reminds me of something I read once about how people overwhelmingly believe that politicians are corrupt in general but also overwhelmingly believe that their own state and local politicians are mostly honest.
@chipgreen @klezman @MarkDaSpark I think that only applies to square states
Certainly nobody in Florida thinks that! lol
@chipgreen
/giphy pointing-and-laughing
Not in California! Even had a gun control legislator arrested and convicted for … (wait for it) … illegally selling guns!
@klezman Neat article. I can see how it applies to both sides of the fence. Though I don’t spend enough time with crazy liberals see it in action there. Most of my political discussions have been with a friend who is a conservative Republican Christian. And it’s my sad belief that the the conservative Republicanism is modifying the Christianity, not the other way around.
Anyway, since I seem to be linking Paul Graham articles, here’s one I think is oddly appropriate.
http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html
Part of the gist of it is that things (drugs, advertising, the art/science of political persuasion) have advanced more quickly than humanity’s ability to cope with it. (As an odd aside, check out what happened when Coca Cola applied its advertising skill in Australia: https://www.theage.com.au/news/business/marketing-success-not-so-sweet-for-coke/2007/09/17/1189881433634.html )
And two quotes from the essay as discussion fodder:
“You can probably take it as a rule of thumb from now on that if people don’t think you’re weird, you’re living badly”
[on smoking] “A lot of the change was due to legislation, of course, but the legislation couldn’t have happened if customs hadn’t already changed.”
@TimothyB
Yes. This appears to be the case, best as I can see. And we are all worse off for it.
At least most people think I’m weird
@klezman Also I meant to edit that statement (the “the the” in there was almost a marker for it) to make it clear that it applied in his case. I don’t know enough people to make sweeping, generalized statements.
Though with billions of people on the planet, I doubt I’m capable of really dealing with even a hundred of them as unique individuals. That implies it’s a pretty short interval before I’m stuck with stereotyping.
@TimothyB Yeah, fair enough. That statement certainly could have been read either way. I think it does apply more broadly than just the one case but also obviously is not an appropriate broad stroke.
For the sake of everyone, I want to point this out:
“How to Disagree”
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
@TimothyB Nice link. Good points for all to remember.
Sad that the current president never gets above DH3. For most politicians that’s a lower bound.
@TimothyB Never seen it laid out like that. I can definitely see some validity in the premise that people being bad at disagreeing causes anger-
Look at the exchange with Ed above. He responded to DH5/6 with ad hominems and things meant to look like refutation that were, in fact, just an attempt to deflect the conversation to a topic that was not in any way important to the point being debated.
I don’t do well with having DH6 responded to with DH0. Which is why I put great effort into not being baited by it, and really really really want an ignore feature
@klezman @mother It’s something I have to work on, too.
Though if you know me, you might notice that occasionally when I speak nonsense it’s kind of a koan. (The rest of the time, what I say really is nonsense. I find that nonsense is appropriate a surprising amount of the time.)
Here’s one example.
I was on a long drive home with a friend who likes to listen to political commentary radio. On one show we were listening to, I don’t remember the topic. I only remember that the radio personality consistently referred to the Washington Post as “the Washington compost”. The name calling just obscured for me any valid points he may have had.
I tried explaining about How to Disagree, but I wasn’t able to get my point across. (Perhaps the nonsense thing prevents me from being a great communicator.)
So talking with my friend about the show, I started referring to the commentator as “that idiot [whats-his-name].” My friend got offended. he just couldn’t see that I was doing the same thing as his beloved [whats-his-name].
In fact, by doing that, I lost so much credibility with him, that he couldn’t believe me when I suggested that if we wanted to get to my house, he should take the next exit. We drove another ten miles before he realized that Waze had reset itself and was taking us to an entirely different destination.
For those who are lawyers, I’m wondering what you think of this argument: https://www.law360.com/productliability/articles/1072021/a-right-to-carry-everywhere-on-a-road-to-nowhere
Obviously those who don’t have a login can’t see the full text. The thrust of the argument is that Heller missed an important word in the second amendment and read “infringed” as “abridged”. The author contends that even a textualist reading of those terms indicates the former is indicative of the relationship between the federal and state governments while the latter is about individual rights:
And he uses this as evidence:
While I know most of the lawyers who read this thread are perfectly in agreement with Heller, I am curious for your analysis on this line of thought.
@klezman IANAL but that is grasping at straws.
The BoR was intended to be specifically enumeration some rights that absolutely are not touchable by the Federal government. It was drafted specifically to get the anti-federalists to support ratification of the constitution. To read the 2A this way completely negates that, as it would remove the protection granted by the 10A [“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”].
Additionally the FF were pretty clear what they meant, there is plenty of other writing, drafts, etc., which make this so. Heck even the throwaway justification clause in the 2A about militias indicates this wasn’t the intent- in the late 18th ‘the militia’ meant all free and able bodied white men 18-45 who weren’t congressmen, stagecoach drivers, or ferryboatmen.
@klezman The argument is not even remotely convincing. You really have to have read the history of the right to bear arms in England, under common law, and then in light of the English Bill of Rights of 1688 - which purported to enshrine (not to establish) the proper Rights of Englishmen. Among those was a right to keep and bear arms, but with a qualification “suitable to their condition” - i.e. it might be (was!) different for aristocrats, the gentry, the middle class and peasants. Interestingly, in earlier times, all free men in the countryside (the yeomanry) were expected to keep and be proficient with the longbow - a personal weapon also useful in war (as demonstrated to the French at Crecy, Agincourt, Poitiers, etc.). The right of self defense was generally considered to inhere in all men (and women… it was the generic term in the day), and not something a state could take away.
The problem with arguments about the purpose of the second amendment is that there were no doubt multiple purposes and understandings. I can’t think of any serious 18th or 19th century writer on the Constitution who embraced a collective model - remember also that the ‘militia’ was the male citizenry from 18-60 or so, whether they were organized or unorganized. To the extent the 2A talking militia, it wasn’t the organized militia (the precursor of today’s National Guard), but the unorganized militia - the body of all citizens defined by statute as the ‘militia’ whether or not enrolled. Curiously, I first learned of the distinction when I went to college: at the Virginia Military Institute, when we signed up, we became cadets in the Viriginia militia - that was an organized militia unit (the Corps of Cadets), but many of the officers at the VMI (any who did not hold US commissions) held commissions in the “Virginia Militia (unorganized)”.
The bottom line for me is that there really isn’t any way around the fact that, having recently fought the Brits for independence, the Founders really meant it when they enshrined the right to bear arms. They meant it for self-defense, they meant it for defense against foreign enemies, and, yes, they also meant it as a bulwark against domestic (state or federal) tyranny.
@rpm OK, fair enough. I suspected that would be where you came down on it.
In general, though, do you disagree that “abridged” and “infringed” mean different things?
Without trying to troll, and there’s no need to answer, I don’t understand how one reconciles slavery with the noble intent of the FF’s BoR. For me, it undermines the foundation of the document. The more I have thought about it in the last decade, the more fungible the contents have become.
In any case, as some of you might remember, I’m extraordinarily liberal and think the establishment of the aristocracy here is a bad thing. Even though I’d eliminate guns, I think democrats should stop trying. There’s no need to alienate/rile up two different single issue groups (anti abortion & pro gun).
How is casemates? I’m struggling with the blog/forum style a bit.
@canonizer Trying to be brief, you need to understand the FF’s were operating in the context of a world in which slavery had (virtually) always existed, though in some countries it was (virtually) nonexistent (e.g. England).
There was a split among the FF over slavery - some were very much opposed (and that even included some from slave states, and even some slaveholders) to slavery and some, especially from South Carolina and the deep South were strongly in favor.
As the FF’s saw it, without a compromise over slavery in the new union, there would not have been a union, and the individual states would have been vulnerable to England or other European powers reasserting control over them.
Also, you need to understand the Constitutional convention was before the invention of the cotton gin, and slavery wasn’t nearly as profitable as it became in the first quarter of the 19th century.
The Constitution permitted the slave trade to be abolished in the future, and most of those willing to compromise on slavery to allow the union to exist believed reasonably and in good faith that slavery would slowly wither away as more profitable forms of agriculture and commerce replaced it over time.
In short, the FF left slavery mostly to the separate states as a pragmatic compromise to benefit the entire country in the short to medium run, which they deemed critical to the survival of an independent republic.
We can disagree with the choice - and there were some who did at the time - but we can not have any comfort that the long term outcome would have been nearly so favorable for the republic.
@rpm Ah, there’s no warning if you shut the window. I shall spill a bit later for my lost post.Thanks for replying, Rob. I take your point that without the collaboration among the States, there would have been little security.
In what way did the Constitution permit abolition? Via Amendment? That’s a high bar, only possible during the Reconstruction period. And if that’s the case, it is true of any altering any of the amendments in the BoR.
But the factors maintaining slavery went far beyond their economic value, which some have argued was more than market wages at the time. New World slavery was vicious by comparison to historical precedent in its treatment, length and automatic perpetuity of kin (regardless of how fathered). Likewise, the need for blacks (and unknown whites, for that matter) to positively prove freedom, as opposed to an assumption of such, created a cottage industry of “repatrioting” them.
I think it’s too easy to say slavery was on the way out. (Incidentally, I think it is critical to read 2A in part as a means to quell slave revolts but that is an aside.)
Thanks. Again, I understand that I’m far to the left on many of the issues here. I appreciate the perspective though.
@canonizer Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution prohibited Congress from prohibiting the slave trade until 1808 - which meant Congress was free to do so afterwards, which it did in 1807 (effective January 1, 1808). Abolition of slavery (a different question) would (and did) require an amendment.
Again, historical context is critical - I know, it’s not fashionable to actually have studied history, or law, but I did 40-50 years ago. The economic value of slavery looked very different in the late 18th century than it did after the invention of the cotton gin, which permitted the growth of the cotton industry. All I can say is you really need to read the contemporary accounts and the solid scholarly history.
There is no question that quelling insurrection (whether slave or otherwise) was a factor in the motivation of the Second Amendment, but I would argue that in the historical context, most of the FF were far more concerned with self-defense (considered a natural right), defense against foreign enemies, and defense against potential government tyranny.
I’ll just leave this here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/upshot/biased-news-media-or-biased-readers-an-experiment-on-trust.html
As always, it helps to understand bias and how it affects our perceptions of the world.
In the midst of all this supreme court nomination crap (no matter what you want the outcome to be), seems to me we have a problem here. The court is becoming more and more politicized. Its legitimacy is in danger. It’s even worse now that the supermajority confirmation requirement has gone away. People are talking about court packing, adding term limits, and more. What about this: simply require that all court nominations have a 2/3 or 3/4 majority in the Senate confirmation process? That makes it a high enough bar that all nominees ought to be in the mainstream.
Too crazy? Or just crazy enough it might work?
@klezman You mean you don’t want the Supreme Court to turn into Hollywood Squares?
@chipgreen I mean, Joan Rivers sitting at the centre would be interesting and all…
Well, in theory, before 1917, there was no way to stop a filibuster as long as someone kept talking.
Since then, filibusters are stopped by cloture motions. From 1917, until 1975, it took 2/3 of the senate to invoke cloture, so that was an effective 2/3 requirement for a Supreme Court justice. In 1975, it was lowered to 3/5 (60 votes if all 100 senators present), where it stood until the Democrats removed it for all presidential appointments other than the Supreme Court in 2013, and the Republicans eliminated it for the Supreme Court in 2017. So, the political judgment of both parties - though primarily the Democrats have made these changes over time - has been to lower the vote requirements as the court has become more important and more political.
I’ll avoid comment on the current circus, but it’s clear that there is no Republican nominee the Democrats would not block if they could, and similarly no Democratic nominee the Republicans would not block if they could.
Mainstream or not. One could easily make a very strong argument that none of the Democratic nominees have been in the mainstream since the Johnson administration. Likewise, Democrats have called every Republican nominee since the Eisenhower administration outside the mainstream.
In short, the problem is not with the required vote, but the tenor of the country. If you raised the requirement, no one would be confirmed in the current climate, and the converse would occur when the Democrats gained a majority. Procedure won’t fix the problem, only the country moving away from the current craziness will.
And, I have no confidence whatsoever that has any chance of happening anytime soon.
@rpm Wholeheartedly agreed on the craziness of the country and that being the root of the problem. But you don’t think steps that required extra consensus would help provide a nudge for our elected representatives to work toward compromise? All the rule changes you highlight eliminated the need for compromise…
@klezman nope, in order to have real compromise, there has to be an area where the sets of preferences of both sides intersect. The area of intersection used to be substantial. But, right now it is asymptotically approaching zero. We haven’t seen anything like the division now since the run up to our civil war, or the revolution.
@klezman @rpm
Here’s hoping that the pendulum swings back towards the middle in the coming years.
@klezman @rpm
It certainly frequently feels that way; though I also sometimes think a substantial number of overlapping preferences remain, but with a few other preferences being so strongly held that compromising any of those few strong preferences is entirely anathema to those that hold them. Of course, that may have been the case prior to the Civil War as well (though less so, I think, in the run-up to the Revolution).
@jawlz @klezman I would be curious where you think areas of overlapping preferences remain. A decade ago, I would have said many. Now, I’m not sure there are any other than such things as wine, food, and loving children - though I’m not so sure about the later given the current profound disagreements over how to raise and educate children today. And, there are actually people who prefer beer…
@rpm
This is precisely what scares me.
Back to the Kavanaugh thing for a second - if he’s not confirmed but another person from the Federalist Society’s list does get confirmed, would that move us closer to all out war or farther? Same question if Kavanaugh is defeated and then Trump is forced to nominate somebody not from that list because the Senate flips to the Democrats in the midterm?
Not sure either one bodes well for the country. (Or maybe, more accurately, pretty sure neither bodes well…)
@klezman - my opinion is that Kavanaugh’s defeat will move us towards potentially violent confrontation. It will certainly poison relations between the parties in Congress. Confirmation of another serious conservative might mitigate, but would not alleviate the anger ‘out there’. Certainly, if the Democrats take the Senate and refuse to confirm any further nominee (I doubt Trump would nominate someone the Democrats would confirm), I think you’ll see the anger grow by at least an order of magnitude.
What you’re seeing in the America that’s outside of the big cities and college campuses is an almost complete distrust of the political class and much of the upper middle class elite generally. Many people believe - rightly in my view, but YMMV - is that the political class (of both parties), and the elite that serves the political class, has absolutely no commitment to this country, to the Constitution and its meaning, or to anything besides their own power, no understanding of economics or history and a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.
I would also point out - though one should not have to - that while the left talks big and parades around as “antifa” thugs attacking people who don’t fight back and expect the police to do their jobs, the right is far better armed and encompasses far more veterans with combat experience.
@rpm You hit on many points that continue to keep me fearing for my future. While we might disagree on some of the specifics you mention about peoples’ beliefs, I agree that most now (rightly) see the political class as a group to be distrusted. We might lay more blame on one group than the other, but the result is the same: a fraying of society.
While it may not be to your liking, I think a brilliant political move for Trump (much as I despise him) would be to withdraw the Kavanaugh nomination and nominate Merrick Garland in his place. It would completely disarm the Democrats, and (if Trump could bully the Republicans into going along with it) that move would repair the part of the rift created when the Republicans refused to consider his nomination. Selling it to the people could actually go a decent way to healing part of the rift.
Of course, Trump hasn’t demonstrated the existence of that sort of instinct anywhere in his psyche, so that would be a pipe dream.
On the bright side, I can move back to Canada if things here get too insane. It’d be a lot easier to watch hockey!
@klezman What are you smoking, Klez? Gotta get me some of that…
Why does your ‘brilliant political move’ amount to a surrender to the left and their tactics?
Seriously, what makes you think Merrick Garland (well to the left of the retired Kennedy, and thus shifting the Supreme Court from center/center right to well left of center) would be acceptable to Trump (who has generally tried to keep his promises, especially about nominating conservative judges) or to anyone in the Republican Senate? Even those Republican Senators who are part of the Uniparty in DC went along with McConnell in not bringing Garland to a vote. To appoint him would be to reward the absolutely atrocious behavior of the Democrats in the Senate and elsewhere, and to reward the demonstrators who make mockery of the rule of law and all decency. The Republican leadership doesn’t like Trump as it is, why would they follow him into the electoral suicide that confirming Garland would represent?
Even trying to sell Garland would not only fail to heal the rift, but would actually exacerbate it by at least an order of magnitude. You really have no idea how much anger is out there at this point.
Indeed, if the Republicans were to confirm a Garland after what has been done to Kavanaugh, the party would be finished. It would go the way of the Whigs as a new party would emerge as conservative voters abandoned the Republicans wholesale. Of course, that would let the Democrats run riot for a few years with the insane behavior of the Nancy Pelosi’s and Maxine Waters’ of the world, and we’d be Venezuela in no time. Not sure if even a new Conservative party taking power after 8 years of rebuilding could turn that around.
Which would probably precipitate the very armed resistance which you want to prevent in the first place.
@rpm Smoking that good Canadian legal weed
I think we have different views on the level and kind of anger that is out there. From my (admittedly, California and Canadian, big city, largely (socially) liberal) vantage point the anger is directed at the Republicans more than the Democrats, even if there is plenty to go around. I don’t think Garland would be acceptable to Trump (even though he was acceptable to Republicans until Obama nominated him), but since Trump’s greatest instinct is self-preservation he might see that as the best way to win reelection. I have no idea if that would overall work in his favour, but I think (and hope) at the end of the day that the people of this country want to move toward less division, not more. If, despite his every instinct being to the contrary, Trump could bring the country together it would be a political masterstroke. It won’t happen, of course. And i’s entirely reasonable to call bs on that one hypothesis of how one could help the country heal.
The anger I’m seeing is one that is born of people feeling like they can’t get ahead. That the existing power structure minimizes their ability to live safely and happily. That whole “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” thing feels sorely threatened, impinged on by those who would brand (for example) all transgendered people as presumed sex offenders. Or those who say women should primarily have domestic roles. Or who think they ought to control other people’s bodies. Or those who inflict harm on the most vulnerable in the population. The people who are harmed by this see a willingness of the ruling political class to inflict direct harm on them - a good friend who is transgendered in particular finds that recent enactments by the Republican Congress directly impinge on his right to equal treatment. This is real anger that is felt by real people.
I’m sure people who lean Republican would say the same thing to a large extent, and the main difference is what they see as the cause/solution. I wish a new party in the true centre would emerge. I think it’s likely the only way things will get better. Hell, I’d think of obtaining citizenship here just to vote for it.
@klezman Very different views indeed. You’re within the bubble and see everything from that perspective. So do my kids, which means I obviously failed to teach them anything about history, philosophy or economics. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree - except on wine and an appreciation of the lovely red haired beauty who is your wife.
@jawlz @klezman @rpm
I don’t know how many overlapping preferences still exist between the parties but the thing that strikes me is that nobody wants to start from a basis of cooperation. Both parties like to emphasize their most glaring differences in an effort to play to their bases and all that does is prevent things from getting done (costing taxpayers big bucks as situations drag on) and assure continued discord.
Supreme court nominations aside, surely there are areas/items of agreement that could be better served as starting points for negotiations on things like taxes, deficit reduction, health care, education, energy, etc. Let’s sit down and figure out the areas where those preferences do overlap and use these as starting points for future negotiations!
@chipgreen @jawlz @klezman Fair observation that no one wants to start from a base of cooperation. Two points about that:
@chipgreen @jawlz @rpm
Rob, we agree about more than you might think. I do think the anger you cite is just as real as the anger I cite. Which is more pressing and how to address it, however, we’ve long known we disagree. Unlike most of what passes for political discourse in this country, though, we have civil and enlightening conversations.
I think one of the reasons the positions on the left and right are diametrically opposed is because neither side is quite ready to admit and discuss that there are inherent trade-offs in any proposal. Everybody (ok, nearly everybody) agrees that society (via taxes) should pay for some things and not others. By refusing to have an honest discussion about the trade-offs, both sides are being inherently dishonest. “Mine is always better!” is hardly a persuasive argument, yet it’s the one that both parties try to make at every turn.
I want to look at one of your examples in depth, but I don’t have time to write out a thorough discussion. Suffice it to say, I am more optimistic that things are less diametrically opposed than you are. What’s missing is a rational discussion of the inherent trade-offs of any policy decision. Today’s politicians are (possibly completely and irreversibly) incapable of having those discussions because they are only concerned with “scoring the next point”. That is something I don’t have any ideas for how to solve, aside from the courageous few who step out of their partisan tents getting massively rewarded for being fair-minded. I’m not holding my breath.
@chipgreen @jawlz @klezman Klez, you’re still (well) on the other side of 40! And so may retain the optimism of youth, whilst my beard and hair are gray and I have the cynicism of age. As someone put it (it’s been variously attributed to Churchill, Clemenceau and Bismarck): he who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart, and he who is not a conservative at 40 has no brains.
@klezman @rpm
Warning: Long and rambling post. Read (or not) at your own leisure.
At the outset, I think we should note that the vast majority of Americans (75%+, probably closer to 90%+) aren’t particularly invested in politics one way or the other (the most recent thing I’ve read on this, but far from the only thing). I certainly know that the proportion of those who have strong political views among my own circles is significantly higher than this, but I don’t know that that is true for most.
I think that in general a significant majority of people are content to put politics out of their mind so long as their own material circumstances are minimally satisfied (I’m happy to decry the ill effects panem et circenses on political engagement, but there’s a certain rationality there as well). At the same time we are experiencing a general decline in political engagement, I suspect we are also experiencing increased volume and visibility of extreme political messages thanks to the rise of the Internet and social media (i.e. the arguments that I was reading in leftist rags back in my early undergrad days at UCSC and UCLA are not at all dissimilar from the arguments I read today on Twitter, Facebook, and Internet news sites, but the online audience for those arguments is exponentially larger [at least potentially] than the number of kids who could have picked up one of those rags at the local college co-op). I am skeptical those arguments have any significantly greater acceptance today, however. And I suspect that most of the preferences of the politically unengaged are shared.
…
That said, to your question on where areas of overlapping preferences (among those who have them) remain.
general democratic processes, and I would say that there’s a large
set of overlapping preferences there. There are very real disputes on
a somewhat technical level (the electoral college, the redistricting
process and apportionment of representatives, one-person-one-vote,
etc), but I don’t see any significant group that’s ready to abandon
the idea of republicanism or democracy altogether.
private property, or calls for state ownership of industry
(exception: healthcare. See below!). Again, there are debates about
how embedded corporate interests already are and/or should be in
politics, but I’ve seen few arguments from any large or commonly
accepted political group that says we should transfer control and
ownership of Amazon or Walmart to the state. I’ve seen even fewer
arguments (honestly next to none that have any real political
currency) about transferring ownership of private residential
property to the state. Those are real issues other nations have faced
and/or acted on that I don’t see in the US.
maintaining and providing basic public infrastructure (streets,
roads, highways, bridges, sewers, water systems, other utilities;
even also things like education [at least on a basic level; clearly
there are {substantial} disagreements about curricula beyond basic
literacy and numeracy], parks, etc). We have differences about how
we should go about providing and maintaining that infrastructure, but
I don’t see any significant group of people that argues we
shouldn’t provide/maintain that infrastructure.
people should be largely left alone to do their own thing when in
private so long as it isn’t clearly harming others. Moreso today even
(with increasing acceptance of behind-closed-doors recreational drug
use and homosexuality) than in past decades.
…
Really, though, it might be easier to call out areas where there is little overlap in preferences. Certainly there is little overlap in many matters of sexual politics (reproductive rights/abortion; the status of women as de facto victims of oppression, etc), though I suspect there is also some overlap to be found (I see few sincere and largely accepted arguments/preferences that women be shunned from the workforce, or that the proper role of women is as housewives/mothers, and both parties seem to agree that everyone should have some base equality of opportunity [though one party would clearly prefer more than just that]).
Health care is another huge area of little-to-no overlap, with Dems increasingly preferring single-payer or state-run healthcare, and Republicans the opposite.
Free speech is another area where there seems to be less and less overlap (at least among those most politically engaged), though I’ll also note that the US has stopped well short of the proscribed speech laws in the UK and Europe.
I’m sure there are several other areas that I’m missing (I see some have brought up energy in other posts), but I’m already going on longer than I should. Apologies for my general rambling – a good deal of brain power is being otherwise taken up by a new job and an unexpected potential boarder moving in with Lauren and me for a month or two (hurrah for life-long grad student friends?).
In any case, I think that I would sum up my thinking by saying that – with some notable exceptions – the country has relatively few disagreements about the basic political structure and form of government we use, but a number of remarkably profound disagreements about the details of our society and political system under that basic structure.
(Also, I reserve the right to completely change my views if 4 years from today we’re headed into the middle of Bernie’s first term and everything is free for everyone.)
I take it all back! Pass me my musket!
@chipgreen @jawlz @rpm I’m glad you think I’m so young! But I am a bit optimistic by nature…you kind of have to be in my line of work (R&D is ridiculously difficult if you’re not somewhat optimistic).
@jawlz @rpm
Expressed more cogently and succinctly than I would have been able to do.
Interesting point that so little of the population is invested in politics. So then how doe they decide for whom to vote? Or maybe that’s a larger part of the problem than I thought…people don’t really understand what they’re voting for, allowing politicians to do things misaligned with their constituents.
That made me think of one other point - an increasingly apparent problem (to me) is that politicians seem to forget that their responsibility is to all their constituents, not just those who voted D or R. (I really wish there were more functional political parties in this country.)
@jawlz @klezman
A decade or two a go, I would have agreed with you. But that’s no longer true. Most of those on the left want to do away with the electoral college and, increasingly, many leftists complain that the Senate is not based on population. The left wants more power in administrative agencies, and wants them to be independent of the executive. All of this is contrary to the Founders’ Constitution based on checks and balances. You should read Philip Hamburger’s Is Administrative Law Unlawful. The left has disliked our Constitutional framework since Woodrow Wilson, who would much have preferred a parliamentary system. The left is increasingly uncomfortable with the presumption of innocence, the right to confront witnesses, and the basic protections in the law - at least when the accused are the currently unfashionable white males… I could go on, but I think that is illustrative of my point: these are profound disagreements about structure and form (republic vs democracy) of government.
I do agree that most people would just as soon tend to their own garden ala Voltaire’s Candide and would simply like the government to leave them pretty much alone. In fact, that’s pretty much why the left has the power it does today: when the right tosses the left out (as in 1980 and again in 2000), instead of burrowing into government jobs as a career as leftists do when they’re running things, they spend a year or two in government, and then return to the private sector. I’ve observed this over many decades.
A key thing to note is that for the most part, Conservative fervor in elections is a reaction to changes imposed by the courts or legislature in Democratic hands which they think impinge on their right to go about their business pretty much as they always have. Conservative social legislation which leftists find threatening typically attempts only to reverse the effects of those Democratic changes.
The left and the Democrats really are trying to change the country, through unrestricted immigration, legislation pushing equality of result in many areas (school discipline!) and making many decisions long considered private to be matters of public concern and regulation.
You may be comfortable with some or all of those changes. As we always say here YMMV. I’m not particularly. But, I grew up in a very different America than most of you. In a California that was a completely different state - it barely even looks the same.
This is part of WHY everyone is so much more concerned about the SCOTUS nominees than in prior decades. The structure of the government on paper is the same. Congress makes the laws, the executive enforces them, and the courts validate or invalidate their constitutionality…except congress doesn’t make the laws anymore. They’ve completely abdicated their responsibility to the other 2 branches and the administrative state that doesn’t appear to be under control of the executive anymore. Most folks I talk to now are realizing that the makeup of the court can affect their day to day life in the long term far more than who their President, Senator or Congressman is. I know a great number of people on the right that held their nose and voted for Trump because of the court…and they will do it again. This Kavanaugh debacle has motivated them to come out and vote in the mid-term.
@jawlz @rpm @airynne
While I understand most of your points, what I’m missing is how you can ignore the effects of some of what the right seems to want. If “going about their business pretty much as they always have” means ignoring discrimination and unequal application of the laws, is that what is intended? The incarceration rate of black people vs white people for drug offenses is always a good reference point for that.
The difficulty I have with many of the positions taken by the right is that it seems to want to ignore aspects of human nature and behaviour that are important in public policy making. (Yes, the left also has some terrifyingly large blind spots in this realm as well. See “unrestricted” immigration.) If animus is held by certain populations against others does it make sense to allow that, or does it make sense to establish that it’s against what this country stands for? (One example might be the North Carolina “bathroom law” that was an assault against transgenred people.)
The thing I keep returning to is that I agree with you philosophically on many of these issues - but when it comes down to application it seems the “conservative” viewpoint results in outcomes I find distasteful or outright repugnant (in addition to the many that I just find to be not my policy preferences…I’m excluding those atm). How am I to square those two things?
@airynne @jawlz @klezman
I dunno, Klez. I think you have to decide what’s most important, given that there are unintended consequences of any approach. For me, it’s about the rule of law, the structure of government and the legitimacy of institutions. Not a perfect world. Some of your examples don’t resonate with me the same way they seem to with you. The transgender bathroom thing is an example. It seems to me that biological women and men ought to be able to use the bathroom without having to worry about whether someone with the other biological equipment is in their bathroom just because they claim to identify with the other gender. To me that’s hardly discrimination. At most, it’s a balancing of rights. There are times when rights of one person may interfere with the rights of another, and we have to balance between them My right to extend my fist stops short of your nose. My right to free speech stops short of a right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. In a world where 90-95% of the population is heterosexual and identify with their biological sex, as a practical matter of governance, I’d put more weight on their rights to use the bathroom in peace than I would on the rights of a fraction of a percent of the population (those who claim to be ‘transgender’ - most of whom still have the original biological equipment) to insist on using opposite sex bathrooms. But, more broadly, I don’t see gay rights as the moral equivalent of the right of citizens of color (is that the current politically correct term?). I was there, I was involved in, and supported, the civil rights movement. But, I opposed the form of affirmative action that was instituted when it was first proposed, and oppose it still. I totally oppose any attempt to ensure equal outcomes.
But, I hear your cri de coeur and I don’t have a better answer. Hard cases make bad law, as the saying goes. Sometimes the consequences of well-intentioned actions to alleviate suffering only make things worse.
@airynne @jawlz @rpm
This is exactly why I enjoy and value these discussions. We’re finally getting to the heart of it. Balancing of interests and rights really is difficult, but nobody in government appears to be interested in an honest discussion of that. It’s full of “my side is morally right and yours is morally wrong, making you an evil person”.
Obviously I don’t have the answers, but that’s why this is a good venue for these discussions. And yes, the road to hell and intentions and all that certainly rings true.
FWIW, it seems the main thing lacking all around is empathy. People are unable/unwilling/uninterested in putting themselves in other people’s shoes. How do you incentivize people to see beyond their own noses?
@airynne @jawlz @klezman
Traditionally, religion (at least the post-pagan religions in the West) spurred people to empathy, compassion, and encouraged what philosophers call superogatory acts (that is, acts which are not legally or even morally required, but a praiseworthy or even heroic). In fact, one of the great ‘selling points’ of Christianity in the late classical world was its emphasis on charity and taking care of the less fortunate. (This is inherent in Judaism, and probably the source for Christianity’s version, but, given Judaism’s then almost exclusively tribal nature, did not give it the wider appeal of proselytizing Christianity, but I digress). The pagan religions simply did not do this doctrinally, and that’s quite possibly why the states in the classical world rarely did much in the way of charity beyond bread and circuses.
The point being most people (who are not made of the stuff of saints) need incentives to see compassionate behavior as in their own (broader) self-interest. It’s a cliche, but you cannot legislate human nature. It’s the reason all utopian schemes (which include socialism and communism in all their forms) fail. And yet, in their own way, communism, and even socialism in anything other than a very diluted form, amount to religions with their own deity (the great god Diahistamat - dialectical historical materialism) and eschatology.
The left, of course, doesn’t understand that it’s become a religion and has spent the past 250-odd years destroying Western religion and all of the institutions of the West.
The genius of the American Founders was that they created a government designed to take advantage of the competing self-interests of the states, and of people and interest groups within states (and even smaller communities) to check and balance each other out in a manner that would, over time, work in the broader common interest, without falling prey to the ills of prior forms of government, in the case of republics, to either mob rule (which is what pure democracy amounts to) or oligarchy (e.g. the fate of the Venetian republic). We’re the second longest lived republic out there - the only longer-lived one the Roman republic, which had close to a 500 year run before succumbing to the temptations of empire and one man rule.
I don’t think you can have it both ways - you can either have a state that guarantees liberty (but thus allows not insignificant numbers to fail and fall through the cracks) or a state that tries to make sure everyone is ok (but must become coercive in order to command the resources to do that, and becomes tyrannical as a small group determines what ‘ok’ means and what everyone ought to have - which of course doesn’t include the deciders as some animals are more equal).
@airynne @jawlz @klezman
I would add here that another great strength of the United States, at least before the growth of the administrative state during and after the First World War, was that while the state (either the federal or state governments) was very limited, a vast number of private - entirely voluntary - groups did a fair (but obviously not perfect) job of providing education, charity, civic engagement, self-help (insurance type groups), and the like. The beauty of that approach was that it was voluntary - no state coercion, hence not a threat to liberty - and it was local - directly connected to the place where something was needed, overseen by those who were in a position to know who truly needed help and who needed a kick in the pants. Tocqueville remarked on this as something unknown in Europe (though in fairness, much of it had precursors in England in the 17th and 18th centuries), something born of the need in the colonial era of the colonists to take care of themselves without help from the British government. Despite the flaws with that model, I think it’s much healthier than the entitlement model of the modern American and European welfare states. We imported the welfare state model from the Continent (originally mostly Germany!), where there were limited or no notions of individual liberty against which state intrusion was to be balanced or even forbidden.
@airynne @klezman @rpm RPM, I’m heartened to see you reference Toqueville and the influence of religion and charity on the earlier history of the US. It’s not something that is commonly taught in history classes today on any level (elementary, secondary, university, etc). But their influence on colonial and post-revolutionary America - as well as on the country’s expansion westward - really cannot be overstated. I am skeptical that our political institutions would have fared as well as they did without the separate but complimentary sphere of services and influences provided by religious and charitable groups. And replacing religion with the state for many of those roles makes for a remarkably tenuous and uneasy fit, at least in our democratic system of government with its cacophony of competing interests. Really, we’re too large geographically for that to work well.
For the most part I agree with your posts, though I would note that I too am not particularly sanguine about the changes the country is undergoing (though I’m also largely resigned to them). But by-and-large I think those changes are cultural, as opposed to structural on a political level (though of course political structure influences culture and [at least in democratic countries], vice versa). But maybe I’m missing it, and we’re transitioning (or perhaps we’re already there?) into an Augustan phase of the country’s history where the scaffolding of our democratic systems hangs ornamentally around a new non-democratic and bureaucratic (some might even say ‘deep’) state. (Related: I ordered Hamburger’s book, and look forward to giving it a read.)
@airynne @jawlz @rpm Very interesting and enlightening stuff. Thanks!
I hadn’t realized the extent to which religious and other charitable groups had influenced that balance. I think it’s undisputed that the balance you refer to is no longer, well, in balance. So how can balance be restored - even if it’s not a balance between government and religion/charity providing? Who are the right players? Who picks up the slack if (for example) religious groups are unwilling to help those who aren’t heterosexual cis-gendered people? Should there be a safety net for those who slip through the cracks you mention?
@airynne @jawlz @klezman @rpm Carlson’s piece starts slow but builds an interesting case. The cliff notes version is that the disintegration the family, and Republican worship of the market, has created today’s economic and cultural decline.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-mitt-romney-supports-the-status-quo-but-for-everyone-else-its-infuriating
The question is how do we restore the American family? I’m sorry to report that I also don’t have an answer.
@airynne @foxrunner @jawlz @rpm If you have an answer to that, particularly if it doesn’t involve demonizing classes of people, I’m all ears.
@airynne @foxrunner @klezman @rpm I don’t know that I have much to say except that it’s probably more complicated than Carlson is suggesting, and I don’t think that he’s made a strong case that our tax policy and capitalistic economic system were the primary drivers in the decline of the family as opposed to any cultural shift in attitudes (though of course culture and economics influence eachother). There may well be a case to be made here, but I don’t see it being made coherently or clearly in the linked oped.
That said, the decline of the nuclear family and the correlated social ills has been relatively well documented - you can look at The Moynihan report from 1965 and various follow-ups to that report, up to and including Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart” from 2012 which I recall RPM recommending in the past.
@airynne @foxrunner @jawlz @rpm
I was on board with the first half of Carlson’s essay, pointing out the lack of attention given to these problems by the “ruling class”. But it quickly devolved, to me, into oversimplifying things into conservative tropes like “out of wedlock births”. To be sure, I think the research clearly shows having kids in a stable family environment with two parents is ideal. That doesn’t mean everything else is terrible and immoral.
Here y’all are! I’m reading up on what I’ve missed. It’s been a very ugly week or so in politics, huh? For the most part, my friends are busy hating each other (or what they think the other represents). I can’t imagine any outcome that won’t be terrible in one way or another.
Been crazy quiet here since before the election!
I’m curious…with Trump apparently contemplating declaring a state of emergency to build his precious border wall, what is the propriety of that? Both politically and legally?
@klezman I don’t have an answer. I just came here to see what intelligent people have to say.
@klezman Angry old man politics. He’s ultra-focused on his wall again. Who knows what set him off this time.
@mwfielder He does seem to be. He must think it’s a winning issue. He’s been right before.
@klezman Yes. I’d love to be an insider “in the room where it happens.” Angry blowhard? Is he really the guy who doesn’t like to read and only wants to look at graphs? Is he a clever manipulator of people to his will? Financial genius? Spoiled brat and bully? All of the above? I have my own thoughts, but willing to hear the other side.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/flashback-democrats-supported-mexico-border-fence/
@mwfielder I don’t think any of us will truly ever know. I suspect he’s as arrogant and gut-based as the stories tell us. But again, we will likely never know for sure.
@rjquillin 12 years ago the status on the border was rather different than it is today. Also a fence != a wall. Also the actual people who are out there doing the actual work don’t want a physical barrier, they want more useful things to find and deter people crossing illegally.
@klezman
I think every President wants something to be his legacy. For Trump, it is the wall. For Obama it was supposed to be health care reform.
@klezman
This statement is in conflict with reports and interviews I’ve read and heard. A physical barrier will not stop crossings, but as has been demonstrated, will deter and redirect to allow better enforcement, if permitted.
There will remain attempts to cross so long as there exists an incentive and our laws are not enforced by sanctuary cities and states.
@rjquillin perhaps I should rephrase slightly. It’s that other things are higher priority than a physical barrier.
I’m also no far leftie on immigration, having gone through the system the normal way. But I still think building a wall is a silly waste of resources.
@klezman @rjquillin oh come on you know you are a way far leftie
you might as well just own it!
@rjquillin @ScottW58 about other things, maybe. Not this one.
@klezman @rjquillin @ScottW58
Klez is just trying to deflect our attention from the real threat coming in from the North!
According to the “fact checkers”, illegal aliens cost the USA $116 billion/year. It is also estimated that slightly over 50% of the illegal aliens enter over the southern border, so maybe the cost from there is $60 billion/year. Suppose the wall only stops 30% of the illegal crossings. If it takes $18 billion to build, in only 3 years it has “paid for itself” in savings, and everything after that is “profit”. If the wall stops 75% of the illegal crossings, you’re starting to talk about some real money (hat tip to Everett Dirkson).
@chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin hehe I’ve been telling him that for years! Damn frostbacks
@chipgreen @rjquillin @ScottW58 Me and my frosty back!
@Mark_L How is that estimate of “cost” derived?
I think it’s also disingenuous to say what Trump says, which is that “shifting costs” is the same thing as “Mexico is paying for it”. A different economic argument could be made, maybe even convincingly, but that is not what is being attempted.
@klezman I’ll leave this here. Touches on the original argument as well.
https://www.cato.org/blog/fairs-fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-study-fatally-flawed
@klezman There are some suggesting that El Chapo could pay for the wall.
@radiolysis wow. From Cato no less. The first paragraph is so damning that I’ve copied it here.
@klezman @radiolysis
Wow i’m shocked! a righty can find something on the internet that says illegal immigration costs the country billions and a lefty can find something on the internet that says the cost of illegal immigration is not so bad or is an outright lie.
Personally I think we should change our laws to match Canada’s! You can cross the border but you cannot legally take any job that could be used by a Canadian citizen until you are a permanent resident or citizen or you can apply for permanent residence if you are considered a Skilled Worker and of course if you cross you are not getting the benefit of the free health care until you’re considered a permanent resident or citizen.
@klezman @radiolysis @ScottW58 And, of course, your children do not become permanent residents or citizens entitled to welfare, free health care, or education…
@radiolysis @ScottW58 Canada actually has a pretty good immigration system overall, as far as I know.
Cato Institute is hardly left wing. They describe themselves as libertarian, fwiw. They were started by the Koch brothers and continue to be heavily funded by them. Those paragons of left wing politics…
The Canadian system you describe is, on paper, not that far away from what’s required in the USA. You have to go through several hoops to hire a temporary foreign worker, get certified from multiple federal agencies, and then you are allowed to hire them. Those visas are valid for three years, renewable once (for the high-skilled worker category called H-1B, which is where I was). Then if you want to hire them permanently you have to do further certifications plus another job search to prove there’s no American to take the job, then apply to more government agencies, have a medical exam, be fingerprinted, not leave the country during the process, etc. Oh, and until you have permanent work authorization you are, more or less, stuck with your employer and it can be difficult to switch jobs.
I’d love a total immigration overhaul in this country. That’s not what people have been talking about. They’re talking about illegal immigration as if it’s the same thing as legal immigration. The two could not be more different in my eyes. The former needs a comprehensive overhaul. The latter needs something to be done, but it doesn’t seem to me that building a wall and trying to evict ~11 million people from the country is a wise use of resources.
@radiolysis @rpm @ScottW58 Children born in Canada are Canadian. There was actually a good article recently talking about how people are using Vancouver to get their kids Canadian citizenship at birth so they can have that benefit later on in life. We’ve got our anchor babies too…
@klezman @radiolysis @rpm And by the way whatever happened to the much talked about giant migration to Canada of the lefties if Trump was elected?? Maybe they got stopped at the border
@radiolysis @rpm @ScottW58 Same thing that happened to all the giant migrations of the righties when Obama won.
@klezman hmm I don’t remember that one?
@klezman @ScottW58 Nor do I.
@klezman @rpm @ScottW58 I’d love for someone to find some sound clips and quotes as well.
Easier to find for those opposed to Trump, check out Hollywood.
Came across this gem this morning.
@Mark_L Nice
As a parent of a three-year-old, sometimes it’s better to just give them the toy and get the hell out of Walmart.
On a more serious note, “we” elected this president (not me, but, you know). It seems appropriate to try to work with him to some extent. Didn’t we learn anything from the Obama years?
@chemvictim I thought we learned that Mitch McConnell owns the government and can do whatever he wants. Institutions and norms be damned.
@klezman Maybe that too. Still, aren’t we gleefully piling up debt like there’s no tomorrow anyway? With Republicans’ blessing, even? What’s another 5 billion? Give it to him and let’s all go home.
@chemvictim since Trump acts like a toddler shouldn’t we test him as such? Although to some that means appeasement while to others that means not letting him win.
@chemvictim THIS is exactly where I am on this whole thing. Will the “wall” do what Trump touts? I have no idea. Best case it does, worst case, it’s a waste of money and misuse of eminent domain…But when have democrats or republicans ever been opposed to wasting money or misuse of eminent domain? Just give him his $5B toy so people can feel better and move on. This is stupid.
Apologies if anyone is offended by this but at the same time… “Lighten up, Francis!”
@chipgreen
priceless at 0:12
@chipgreen @rjquillin
Wow, that was surprisingly dumb.
(The only people who seem to confuse weather and climate are those like James Inhofe, of snowball in Congress fame.)
@klezman @rjquillin
It’s a parody. It’s supposed to be “dumb”.
@chipgreen @rjquillin Nah…parodies are good fun! This, to me, had nothing that makes a parody good. Obviously ymmv.
Since this thread has resurfaced, I’m curious on people’s thoughts on antisemitism, recent attacks, and what Trump and others (does or doesn’t do) to (encourage or discourage) these sorts of attacks.
I’ll leave the gun component of this issue out for now.
Whatever one thinks of the Donald otherwise, he is certainly the most Philosemitic president in the history of this Republic.
The whole topic of antisemitism is well beyond the scope of this little thread, but I have always found it vile. Neither the right nor the left - in Western political terms - own antisemitism, but it has been in the warp and woof of both Christianity and Islam historically.
I thought the West was pretty much done with it on any serious level (beyond those who still practice a certain amount of social discrimination, e.g. certain private clubs), but apparently not. In Europe, before the German National Socialists made antisemitism their own, it was primarily a ‘right’ phenomenon, strongest in Tsarist Russia and republican France, but there were bouts in other countries (even England tossed out the Jews in the Middle Ages).
In the Islamic world, antisemitism of course has been a consistent and constant theme, which has come to widespread attention only since the resurgence of political Islam in the past 30 years or so. I’m not sure how well-known it is, but the Nazis played some pretty serious footsie with the antisemitic Mufti of Jerusalem and the Arabs (and let’s not even get into the German alliance with the Turks during WWI and their indifference to the Armenian genocide, but I dirgress).
And, of course, public antisemitism in Europe and the West today seems very much related to increased Muslim immigration as well as movements such as the black Muslims.
The almost absolute public bar to criticism of Islam and its adherents in recent years has made the increase of antisemitism almost respectable in Democratic circles. And, of course, it was always a staple of Soviet communism and the Comintern generally - as the Jews (though many were personally leftists or communists) were seen as the archetype of the rapacious capitalist and always among the first to be put up against the wall or flee.
There is a certain irony, perhaps, in the fact that one of the most (theologically) conservative Western religions, Judaism, gained its widest toleration and acceptance in the countries most profoundly affected by the Anglo/Scottish enlightenments, the classical liberalism that undergirds the worldview of most in the Anglosphere.
@rpm
A couple things.
After its massive bungling of that cartoon last week, the NY Times managed to publish a couple pieces (one editorial, one op-ed) that very eloquently made the case for fighting antisemitism in all its pernicious forms. At least that’s something.
@klezman - where to begin… on you numbered points:
@rpm Thanks!
I am certainly not inclined to feel warm fuzzy things toward the current president, and given how things have gone lately this is a particular sore point. As for what he said, I did see the original, and I’d like to think (but obviously can’t prove) that my opinion was based on that rather than the chattering op-eds. But saying his kid converted is a little too close for comfort to the “my best friend is black” argument of not-that-long-ago.
I always like your history lessons. If I’d had better teachers for that sort of thing I would have enjoyed it more and probably pursued it more. Too much fact memorizing and too little discussion of how it all fit together.
But I think in the wording you used it’s clear just why Jews need a Jewish state. The most we can hope for in most other places is tolerance and maybe acceptance. They both seemed a foregone conclusion in North America during my lifetime, but I’m being forced to reconsider the truth of that statement. It’s terrifying.
@klezman Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the Donald, but we do that now and then
I don’t think the fact that he seems perfectly comfortable with his daughter’s conversion and his Jewish in-laws is close to the ‘my best friend’ arguments of decades ago. After all what is more intimate than complete acceptance of someone who is different into one’s family?
Happy to help with history - though I do wish more people knew enough history that I could spend more time discussing historical issues and less time helping others learn the basics…
Well, again, I’m thinking historically: tolerance precedes acceptance and so it was historically with Jews in North America and Western Europe. So, I think you’re reading too much into the wording. If you think of this republic, we are unique in that legal equality among members of all religions is in our fundamental documents and was in many (but not all) of the colonies before our revolution. As you note, however, even legal equality (which is probably what ‘religious toleration’ meant in the 18th century) is not the same thing as full social acceptance. While I am not now, and never have been, of the view that the Jewish sense of exclusive group identity is a significant cause of the Jews being seen as “other”, the issue of Jewish “otherness” is complex. Historically, it was called (by everyone who wrote about it, whether Jewish, Christian or almost entirely secular) the Jewish Question. Zionism - the notion that the Jews needed their own state - was a late 19th/early 20th century response to the assimilationist tendencies and persistent anti-semitism. There is much I would enjoy discussing with you about these issues, but I think they are best discussed in person over a few bottles of wine.
@rpm Always agreed on the wine! I’ve not had cause to pass near your area lately, but we shall see.
And at least I know some stuff about the history of Zionism and related. Jewish Zionist schools are good at teaching that sort of thing
@klezman @rpm I just wanted to say that it has been quite enjoyable reading this discussion. It is sad that it seems more of a rarity these days to see different sides civilly presenting ideas and listening. I know that @klezman and I have our differences of viewpoints, but (as was mentioned above) nothing that would prevent us sharing a few glasses (or bottles) of wine as we solve the world’s problems.
@klezman @Mark_L @rpm
The World will always have problems… and wine!
@chipgreen @Mark_L @rpm Hey, if we can’t listen to each other we’re sunk as a society. I fear we’re too close to that in any case…
OK, let’s try this. I’d encourage everybody to give this a read: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/bill-barrs-performance-was-catastrophic/588574/
Despite the URL, the essay dissects the ways in which Barr misled the public. I haven’t seen anything yet that suggests the author is wrong.
So did Barr mislead the public and/or Congress? Is his role to be partisan or be neutral as far as the law is concerned? Is the way he misled the public worthy of sanction, or is this all just noise?
@klezman
Sorry, but the author lost me when he stated: “Not in my memory has a sitting attorney general more diminished the credibility of his department on any subject.”
He must have an extremely short memory. Obama’s 2 AG’s did far, far worse.
@MarkDaSpark
So ignore that assertion and move on to the substance of the article. Comparisons to others is entirely beside the point.
@klezman
On the contrary. It goes directly to his logic and reasoning capabilities. With that statement, it negates all of his following conclusions.
If he can’t acknowledge the greater abuses done by those two, any reasoning he does is faulty.
@MarkDaSpark WOW, I could not disagree more. So what you’re saying is that anybody with whom you disagree and who comes to a different conclusion from you is forever irredeemable. Hardly constructive.
Please ignore the assertion you disagree with and comment on the substance of the article, which is a discussion of the variance between Barr’s public testimony and letter to Congress compared to the actual text of the Mueller report. That is the entire scope of the question.
@klezman
Hardly that. That’s not what I said at all. Try again, realizing that what he said demonstrated his bias, if not outright prejudice. He didn’t preface it with “In my opionion …”, but said it outright.
And this is ignoring the blatant abuses done by the previous AGs’, including meeting with the spouse of someone under investigation in a plane on the tarmac. Hardly someone making cogent, valid arguments. He had no substance.
He wasn’t making an assertion, but claiming it as a fact. As for “forever irredeemable”? You are the only one saying that. If that were the case, I would have given up on you long ago.
I’m only asserting his opinions are worthless in that article only, not “forever”. When one starts off with a faulty premise, one can only keep going down the rabbit hole, not seeing the light.
@klezman.
Bold added.
Mueller letter to Barr criticizing summary released
@MarkDaSpark Just let me know if you decide to address any of the actual substance of the article.
@klezman If I find any substance in it, I’ll be sure to let you know!
Anybody else?
@klezman
Read the piece, twice, and followed most of the links.
Considering the historical bias of the authors I have nothing to add.
Their writings speak volumes.
@rjquillin Not sure that deals with any of the substance either…which of these statements are wrong and why?
Then there’s this:
And this:
How is Barr’s characterization of the report not full of spin, misdirection, and mischaracterization? While it appears that he’s not outright lying, he’s as close as possible to that line without quite crossing it.
@klezman @rjquillin.
Or maybe start reading other links that don’t mislead?
The Big Lie that Barr lied
Okay. I read the article and here’s what I walked away with. Barr did not lie or make misstatements but he came to different conclusions than the author wanted so he’s partisan and corrupt… Well isn’t that kind of what the right said about anyone on the left and the left says about anyone on the right? Everything is perspective.
And when in recent history has the AG NOT been political? Would it be nice if they were all non-partisan? Sure, but if it were to be a non-partisan post, it wouldn’t be a political appointee job.
I have to agree that it was hard to take much in the body of the article as serious unbiased journalism when he starts by saying that Barr is the worst ever (uh, did he miss Eric Holder, who was basically BFFs with Obama)?
@airynne Fair enough.
I’d draw a distinction between the AG being political in setting and carrying out administration policy vs upholding the law as-is. Most attorneys general have taken the correct stance that their job is to uphold and defend any law that can be honestly defended. I can only think of one definite exception (Barr not defending the ACA) and one maybe-exception (Holder not defending DOMA). The latter is a maybe-exception because I’m not clear on whether there was an honest defense of that law. (And if was truly defendable then it’s clearly in the same group as the ACA.)
@airynne @klezman Most attorneys general have taken the correct stance that their job is to uphold and defend any law that can be honestly defended.
Janet Reno? Eric Holder? Bobby Kennedy? Nixon’s AGs? And by your stance on Holder and the DOMA you are reaching a partisan conclusion as to what’s a law that can honestly be defended. I could say - in good faith - exactly the same thing about the ACA, that I’m not sure there is any honest basis on which it could be defended.
As you know, I enjoy our discussions, but I think on issues regarding the current administration we are so far apart that we - in good faith and all honesty - see the world so differently that little communication is possible. Which I find very sad, but we may have to accept.
@klezman What can and cannot be honestly defended is still completely a matter of perspective and bias and often politically motivated. Clearly ACA, DOMA, drug laws, etc all were defensible at some point by some administration as they were all passed by congress and signed into law. I don’t believe any of those examples were veto overrides. both congress and the executive found them defensible.
I don’t view it as the executive branch’s responsibility to decide which laws from previous administrations are defensible or not. Congress passes the laws, the executive, including the DoJ, administers and upholds the laws, and the SCOTUS determines if the law is constitutional. This would be a truly neutral and unbiased upholding of the law (or as close to it depending on how political you think SCOTUS has become).
Just like I expect a defense lawyer to vigorously defend the most disgusting of human examples, I expect the DoJ to defend the law regardless of what they personally think about them. But maybe I’m just an idealist. I know it’s never really worked like that.
@airynne @rpm
I should have known better than to say something that would be taken father back in time than I know much about.
I agree that in a perfect world the DOJ should defend all laws on whatever basis they can. Closely both Holder and Barr are not doing so. It’s a fair point that a defensible law is also in the eye of the beholder, so I guess the right answer is that all should be defended.
@airynne @klezman Well…this is why I keep saying I wish people knew more history…
@airynne @rpm Even if I knew more history, I was a kid in Canada when Janet Reno was AG. I didn’t even know what politics meant at that age! (And a simpler time it was!)
So I take it you disagree that the House is going to likely hold Barr in contempt? Is disregarding a subpoena something that is ok to do?
@klezman @rpm The house held Holder in contempt and it meant nothing, so I’m not sure Barr or anyone else cares what congress does. They have weakened themselves to this point though, cheering as the executive branch usurped their power. It would be a hard path for them to gain their proper relevance back.
@airynne @klezman pretty much!
@airynne @rpm Well, maybe Trump will do a service to those with my views and help Congress start taking back its proper power. One can only hope.
@airynne @klezman @rpm
Be careful what you wish for! The last time the last time the Dems pushed something through it came back to haunt them big time. 51 votes
@airynne @rpm @ScottW58 not sure what you’re referring to
@airynne @klezman @ScottW58 probably Obamacare… which cost them Congress…
@klezman @rpm @ScottW58 The ACA debacle also set the precedent to remove the filibuster which weakened the minority party in the Senate and resulted in Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. This was a short sighted decision given they would not always be in the majority.
@airynne @klezman @ScottW58 which the Democrats thought they would …
@airynne @klezman @rpm
Ah yes they were flush with power and figured they would push through anything they wanted never considering what would happen if they lost the Congress. Everything that has followed they have nobody to blame but themselves and yet they act surprised.
@airynne @klezman @ScottW58 hubris gets you every time . . . . a lesson the 'pubbies and 'crats should both take much more seriously than they usually do… and which the uniparty political elite (or class if you prefer) never seems to get at all! These clowns should all read more Greek tragedy…
@airynne @rpm @ScottW58
An uncharitable (even if not crazy) interpretation of those events. I think the norm-busting responsibility sits with both parties, but Mitch McConnell has done more of it than just about anybody else. It started with him filibustering just about everything the Obama administration wanted to do and then things degraded pretty quickly from there. Where did he think that was going to go?
(Yes, you can point to bad behaviour by just about every iteration of every party over the years. But McConnell has made no pretense of even attempting to work in a bipartisan fashion since January 2009. Of all members of Congress, he is the one I most want to see vanquished in the next election. But then what’s the incentive for everybody else to start working together, when the Democrats have a lot of incentive to try to even things up before doing that. Which would only make things worse.)
And meh to the ACA. It’s pretty popular overall and has succeeded in all of its primary goals, even if there’s room for improvement. Its lowest popularity was right after it passed.
@airynne @klezman @ScottW58 while I can agree everyone has behaved less than stellarly, your putting the bulk of the onus on McConnell is purely partisan. One could as easily say, after the Democrats enacted a hated measure without any 'pubbie votes, the 'pubbies reasonably believed that no compromise was possible and that it was necessary to oppose the 'crats tooth and nail and to give them nothing after that.
I don’t think the ACA is so very popular - I certainly don’t know anyone (Democrat or Republican or other) personally who believes his or her personal health care situation is not worse, or at least no better, than it was prior to Obamacare. I’m sure they are out there, but the cost was wrecking much of the insurance system and eliminating the ability to buy the insurance one determines she or he needs rather than what some bureaucrat decides. Oh, and you can keep your doctor…
@klezman @rpm @ScottW58 The primary stated goals of the ACA were to expand health coverage and lower costs. Costs have gone up significantly, and while the number of uninsured has gone down, most people I know feel their coverage is worse than before. Mine certainly is.
If the ACA is so popular, why are nearly all of the current declared presidential candidates touting the need for single payer? Why aren’t they running on what a success it is?
Blame McConnell, Obama, Reed, Bush even, but the passage of the ACA and the way it was done was a low moment for the legislative process and predictably resulted in less bipartisan interest and more dirty politics on both sides. Honestly, if you can’t see that, I’m not sure what else there is to say. You trace the bad behavior back to 2009 and McConnell and I say look at the bigger context. He’s been in the Senate a long time, you think in 2009 he just said, I’m done playing nice with these guys for no reason?
@airynne @klezman @ScottW58 what @airynne said
@airynne @rpm @ScottW58
) perspective that health care is a basic right. Period. How to pay for it and how to structure it is up for grabs, but the premise is not. Public delivery vs private. Insurance vs Medicare for all. I don’t care so long as it’s efficient and covers everybody without financial hardship.
Fair points all. I’d be more inclined to give McConnell a break if this all started after the Democrats rammed the ACA through. But it didn’t - he started the second Obama got elected with his famous “our only goal is to make him a one-term president” comment and the strategy that flowed from it. That’s why I’m assigning him more than a proportional share of the blame, although not the majority of it.
I think the people who now have access to health care when they did not before would argue they love the ACA. But its success doesn’t mean it’s perfect. One of the main issues that the left side of the Democratic party has identified is exactly what you describe - premiums and co-pays continue to rise (although I think less quickly than before, but no matter), putting access to health care on the margins again, even if you nominally have coverage.
It’s worth pointing out my Canadian (or frostback, as Scott calls me
@airynne @klezman @rpm
Really this all started with the first Obama election?! For you maybe but I think you should go back to the first Clinton presidency or even Bush 1 when it started getting really nasty, (RPM might correct me on that). Since then the dems and repubs have had plenty of chances to be the bigger man but have chosen not to, so this is just the natural progression.
And now after all that has gone down the next dem president well, better be strong.
@airynne @klezman @ScottW58 I suppose that those of us who have been close observers of American politics as it happened back into the '50s (in my case) and students of American political history back to the origins of the republic take a rather longer view of the partisanship “who’s to blame” that you naturally would as a (well disposed and intelligent) foreigner who has only observed our politics for 20 years or so. Also, you come from a country, though mostly anglophone and within the Anglosphere, in which the state takes a much more interventionist role and the citizenry has a very different understanding of liberty and rights than that expressed in our founding documents.
While I appreciate your focus is purely “practical,” those of us concerned with our liberties and questions of the proper role of the state must consider not only whether the means chosen to address a particular goal (such as actual access to health care) are consistent with our liberties as described in our founding documents, but whether the goal itself is a proper function of the federal (or in some circumstances state) government.
Our founding documents conceive rights as restraints on action by the state (whether federal or state), not as what are referred to in the professional literature as “positive rights” - of which health care is an example.
@airynne @klezman @ScottW58 Scott: in personal memory I’d go back to the nastiness of the campaigns against Tricky Dick Nixon in 1960 and 1962, and the viciousness of the attacks on the (rather libertarian in many respects except defense) Barry Goldwater in 1964 as egregious examples of the left’s politics being much more vicious towards the right than vice versa - example, the widely reviled Dick Nixon refused to challenge what was almost certainly voter fraud in both Texas and Illinois in the 1960 election; those who urged him to do so said his refusal was based on his sense that it would have been worse for the country than his having lost. But, there were also vicious anti-Catholic smears against John Kennedy in 1960, and the conservative concerns with communists in government earlier (which turned out to be justified based on the release of the Venona documents and the opening of Soviet archives in the early 1990s, but I digress). And, of course the internal vicousness of the New Left against the Democratic establishment (think the Chicago convention in 1968) and the subsequent McCarthy/Bobby Kennedy brawl and the treatment of Hubert Humphrey (once a liberal’s liberal…)… And the smears against Reagan… Oh, I think it’s worse by an order of magnitude now, maybe, than it was when Wendell Willkie ran against FDR in 1940, and and was called a fascist and worse, or when Alf Landon and others called FDR a socialist in 1936 but the slope has been quite slippery all along. And things were at least as vicious in the early years of the republic based on both domestic and international (think the French Revolution) issues.
@airynne @rpm @ScottW58
Scott - no, not that nasty partisanship was invented by McConnell in 2009. That’s obviously bunk. My point was that McConnell tipped his hand as to his true goals at that time, leading me to conclude he was operating as a pure partisan from then on.
Yes, agreed with my limited perspective on the time series of partisan politics and who did what to whom.
Thankfully I do understand the issues you raise, rpm, about the founding documents and their definition of rights. (Naturally the conversations here and on wine woot have helped inform me.) I do wonder if those more “limited” versions of rights and the kind of liberty they imply may be well served with some level of revision or expansion. The Declaration of Independence is centred around the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I suggest that it’s fair to describe being bankrupted for medical care and being unable to leave a job due to the same high cost of medical care are significant impediments to life, liberty, and happiness. Granted, that’s not the constitutional definition, but it does seem in line with the declaration.
Maybe more broadly, when does it become fair to expand our notion of what the existing rights mean and assert new or derivative rights?
Believe it or not, I actually agree with you on the proper role of federal and state governments. I am less skeptical, obviously, of the ability of government to solve problems, but they should stay in their lanes. That isn’t to say that their lanes should be restricted forever to how they were conceived of in the late 1700s, although constitutional amendments would clearly be the correct way to effect those sorts of changes.
@airynne @klezman @rpm @ScottW58
@airynne @klezman @rpm @ScottW58
The problem is the word “limited”. Because not everyone agrees on what is reasonable. Just look at Canada and free speech rights. Or Great Britain.
HuffPo even knows Freedom of Speech limited in Canada - 2013
How Canada Bans Books - 2018
Another Grim Year for free speech on Canada’s campuses - 2018
Internet crackdown raises fears for free speech in Britain - 2019
Mother, 38, is arrested in front of her children and locked in a cell for seven HOURS after calling a transgender woman a man on Twitter - 2019
Police Question UK Journalist for ‘Misgendering’ a Transgender Woman - 2019
@klezman @MarkDaSpark @rpm @ScottW58
We can have a discussion on if full access to health care is in the interest of the greater good and if that good outweighs the cost, but I will never call it a right.
Rights are things that no one has to provide for me (though they can be infringed on). Free speech, Freedom of religion, privacy. Like the term or not, health care is a service. And that service must be provided by someone either in exchange for some thing (money, bartered) or by force/threat.
If tomorrow all Doctors and Nurses quit, there would be no healthcare for anyone, so it’s not a right.
@airynne @MarkDaSpark @rpm @ScottW58
Fair point, airynne, even if I don’t entirely agree. So do we have any rights aside from those specifically enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
@klezman @MarkDaSpark @rpm @ScottW58 I listed Privacy, which isn’t specifically enumerated even if it’s implied. I think overall, they did a good job of listing them though.
@airynne @klezman @MarkDaSpark @rpm @ScottW58
We do have the 4th., that directly addresses privacy.
@klezman @MarkDaSpark @rjquillin @rpm @ScottW58 I agree mostly that the 4th is about privacy, but it’s really directed at protections from the gov’t and criminal prosecution.
The reason I say privacy isn’t directly addressed is that the topic has become larger in the age of the internet. I’ve been watching the topic with interest for a while now from SCOTUS rulings to the EUs “right to be forgotten” stuff.
I believe it was a Kavanaugh opinion that stated the gov’t spying on citizens was okay, as long as the information gathered was not used for criminal prosecution. I don’t personally agree with that stance, but I also can’t really argue against it with the 4th.
Privacy is becoming a complicated topic.
Regardless of whether you think it wise or justified or just partisan manoeuvring, is the House within its power to subpoena administration officials, records, etc? Is the administration legally correct to refuse and disobey the subpoenas?
Legal/constitutional question here - not a political one.
@klezman
Are you glad now that I posted the Mini-AOC video?
Also,
Really? I can deal with all the extraneous "u"s but that’s pushing it, Mister!
@chipgreen
@klezman
Yes and No. This link has a good analysis of the issue. However, I disagree with one statement in it, in part.
While it’s fairly accurate, it also ignores that the Dems in Congress and some extremely liberal Judges have been acutely hostile towards Trump. I don’t remember any judges issuing injunctions against Obama, and while there was hostility towards Obama, I think the rhetoric against Trump has far exceeded that.
I don’t remember the Republicans in the Senate being as ridiculous in their hearings for Obama’s nominees for SCOTUS as the recent circus performance by them.
Everything You Need To Know About Congress’s Attempts to Subpoena the Trump Administration
@klezman
Sorry, the edit expired before I could finish.
The Yes/No refers to: “Yes”, Congress has the capability to subpoena the Executive Branch; The “No” part refers to there are some (“some”) instances where Congress should be refused.
The additional problem is when Congress is clearly hostile, and overdoing their congressional reach.
@klezman @MarkDaSpark There has never been such a broad decree by a president to stonewall all house subpoenas. I think that might be considered acute hostility. Also, we should not forget that the Republican senate from preventing Obama’s nominee for SCOTUS Merrick Garland from even getting a hearing for a year. Much worse than a circus performance. There needs to be a way to depoliticize the supreme court. One way is to greatly increase the number of judges and create sitting panels on amore or less random basis. There have been other proposals as well.
@hershelk @klezman @MarkDaSpark There needs to be a way to depoliticized the Supreme Court …
Well, the SC has been political since the time of John Marshall, so good luck with that…
@rpm
I believe I’ve heard [Mark Levin] speak that subpoena power is intended to be limited to matters related to pending legislation.
I did find this from BYU where section II deals a bit with scope and purpose.
I have no law background, can you comment?
@hershelk @MarkDaSpark
Yes, Congress spent a lot of time firing off subpoenas at the Obama administration. Somewhere between “some” and “many” were for political gamesmanship and the like. The one major instance of them fighting back resulted in a finding of contempt against Holder. (I’m probably missing some instances, but the point is the existence, not the prevalence.) So I don’t see why the “hostility” of Congress toward the executive or vice versa matters from a legal perspective. As we all know there are plenty of instances of hostility in both directions, at a pretty high level today obviously.
And while I haven’t read the linked article just yet (soon) the “yes” part of the answer seems clear. The “no” part remains mysterious to me. How do you define “should be refused” and how does the legality of said refusal get determined?
@hershelk @MarkDaSpark
Sparky, as to the one statement from that article you disagree with, how do you disagree?
It seems clear Trump has a large degree of hostility and animosity toward anything resembling oversight and accountability.
I can agree that it’s not yet clear that the courts will have to resolve the (likely) stalemate.
@hershelk @klezman
You do realize that Holder was actually misleading Congress as to Fast & Furious? Which is why he was found in Contempt both Civilly and Criminally. The only AG in US history to be found in Contempt. Note Dems response then versus now.
There are many valid reasons to say “No”, mostly for National Security. Let’s face it, Congress leaks like a sieve (both sides), and our wonderful Senior Senator (D) had a Chinese spy driving her.
I also believe that Obama was right to ignore subpoenas when there were sheer harassment and not really necessary towards the running of Congress, just as Trump should. But as noted, Trump does seem to have a “propensity” to ignore viable subpoenas.
Sadly, it may come down to the courts deciding.
Difference between Barr and Holder
@klezman @MarkDaSpark I expect Barr and the white house’s main strategy will be to try to run out the clock as well by leaving it to the courts. However, Holder actually lost his case leading to a recently filed settlement. It is a precedent which might lead to a quicker resolution here. If Trump wins re-election, it may actually be a bigger problem for them unless they get enough extremely conservative judges out there.
@hershelk @klezman
Please read the link I posted. There is a vast difference between what Holder did, and what Barr is doing.
For one, there IS a law protecting certain Grand Jury materials (Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) — passed by Congress), so there is a valid legal reason why Barr cannot include that information. Something the Dems completely ignore.
It’s gotten so much less ugly I’m the last almost 2 years, eh?
Any thoughts on Biden choosing Kamala?
@klezman It’s going to be hard to sell a “woman of color” in this racist, sexist country, but I’m in the “Anybody but Trump” camp.
@FritzCat Yes please. Somebody with a full suite of functioning faculties: brain, heart, empathy.
@FritzCat @klezman
Doesn’t that rather exclude them all?
@FritzCat @rjquillin Well, in the broad sense maybe all politicians are heartless and cruel. But you can’t make that argument in good faith against Biden.
And you can’t honestly say he’s addled or any of the other BS Trump spews about him on a daily basis. Just look at the word salad from Trump to answer a simple question. Biden has a long history of gaffes, most of which can be traced back to his stutter.
Also, it’s very much about who you surround yourself with and whether you have the humility to acknowledge what you don’t know and seek expert advice. We know Biden excels at this and Trump is convinced he’s the world’s foremost expert on just about any topic.
@FritzCat @klezman @rjquillin
Yes, this. I would actually feel a lot better if it were Pence and Harris running for President. Can that be arranged?
@chipgreen @FritzCat @klezman
25th amendment iirc
@FritzCat @klezman @rjquillin
I have to disagree about Biden. His cognitive decline seems rather obvious and it’s quite a stretch to explain it away by saying that it’s merely a continuation of his history of gaffes which are also then explained away by his former stuttering issues.
OTOH, Trump doesn’t seem to be too far behind. Let’s face it, they are both old and the laws of nature dictate that they are in physical and mental decline. The only real questions are how far gone are they and how fast are they declining?
I think the debates will help to answer these questions. It will be interesting to see how they perform. At some point, I expect that Kanye West will rush the debate stage and steal somebody’s mic. Getcha’ popcorn ready!
@chipgreen @FritzCat @rjquillin I don’t see cognitive decline from Biden, fwiw. I agree it would be nice if both parties had nominated younger individuals, but here we are.
From my perspective, I see this particular election as “Trump and the GOP must go.” While I’ve preferred Democrats most of my time living in the States, it’s only since about 2015 that I’ve come to view the current incarnation of the Republican party as beyond redemption. They need a shellacking that sends them back to the drawing board so that a responsible right of centre party can emerge rather than the dumpster fire that currently exists.
@FritzCat @klezman @rjquillin
I won’t be voting for either of them, or Yeezy! I might have to write-in @WineDavid49.
Are you guys trying to change people’s minds or just talking out your ass because you’re bored
@ScottW58
I plead the latter.
@chipgreen haha me too
@chipgreen @ScottW58 Little from column A and a little from column B. But it depends who comes aboard. I’m not going to try to convince Sparky of anything.
@chipgreen @klezman
Do you really think you can change anybody’s mind? Do you really think anyone is undecided? That’s rich
@chipgreen @ScottW58 nope, not really. Unless there are truly open minded people who stop by.
But I have learned a lot in prior incarnations of this thread and hope to continue learning what others think and why. Maybe even have a little bit of civil discourse and debate ideas… (I know, I know…)
@chipgreen @klezman
Are you one of the truly open minded people that could be swayed to switch teams
@chipgreen @ScottW58 Me? With today’s choices? No, unfortunately. The only political party I’ve never considered voting for is the NDP in Canada. Way too far left for me.
If the GOP would stop trying to subjugate women and control their bodies I’d be able to consider them as well. Notwithstanding that monstrous viewpoint, I’ve occasionally thought they were the better choice. I’m not an ideologue, but I do have principles.
@chipgreen @klezman @ScottW58
I have to laugh at anyone considering the Democrats as the “better choice”. GOP is barely that, but the insanity from the Democratic party is unpalatable.
While some ignorant ones in the GOP want to totally eliminate Abortion, many see it as repugnant to be so callous of human life to approve it so late, even AFTER birth (see NY Democrats for example). It’s a responsibility issue. I read something today that claims Colorado has seen a decrease in abortions since they started giving regular forms of birth control away.
But, it amazes me that the Democrats hypocrisy and push to control our lives is ignored. You don’t need guns, that’s what the police are for … but “Defund the Police”! Nanny state laws limiting how large a soft drink you can get … trying to eliminate 1st Amendment rights by saying something is “hate speech” … Destroying property isn’t violence? Allowing their own cities to be destroyed, then trying to get Federal money when they allowed Federal Buildings to be attacked?
Contrary to @klezman’s belief, I can change my mind, but you have to have facts from reputable sources, not propaganda (from Left or Right). And I’ve yet to see him change his mind or stance!
@chipgreen @MarkDaSpark @ScottW58 The ad hominem was uncalled for.
I’m not even going to address the factual errors in your post.
@klezman
Really? I’m the one with an ad hominem attack? I haven’t posted here since May … of 2019. Yet you felt the need to post this last Wednesday.
Pot/Kettle. But this …
@MarkDaSpark So I did, and I forgot even though it’s just a few posts up. I blame tiny humans. Either way, in my experience both here and on facebook you have never been convinced away even one inch from where you start y me or anybody else.
@klezman. Ditto! Again, facts, not opinions. And I can say the same thing.
There are times we have agreed though, so there is some hope for you!
plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
Those of our little community who were NeverTrump are still NeverTrump, no matter how senile, left-wing, or authoritarian the alternative is.
Those of our little community who believe that, no matter how truly bad we think Trump is as a human being, the populist opposition to the current elite and the policies he has worked to enact on immigration, deregulation, taxes, trade, and the judiciary are necessary if the republic is to survive.
Those of our little community who don’t know quite what to make of all this are probably still perplexed.
None of us have proven very successful at persuading anyone on the other side to change his or or or [insert pronoun of choice]’s mind.
Yet, we remain cyber- and in many cases real friends…
Perhaps we should take our cue from the Poet:
For “IS” and “IS NOT”, by Rule and Iine
And “Up-and-Down” by Logic I define
Of all that one should care to fathom, I
Was never deep in anything but - Wine!
@rpm I certainly count you among the real friends.
You have helped me understand different viewpoints from my own and things you’ve said over the years ha have led me to change my mind.
I wish Trump had become a decent person upon taking office. Alas, he’s just as terrible as when he campaigned. He’s gotten a few things right, imo, but they are very few and far between.
I am curious about your thoughts on his attacks on the USPS and mail in voting, though. This one seems to me like it should be a swift and bipartisan condemnation of how he’s dismantling the post office.
@klezman Thank you, I certainly count you (and your lovely and charming bride) as real friends.
On the USPS, I refer you to the editorial in the weekend WSJ “The Post Office’s Problem Isn’t Trump”.
On mail in voting, are you aware that virtually no country with any concern for the integrity of elections permits mail in voting of the kind the Democrats are advocating? There is a very solid paper by John Lott you should read on SSRN, SSRN-id3666259.pdf, entitled “Why do most countries ban mail-in ballots?: They have seen massive vote fraud problems.”
I have been concerned with the integrity of our elections since Kennedy may have won in 1960 as a result of vote fraud in Illinois and Texas. I believe very, very strongly that no one should be permitted to register to vote, or to actually vote, unless he or she (or insert preferred pronoun) can prove identity and citizenship. I think absentee ballots should be available only if the person requesting the ballot shows up personally and presents proof of identity. Arrangements could and should be made through local authorities (not political parties or partisan ‘nonpartisan’ ngos) to enable shut-ins to see a deputy registrar to present identification and request a ballot. All ballots should be on paper. Mechanically counted through scanning, perhaps, but with the original ballots kept for recounts.
I absolutely oppose same day registration, motor voter, and similar schemes that are little more than opportunities for fraud. I also oppose allowing any person to assist a voter in filling in a ballot. I also absolutely oppose allowing convicted felons to vote, unless the felon has been pardoned.
It may take some effort on the part of citizens to register to vote and to get to the polls. If a citizen is not prepared to make that effort, then that is his or her (or insert pronoun of choice) problem, not society’s.
@klezman I should probably add that I believe it is every citizen’s moral duty to vote, and I disapprove of anyone or any thing - other than providing solid proof of identity, residence, and citizenship - that creates an onerous burden on an adult citizen who wants to register to vote. I don’t regard a 30 day (or similar) cut off period as onerous, because the Registrar or Town Clerk needs a reasonable time period within which to verify the prospective voter’s identity, residency within the jurisdiction in which she or he (or insert preferred pronoun) is trying to register, and citizenship.
@rpm As usual, I agree with some of your points and disagree with others.
Agreement: moral duty to vote, proof of citizenship to register*, ID check when voting*, independent nonpartisan electoral commissions to administer elections (I stretched a bit here), all ballots on paper, and paper ballots retained for manual recounts.
The disagreements. First about the availability of mail-in voting. I’ve voted in Canada by mail ever since I came to the US. You provide a copy of your ID and proof of citizenship to register and they automatically mail you a ballot when the election writ drops.
I’ve yet to see a convincing study about voting fraud by mail in the United States that is convincing. The few states that have done their elections entirely by mail have seen no problems, at least not any documented ones. I don’t doubt that other countries may have had their problems from time to time, but that’s due to the corruption of those places moreso than the availability of mail-in ballots. The paper you linked seems to support the argument that voter fraud happens occasionally but rarely does it alter the outcome of elections. (But I only skimmed it.)
Nonetheless, this country has a voting access problem. And like many things in this country, the things that make it harder to vote fall disproportionately on poor people and people of colour (with the obviously large overlap in that Venn diagram). This is the source of my (*) above. When I first came to the US and witnessed the craziness of the 2004 election and the arguments over voter ID laws and such I thought the Republicans had it 100% right. My view shifted as evidence continued to come to light at the disproportionate impact of voting rules on disadvantaged communities. So while I agree that securing elections in this country would necessarily require additional rules to prove citizenship and identity, there need to be mechanisms to both make it easy to obtain these documents and to actually exercise the right to vote.
I think it would be sensible for the US to establish a national voter registry. It would eliminate the possibility of state-to-state fraud. Linking it to the Social Security database would enable efficient removal of people who pass away. Having state DMVs and the USPS address change service be able to update your registration address would also increase accuracy and decrease opportunity for fraud. I know states are in charge of their own elections, so this would have to be a voluntary program. It seems like a no-brainer to me, but I know that rarely means much to some parts of the political spectrum.
For same-day registration, why not do what Canada does and allow one to provide all the required registration information, cast a provisional ballot, and have it appropriately counted or discarded once the registration information is verified?
I completely disagree on removing a criminal’s right to vote after their sentence is complete. I don’t see any benefit to society of removing their franchise. I see many benefits of allowing them to vote. In particular I’ve seen studies that show voting brings former convicts further back into society instead of making them permanent outcasts. Recidivism goes down when voting rights are restored. I’m undecided on whether those in the middle of serving their sentences should be allowed to vote. I can see pros and cons there.
Do you support making election day a federal holiday? Do you support other efforts to make it easier for people to vote, particularly people who can lose their job by taking time off to vote?
@klezman I just read an article about problems with mail in ballots in Nevada… https://freebeacon.com/2020-election/nevada-sent-more-than-200k-mail-in-primary-ballots-to-wrong-addresses/
I am simply not willing to take the risk of massive fraud, especially when even the sainted Dr. Fauci (PBUH) says in person voting is not a problem.
I’m not sure what one could do to make it “easier to obtain these documents and to actually exercise the right to vote” means.
No to a national voter registry. Not Constitutional, I think. We’re a federal republic. The DMV should not have anything to do with voting, and the law expressly prohibits Social Security from being used as you suggest.
There is no good reason to have same day registration: if you can’t be bothered to register in advance, in sufficient time for the authorities to verify your identity, residence, and citizenship, you can wait for the next election to vote. Just no excuse. Many states have these provisional ballot procedures - often the votes are counted without verification, or verification delays the results. Elections results should not be delayed because there are potential votes outstanding pending verification of identity, residence and citizenship.
The reason for removing voting rights from convicted felons is that convicted felons have demonstrated that they are unwilling to obey the law and live by the rules that an orderly society has enacted to govern itself. Those who don’t play by the rules shouldn’t have a say in what the rules are, or who makes the rules. Sounds hard, but there it is: you want a say in things, don’t commit a serious crime. I see no benefit to society whatsoever in having those who flout the rules have a say in making the rules. There might be some perceived benefit to the felon, but I’m much more interested in having society in which the law abiding make the rules, than in the potential benefit of voting rights being restored to felons.
And, no, I would not make election day a federal holiday. The polls are open early and late. Keeping polls open longer hours is not a bad idea, but forcing employers to pay employees to take the day off to vote is not acceptable. If you want to make it an unpaid holiday, I’m ok with that.
@rpm The article you link and just about everything I can find relates back to voting list maintenance issues. While it wouldn’t solve the issue of nefarious actors messing with the actual ballots, that sort of problem seems far less of an issue. Especially when you compare the scope and scale of that with the easy hackability of “voting machines” throughout the country.
So why don’t we have easier ways of maintaining voter lists? You’re saying that you want to make it easy to register to vote (provided you’ve got proper ID) but all the low hanging fruit ideas seem to meet with your disapproval. I agree the federal government requiring states to use a federal registry might not pass constitutional muster, but a voluntary effort run by the feds would seem fine. To my overly simplistic mind, why wouldn’t we want citizens to have the option of updating their voter information any time they interact with the government? Don’t you think incorrectly removing people from the voting rolls is a serious problem? How do we prevent that?
I know you’ve held your view on former felons’ voting rights for a long time. Has the increasing evidence of bias in both policing and sentencing not swayed you at all? Take the simple example of the disparities in sentencing for crack vs powder cocaine. That was a racist policy that has now disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of black people (even if the policy wasn’t racist at inception, it has been clearly shown to be racist in retrospect). So while I largely agreed with you on this a few years ago, the mounting evidence of racism in this area has led me to shift my opinion.
As for enabling people to actually go vote, we both live in places where the government wants everybody to vote. But what about Texas? Georgia? Other states where the evidence is overwhelming that polling places have been removed from poorer areas, making the lines longer, sometimes to the point where the lines are 4+ hours long. California requires employers to give 2 hours paid for people to vote, but then those same (usually low wage) workers can lose their jobs for taking longer. We’re both fortunate enough to have work situations where that isn’t an issue, but that’s not true for many others.
You asked what I meant about people having a hard time getting their ID sorted out to prove citizenship. It boggles my mind, but apparently this is quite common. Documents get lost, people don’t have driver’s licenses, birth certificates, etc. These people get lost in a bureaucratic nightmare of needing to get new ID documents, and since most of these people are poor, they are also at high risk of losing their meagre income by having to take the time off work to get to government offices during their open hours. They’re caught in a catch-22. So to my mind, the basic prescription is simple: make it easy for everybody to get their documents sorted out and then institute nationwide ID rules for voting. Figure out a non-discriminatory way to do this and I’m 100% on board.
I’m no fan of voting machines - note my comment in my initial post here that ballots should be paper and kept properly sealed and preserved for recounts, even if they’re machine scanned and counted in the first instance.
I am simply unwilling to risk the validity and integrity of what is sure to be a closely fought election on delays and possible risks of fraud with mail-in ballots. The recent NYC primaries are a cautionary tale. Absentee ballots under traditional criteria only.
I don’t know if erroneously removing voters is a problem; I do know that there have been a number of instances where there were more registered voters in precincts than adult inhabitants, and situations in certain cities where there were many more votes recorded than registered voters. If we err, it should be on the side of being more certain that a registered voter is an identified citizen and inhabitant of the jurisdiction.
No, nothing has changed my views on felons voting, whether after they have finished a term or during incarceration. Race is irrelevant to my point: those who break the rules shouldn’t have a say in making the rules or choosing those who make the rules. If the law has been applied in a racist manner, the remedy is to apply it in a non-racist manner to those who commit crimes, not to let criminals have a say in government.
Making more polling places available is fine with me - I’m not interested in suppressing any properly identified and registered citizen’s vote. I’m not sure it’s really been that much of a problem, but my mind remains open.
I’m not sure how you make it easier to get documents without increasing the risk of fraud. If you suggested that the County Clerk or Registrar of Voters (or similar officials) should have occasional and well-publicized week-end or evening hours for the convenience of those who need to get documents, I’d say fine. If you want to subsidize the cost of obtaining copies of one’s documents, I’m fine with that, too. But I’m not in favor of waiving the standards for documents. It’s not like parts of Europe where all of the records were destroyed during WWI or WWII. Rare to the point of vanishing probability is the person legally born in the United States in our lifetimes whose birth was not recorded and verifiable. (Even my mother, born at home on a rural ranch in Eastern Oregon over 100 years ago, had a perfectly good birth certificate, signed by the doctor who showed up well after she arrived and recorded in the County Clerk’s Office - it was good enough for the US government and the DAR!)
@rpm I’ll take your six points in order:
@klezman @rpm Gore vs Bush ring a bell? That election was stolen.
Concerned about mail in voter fraud. Let us look at Texas. Mclellan County to be precise. The county has closed a record number of polling places over the past 8 years. Guess who are the fastest growing groups in the County? Yup, latinos and blacks. Coincidence? I think not.
@rpm I encourage you to reflect on your privileged status as a white man in the upper class. Your reality is simply not the same as so many other Americans in the working and middle class. View things through their lense and I promise you may just see things a bit differently.
@klezman @losthighwayz @rpm First I’d like to say hello, then say that to categorize an individual based on color or economic status, is exactly the same kind of thing that required our nation to take a look at the, then, status quo.
It makes no difference who the recipients of injustice are, only that these injustices are addressed, one and all. The Constitution didn’t differentiate, why should we?
There are, and always have been, plenty of good reasons for people to work together, and somewhat accommodate those who are different, in the interests of betterment of the whole. No-one, regardless of class, race, or belief, should be excluded, only that they present constructive arguments for the positions that they hold.
@losthighwayz I’m not sure we have a basis for discussion as we do not share sufficient premises: I followed the 2000 election very closely (as I have every presidential election since 1956) and categorically reject the premise that it was stolen, although the Democrats tried very hard to do so in Miami-Dade and Broward counties in Florida.
My discussion with Klezman makes it clear I do not support closing polling places, etc. It is a nonsequitor to advocate mail in voting because you think blacks and hispanics are fast growing groups.
Lastly, your call for me to ‘check my privilege’ is risible. I do not find any discussion that involves discussions of racial privilege, intersectionality, critical theory, or most of the nonsense that has come out of the universities in the past 30-odd years, worth beginning, let alone continuing.
@losthighwayz @rpm Honest question, rpm: leaving the labels aside (I find the label of “privilege” to describe racial/ethnic inequities irritating, personally), do you think some groups continue to face systematic barriers compared to other groups? If no, why not? If yes, what can/ought society do to correct them?
@klezman @rpm care to elaborate why you dislike the use of privilege? What do you propose using instead?
@losthighwayz @rpm
It’s a framing problem that gets your natural allies angry rather than on board.
I don’t like calling what is, effectively, the way things should be a privilege. I think there are many more accurate ways to discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of belonging to a particular racial or ethnic group. Let’s call it what it is: systemic racism, disadvantaged or oppressed groups, and so on.
Being somebody who naturally agrees that all people ought to be treated equally, I can tell you it feels rather like an attack to have somebody tell me something that amounts to “you didn’t earn what you have”. That’s what, to me, the framing causes. Build bridges, don’t torch them.
@klezman @losthighwayz Let me be clear, more than ‘dislik[ing] the use of privilege’, I don’t think it has any place in serious discussion. The idea is entwined with identity politics, which I consider profoundly abhorrent and to have a pernicious effect not only on debate, but on the actual lives of individuals in society and on society as a whole. Moreover, ‘privilege’ claims (usually against someone or some group) are intended to narrow discussion and debate, to delegitimize views on an ad hominem basis: your idea/viewpoint is not legitimate because you are X and have X privilege. Both privilege claims and identity politics are reductionist in the extreme. Invoking privilege immediately eliminates the possibility of persuasion, it is intended to shame or intimidate the target into acquiescence.
@losthighwayz @rpm I agree, rpm, that you describe one of the endpoints that can happen when “privilege” gets invoked. And that it is pernicious. However, I think there is a nobler side to that line of thought which is a call to action to work toward a society in which all are treated equally in fact and not just in theory. The revelation for many over the last few years is the extent to which the theoretical and legal equality of people in this country differs from reality. I think in the spirit of a “more perfect union” this country needs to take some hard and self-critical looks at reality alongside theory and work to correct inequities.
@klezman @losthighwayz My reaction to your ‘nobler side to that line of thought’ is rather like Samuel Johnson’s retort to Boswell who had said that Scotland had many noble wild prospects - Sir, the noblest prospect that a Scotsman ever sees is the High Road that leads him to England…
More seriously, as an historian, I know that in no country, at no time in recorded history has there ever been a society that did not discriminate against one or more groups, whether legally or de facto, or, prior to our Founding, even embodied in its constituent documents the ideal of equality, however honored in the breach it may have been and still may be. I also know that various movements which have preached radical equality historically have ended in tears, from the ancient world, through certain early Christian sects, and the various levellers, utopians, communards, etc. since, not to mention the Hell of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution (with its sub-Hells in the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution), the Cambodian Revolution, and every single country that has lived under Marxism - or tried to - since.
@losthighwayz @rpm fair. Although I’m certainly not saying equality in any radical sense or in a socialist sense. But it sounds like you’re saying that because no society has succeeded in eliminating discrimination we therefore shouldn’t try.
@klezman @losthighwayz Not at all. I am saying that from my perspective as an historian, the current mode for radical solutions is almost certain to end in tears - that is to say with massive crime, disorder, and ultimately more harm to those who the radicals purport to be wanting to help than doing nothing would do. Historically, the way to end discrimination is to stop discriminating. Government should not discriminate. In the small incremental ways that were working towards a perhaps unobtainable ‘perfect equality’, each of us should (note imperative is moral, not legal) do what we can to avoid consciously discriminating. Treat members of minority groups (note, each of us deals with individuals, not groups) as you would wish to be treated, and afford them the dignity and respect of assuming they can be held to the same standards you hold yourself, your family and friends to. Don’t feed anyone a sense of victimhood or cater to the false security of self-esteem (as opposed to self-respect). Don’t condescend by assuming members of minority groups can succeed only with lowered standards or special dispensations of one sort or another, or by tolerating behavior you would not tolerate in any one in your own circle.
We should never make a failure to achieve perfection (especially when definitions differ widely) prevent us from doing better. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. I suppose this is an essentially Burkean argument.
@rpm Four times in previous posts you’ve said “he or she (or insert preferred pronoun)”. Can i ask that you make an incremental improvement today to use “they” as your preferred singular pronoun?
Perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of better, but it’s also imperative to change when different words are needed. I’ve been making an effort to stop using racist, sexist, elitist, and discriminatory terms in my life. Sometimes out of finally learning the history behind terms, sometimes out of being asked by those affected. I also don’t claim to know all of the inappropriate words, or all of the times that i shouldn’t say a certain word, but “they” is a small step.
@rpm Rob, seeing as how I agree with everything in your last post, why do we disagree on things that can be done to move towards non-discrimination? How does the correcting of government-enshrined racism get fixed in this view? (e.g. unequal school funding, and to return to how this started, the unequal application of justice)
@radiolysis You certainly may ask, and you asked very politely. However, I’m old enough that I simply cannot abide politically correct pronouns and I am not going to change my usage of English, especially the notion of using a plural pronoun in place of singular pronouns… I’m still not reconciled to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1964 or 1966 IIRC), a descriptive dictionary, which replaced Webster’s Second New International Dictionary from the early ‘30s, the last great American prescriptive dictionary, and I still look to Fowler’s Modern English Usage from the early ‘20s. To be honest, my use of “or [insert preferred pronoun]” is often intended to be ironic.
@klezman Aye, there’s the rub…people of good will disagree in good faith about ‘what is to be done’… For my part, I would distinguish between things that reflect government action to discriminate and things that end up unequal in the ordinary course of life in more or less the same way things have ended up unequal since Adam delved and Eve span… We can and should eliminate government discrimination - that’s what equality under the law is all about. We can’t, IMHO, fix every inequality that has, does, or might in the future exist through government action - at least not without a kind of totalitarianism I think both of us would find intolerable. I pretty much think people should run their own affairs with as little government intrusion as possible - some people will make good decisions, others bad. Human nature. I’m very negative about any sort of what used to be called ‘wholistic social engineering’ - attempts to remake society based on someone’s or some group’s vision that they can’t persuade people to adopt voluntarily. It never works out. For Hayek’s reasons among others.
@klezman passed my edit window: I meant to clarify “We can’t, IMHO, use government action to fix every inequality that has, does, or might in the future exist.
@rpm Definitely - government and laws can work to solve (or at least ameliorate) many problems, but far from all.
I’m still standing here though (I now have a standing desk) wondering how to ameliorate the racism in the justice system. There’s a wealth of data out there showing how black and hispanic people are discriminated against despite equal protection of the laws. (I’ll leave out the disparate treatment of crack cocaine from powder cocaine this time around.) There’s a lot of discretion in the system: for police officers to arrest vs let somebody go, for district attorneys to charge the most vs the minimum vs nothing, for wealthy vs poor people to obtain adequate representation, for district attorneys to recommend harsh or light sentences, for judges to give harsh or light sentences, for parole boards to recommend release or further incarceration, for parole officers to be lenient or strict, and I’m sure there’s more.
Given that the evidence is fairly clear that there is at least some racism in the outcomes of the justice system and that the law theoretically treats all equally in this sense, how does society correct this?
I’ll even put up a couple examples:
-Brock Turner being given a slap on the wrist for raping a woman at Stanford
-The fact that white people and black people use drugs at approximately the same rate yet the number of black people charged compared to white people is dramatically different
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/
This provides a detailed account. It also highlights some laws that while neutral on their face are racist in effect.
Well, it looks like we’re really only at absolute loggerheads on felon voting… you’re talking about racism, which I think is utterly irrelevant. In my view NO felon or ex-felon (other than one who has been pardoned or the conviction overturned) should have any say whatsoever in choosing who makes the rules for society, or in setting the rules for society. Period. Full stop. It’s about have the fox involved in guarding the hen house. (Or like having Carrie Nation make the liquor laws…) If laws have been applied in a racist manner, then look at the individual cases to see if people were wrongly convicted. Otherwise, do the crime, live with the penalties, which (usually - but if it were up to me, always) includes loss of the franchise.
@rpm that is a bit harsh, is it not? I always thought our justice system was built around restorative justice.
@losthighwayz @rpm The last statement just made me think of a professor, no idea of his political bent, that asked that the “justice system” be referred to as the “legal system.”
I thought it strange, as surely our legal system, and the ideal of a justice system, were congruent.
Edit to include: The law of our land, the Constitution, pretty much says that it will be.
@losthighwayz Harsh? No. Committing a felony is a choice.
@CroutonOllie @losthighwayz Of course, the idea is that the legal system is the vehicle for justice, but the problem is that there are different ideas of what justice entails. Also, the left increasing takes the (in my view philosophically unjustifiable) view that justice should be equivocally predicated.
@CroutonOllie @losthighwayz @rpm
What do you mean by “justice should be equivocally predicated”?
@CroutonOllie @klezman @losthighwayz Equivocally predicated means that justice ought to different for different people. The left’s notion (via Marcuse in the ‘70s) notion free speech means only free speech for people on the left and that the speech of the right should be suppressed - and yet still claim there is free speech is an example of equivocal predication. While there have been times justice has not been equally applied, that is almost universally condemned as wrong, and no sensible person suggests that it ought to be that way.
@CroutonOllie @losthighwayz @rpm I see. Well, left leaning on some issues though I may be, I agree that unequal justice is flat out wrong. I don’t see the left arguing that justice should be equivocally predicated, though. I see a lot of argumentation that justice has, in fact, been dished out rather unequally to people based on race, ethnicity, and wealth. I find many of their arguments and evidence quite convincing.
I agree that some parts of the left do seem to be arguing against free speech and I find that very troubling. At the same time, I find the lies and propaganda from the right to be troubling, too. How about we spend more effort educating our kids to figure out fact from fiction so that the propagandists (of whatever political bent) get put out of business.
@CroutonOllie @klezman @rpm sure about that? I don’t see people universally condemning the high percentage of african americans being pulled over by police for no apparent reason, or the demonizing of Muslims in this country, or the discrepancies of public school funding based on property taxes…I can go on and on. So please stop with your privileged view of justice. You see America through your own lense and make yourself believe everyone is treated equally. Not the case but I am sure it makes you feel ok about the injustices all around us.
@losthighwayz
https://writingexplained.org/lens-or-lense
Are you not a school Principal?
Or is it principle?
@rjquillin looks like you are taking your quasi moderator role a bit too seriously my friend
@losthighwayz What a charming collection of ad hominem attacks. Your post certainly confirms my initial reaction to your first post in this group of subthreads, that we have no common ground or basis for discussion. You are not interested in discussion, but in attack.
If what @rjquillan suggests - that you are a (public?) school principal - is correct, it further confirms every serious concern I have had about the kinds of indoctrination our nation’s children have been subjected to since encountering many Marxist and quasi-Marxist texts, faculty, and views in my limited forays into graduate instruction in education in the 1970s.
@losthighwayz @rjquillin does one pronounce “lense” to rhyme with “sense”?
@rpm I think that their should be a pathway to regaining voting rights, even for former felons. I’m all about second chances, and have needed a few second chances in my own life. I think that no one is beyond redemption. That being said, it should not be an easy pathway. I think the felons must serve out all their time, and go through probation and rehab before regaining voting rights.
Maybe I should have cashed in my croutons, but there is something that I wish everyone think about:
Dissention, that seems to exist, is no accident; it is funded.
Our enemies have never gone away; they just consolidated.
Expect more of this, as investments have paid off. (Race things, questioning of selves/institutions.)
Cannot say much more, just be what you are, Americans.
No tin foil hat, just long experience.
@CroutonOllie Yes.
@CroutonOllie @rpm I also concur.
@CroutonOllie @KitMarlot @rpm That would be nice. Let’s start by having the infotainment industry take a hike.
@klezman Have been gone.
Noticed that you didn’t provide any argument for your statement.
Please define, or face the argument that the world doesn’t revolve around you, or your perceptions.
@CroutonOllie Quite simply, I think the “infotainment” industry is a cancer on the body politic. Fox News, Breitbart, OAN, and to a lesser extent, MSNBC, CNN, and others. Manufactured outrage is the best outcome from them, while the worst gets on to outright conspiracy theories and bullshit. They need to go. Then the country can begin to heal.
I do take exception to the assertion that I think the world revolves around me.
@klezman Exception noted, apology given.
In total agreement as to the info provided by the “news” outlets. They are prostituting one of the greatest freedoms, of the press, to provide disinformation.
@CroutonOllie No problem. We keep it civil here. I thought my initial comment didn’t need additional explanation. Live and learn.
@klezman A good precept, I just did! Thanks.
@CroutonOllie @klezman
Which has made this thread so interesting to follow. (Along with the incredible grasp of history that @rpm has contributed.) It’s a great thing when we realize that we can learn from those that we don’t always agree with.
@CroutonOllie @Mark_L @rpm exactly why I try to keep it going. I learn a lot.
@klezman @Mark_L @rpm It may, or not be, a good thing.
With the polarization that seems to be going on, it seems that argument, or reason, is often lost.
I stand as a good example of this, as I just assumed that your earlier post was a “shot across the bow”, and then responded as such. I apologized for being in error, but it is very hard, nowadays, to know what is vs what isn’t.
I am conservative, have been since I was conceived, I think, but my mind has always made up by adherence to my notion of right or wrong, and the direction of those that came before me: ie: the Constitution.
There are very few great documents, but the Magna Carta, Bible, and Constitution of the US stand out for me.
They all elevate man, over system, and place responsibility in his court. Being great documents, with great ideas, places them in the crosshairs of those who would like to dismantle them.
You think, as do many here, but please beware the commonality, that is often used, as a springboard for subtrefuge, and disinformation.
@CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L @rpm
I know I’ve been on this high horse for a long time but I believe we view the Constitution as a “good” document because we exclude its acceptance of slavery. Considering it holistically just doesn’t support that.
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L I’ll go with your characterization that you’re on a high horse…
I confess to having no patience with anti-historical arguments such as the one you seem to be making.
First, you have to consider the historical context in which the Constitution was written, not expect that people in the 18the century view the world the way you do or would like people to have viewed it. That context is not simply that slavery was still widely (though not universally) accepted in the world at the time the Constitution was written, but also the fact that the Framers believed in good faith that without the compromise on slavery, there would have been no union. Were there no union, it was also believed in good faith, and not without a sound basis, that the European powers, especially England and France, would not have permitted the continued existence of independent American republics, free or slave. Probably a substantial majority of the Framers opposed slavery personally. Not all of those favored immediate abolition, being concerned with the practical issues, but even most of the Virginians such as Washington and Madison favored ending slaver within a practicable period of time.
Second, while the Constitution tolerated slavery in the short run (that is nothing concerning the African slave trade between 1788 and 1808 - at which point it was immediately abolished), it also clearly contained an amendment process by which it could be changed.
Third, following the Civil War, the Constitution was in fact amended to prohibit slavery.
@CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L @rpm
When people discuss the Constitution as one of history’s great documents while name checking the Bible and Magna Carta, I think it is fair to interpret their enthusiasm as for the document as originally crafted, not amended. It frequently appears adjacent to praise for the Founders’ foresight.
I’m not sure how one can argue that the sunset provisions on slave trading would lead to manumission when the nature of chattel slavery entrenches the practice.
I’m greatly appreciative of your historical grounding but, as then debated, the Union could have gone either direction at the time. We don’t know what slaveholders would have ultimately done. We do know that the decision had a deleterious effect on the health of the Union.
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L
My enthusiasm for the Constitution as originally drafted includes the amendment provisions, by which it was clear the Framers contemplated changes when sufficiently widely agreed.
There is no argument that the sunset provisions on the slave trade would lead to manumission ; rather, my view based on reading about the Convention, as well as biographies of the Framers, is that it was generally (though not universally) contemplated that the question of slavery was not settled and would be addressed by future generations. As, of course, it was. Though not peacefully…
At the time of the Convention, almost no one (outside of the Carolinas, perhaps) thought slavery would be economically viable over the next 50 years.
Informed opinion at the time, and modern scholarship, strongly suggests that the Confedration would not have become the Union without the compromise on slavery.
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @Mark_L @rpm So what about today? What should be improved in the constitution?
I’d start with corporate personhood for the purposes of anything aside from entering contracts.
Then I’d clarify that the right to bear arms applies to the states’ rights to raise militias.
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @klezman @rpm The next amendment I would like to see would be to extend term limits beyond the office of President to include members of Congress. I believe this would solve 95%+ of the current issues in politics.
@CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L @rpm personhood from the moment of conception, obviously.
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L
We have very different lists, to be sure. I would clarify that our 2nd Amendment is merely the American codification of the inherent right to keep and bear arms codified in the 1688 English Bill of Rights: we no longer qualify the right by the English class system’s suitable to their condition. I would clarify the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship for those whose parents were not here legally at the time of birth. I would either repeal the 16th Amendment or alter it to prohibit progressive taxation, or at least progressive taxation without the consent of those who would pay the higher rates. I would repeal the 17th Amendment, and I would add an Amendment to specifically permit states to return electoral systems similar to that of the Union (that is, allow state senates to be elected geographically, as the US Senate is - all but one US state had such a system before a series of decisions in the 1960s which essentially upset the urban rural balance in states with large cities and large rural areas, such as New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and California - and now Florida).
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L Honestly, I’m less absolutist on your ‘personhood’ point (not sure if you were being serious or sarcastic
). From my perspective, that ought to be a state issue. But, if it’s going to remain a national issue, I come down thinking that the scheme in Roe v. Wade was a reasonable political compromise (that satisfies no one, but which almost everyone can live with): broadly legal abortion early in pregnancy, some restrictions by state law as it gets further along, and significant restrictions permitted by state law near the end of pregnancy. That’s consistent with what the Europeans and others do and seems ‘reasonable’ if one doesn’t take an absolutist position that no abortions are permitted or all abortion is just dandy. There are two problems I see with this. 1st, Roe v. Wade was as a matter of legal reasoning an absolutely terrible decision. 2nd, there is significant disagreement where the two ‘bright lines’ ought to go. But, again, IMHO, those are more political issues that voters should decide rather than matters of law.
As I get older, I am increasingly with Bill Buckley that I’d rather be governed by names randomly selected from a phone directory that by a university faculty. I think we place far, far too much power in the hands of our judges, a very small group of men and women, almost all of whom at the higher levels are products of a very few elite law schools.
@CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L @rpm was definitely sarcasm!
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L meant to add to the last sentence: and are not accountable to the voters. I think life tenure on good behavior for Federal judges is a good thing, but the the flip side of a lack of susceptibility to political pressure in any particular case or controversy is a complete lack of political accountability for decision-making generally. The way to reconcile this is to remove what are essentially political questions from the jurisdiction of the Article III courts. These courts used to be much less willing to decide political questions than they have been since the 1930s. And, their most controversial decisions before that were the most political: e.g. Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson.
As an additional thought on the Constitution, I would eliminate almost all federal courts that were not Article III courts (bankruptcy courts being the exception).
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @Mark_L @rpm
We’ve long disagreed, rpm, on firearms, and that’s ok. My understanding of the history is no match for yours of course. One observation from this summer, though, is that a major stated reason for the second amendment (to prevent tyranny from the government) completely and utterly failed in Portland when shadow police held people without charges and tossed them into unmarked vans.
While I can agree in principle to removing “political” questions from Article III courts, I can’t fathom how to define that in a consistent and apolitical way.
I wouldn’t repeal the 17th amendment, I’d amend to remove the electoral college and elect the president and vice president using direct popular vote. I think the trend over the centuries has been toward more democracy, not less, and given that the president is the one person who (theoretically) represents everybody, everybody’s vote should weigh exactly equally in selecting them. And while I don’t think this part should be in the constitution, I think it should be legislated that voting in all elections should be using ranked choice instant runoff voting.
I’d also be fine with term limits in office, but couldn’t that be accomplished by legislation?
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L
I’d like to think that a large part of our disagreement on both firearms and many other issues is largely a result of differences in historical knowledge and perspective, but I’m not quite that naive.
I think as a factual matter your comment on the 2nd Amendment and Portland is simply wrong. However, it will probably many months, if not years before anyone can ascertain the facts of the situation with any confidence.
I do think historical perspective is particularly important in evaluating claims that in all circumstances and at all times and places, more “democracy” is always better. Historically, unchecked “democracy” has devolved into mob rule, with rights of minorities run over roughshod, and, ultimately into tyranny. The examples from the ancient world and the medieval world are legion and need not be repeated here. And, of course, the most successful republics in history have had various forms of limited participation in governance by one or more classes, but not all. This fear of the results of “too much” democracy is the reason historically that those who have designed republics, and favored liberty over tyranny, have sought to temper ‘democratic’ rule with strong protections for minorities, including various requirements for super-majority or class voting. The idea is that there are more interests in a (successful) society that need to be taken into account than a pure headcount. Some think more democracy is better, others think we’ve got it like baby bear (“Just Right”), and still others, like me, think we have gone to far towards majoritarianism. A prime example in our Constitution is the 17th amendment: the Senate was intended to represent the interests of the States, hence the selection of senators was a matter of state law. Making senators simply elected at large in each state simply makes them ‘state’ majoritarian, rather than beholden to the interests of the state.
I think you are fundamentally wrong about the electoral college, but doubt I could convince you. As the President is the single most powerful elected official in our system, she or he needs to be accountable to more interests than simple majoritarian appeal. In fact a President exercises great executive power that affects all interests in society and needs to take them into account as circumstances dictate.
In Article I, we have Representatives elected purely on a majoritarian basis, to represent popular interests, and Senators elected to represent the interests of the States, who make law. In Article III, we have appointed judges with life tenure intended to be isolated from politcal pressure to adjudge cases and controversies.
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @Mark_L @rpm
The thing I continue to not understand regarding firearms is how this country compared to others around the world today deal with it, and the results. This country ranks among the worst among “advanced” countries in violence. But maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree and it’s the lack of social safety nets that causes the conditions that foster violence.
Regarding Portland, it’s possible that the photographic and video evidence we’ve all seen thus far doesn’t tell the whole story. I’m open to that possibility, even if it seems unlikely to me.
About the electoral college and related items, it sounds like you’re arguing that a minority should hold sway over the affairs of the country. That doesn’t sound like the United States I learned about growing up. I thought the will of the people was supposed to reign supreme and that minorities are protected by the constitution and the founding creed of the country.
But if a President is supposed to look after all interests in the country then this one is failing miserably.
One more thought - it makes more sense to me to elect representatives based on majoritarian schemes (what else do we have?), but then to insist on supermajorities for various kinds of legislation. That should, at least in theory, ensure that minority views are taken into account.
Most of all, though, I wish everybody could put country ahead of party.
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L
Most of this is in the area of agree to disagree, but I think you do not fully appreciate that the majoritarianism you espouse can ultimately vitiate any minority protections unless the minorities have something close to a veto over changes to the rules that protect them. You also need to distinguish between pure numerical per capital majorities and majorities of various interests. Things that sound great in the abstract, become sticky, even close to intractable in the details.
A nice quote from an op-ed I was reading that is a better statement of the majoritarian/minority issue:
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @Mark_L @rpm
Admittedly, I haven’t thought it through all the way to the end game. And with the two wee ones here I’m not likely to do it any time soon. But isn’t that why the constitution is harder to amend than it is is to enact a new law? And that’s why the Supreme Court is supposed to enforce the constutition, isn’t it?
@klezman Just no.
@CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L @rpm The number of representatives should be apportioned based on the actual populations of the states. it’s one thing for the senate to protect smaller states; it doesn’t make sense why the house should do the same.
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L
Sigh. I would exclude illegal aliens, who neither deserve representation nor should be allowed to increase the relative voting power of citizens in the jurisdiction in which they reside. Of course, I would exclude illegal aliens from all public services and benefits and expel them whenever found. Legal aliens should probably be counted for representation, but of course do not vote. Legal aliens are generally eligible for government services, though whether they should be permitted to be on the dole is an open question.
I note also that in the case of states with quite small populations, I would continue the practice of having at least one representative.
@CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L @rpm ok, then make 1 representative for every 600k people (ie rounding Wyoming up for arithmetic) and you end up with 550 people in Congress. I’m not sure I understand why small States should be overrepresented in both houses.
I think it is very dangerous to have a minority of the population elect the president.
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @Mark_L @rpm Yes, I agree the House should be way larger. I’d also like to see DC become a state. Puerto Rico should become one if they want as well.
I can also agree that birthright citizenship could reasonably be denied to children of those here illegally, so I’d support an amendment clarifying that. Nowhere near the top of my list, though.
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L
The reason DC should not be a state is that it is the seat of the federal government and has no independent existence. That is, were it not the seat of government, it would have no reason to exist, except as an agricultural village. As such, it should not be represented separately in the legislature. Puerto Rico has repeatedly rejected statehood: it’s a bad deal for the commonwealth, because they are far more heavily subsidized and have more special privileges under the current status.
I’m agnostic on the size of the House, though it is relatively unwieldy now.
The whole notion of ‘majority’ election of the president based purely on population ignores the federal nature of the republic. You want a different system. I don’t. Agree to disagree here.
@CroutonOllie @klezman @Mark_L @rpm
I’m surprised you don’t see conflict in the future if the minority of the country selects its leadership.
@canonizer @klezman @Mark_L @rpm No, more like with thought and foresight, much like our Constitution, but with not near as great of a result.
@rpm I agree with the DC thing. The very fact that it is the seat of federal power is the same reason why it should never be a state as well. Too much power in one place.
I’d like to comment on #4 above. I don’t think it has been stated clearly enough that our country is so inherently racist that a large swath of people of color have been disenfranchised. There have been several means by which this has been done, for example, “The War On Drugs”. (I know a guy)…white teens with a lid, dump it and get sent home, while black teens get a felony. Perhaps there should be a real examination of the type of felony (perhaps violent crimes) that should disqualify one to vote. And…Prison Reform! Private, For Profit Prisons! Insane!
@FritzCat I think you are conflating incidents of unfair treatment with inherent racism. Their are good people and bad people all over the world. One man gets sent to jail while one man gets off clean, regardless of whether they are black or white. That’s the way of the world. Those with dark skin can have it harder than some, but those with light skin can have it harder than those with dark skin too. blanket claims about ones experiences based on the color of their skin are racist in themselves. we can always do better to make sure that justice is served equally to all, but to accuse an entire population of racism is not going to get you anywhere.
@FritzCat @Twich22
This shows that you miss the point, imo.
First, the point about systemic or inherent racism is not saying that all people of one race are good or bad. It’s saying that history has left a legacy that disproportionately affects black people negatively. Redlining, for example, is a big factor in the huge wealth gap between white and black people today.
Second, yes, people with light skin can have it harder than people with dark skin. But that statement forgets the fact that the colour of your skin doesn’t set you back when you’re white.
@FritzCat @klezman yes, but by all the same tokens, you are saying that all people of dark skin color were equally set back and fell under the same circumstances as each other. Which is also not true. Of course lots of black Americans were victims of slavery, and that disproportionately adversely affected them and their ancestors. In my opinion, to chain someone to the past in that way is to sentence them to be victims of things outside of their control. The truth is that the world is never fair. We can do our best to give everyone equal opportunity to improve their lives and become better then what they started out as, and I think all things considered we do a fairly good job of that. There is always room for improvement. But to start judging society based on how different one person lives from another is futile. The truth is that one person born to a billionaire and another person born to a pauper May live very different lives. Should we then say that because society was to blame for the economic circumstances of both of these people that society is inherintly corrupt or unjust. The idea of equal opportunity vs “fairness” is one that I think has gotten quite confused in recent years. Life in never ever fair. That’s just how it is. There will always be disparity throughout the world. Someone born in Africa will live differently than someone born in Canada. But only if society confines them to that life. On the otherhand, if you have a society that does it’s best to provide every opportunity for people of all backgrounds to make something of their life and become successful, then now you have made a just society. Now you have allowed people to escape the circumstances that they were born into, regardless of whether their ancestors were slaves or billionaires. And so while you cannot undo what happened in the past, you can build a society that works to correct such mistakes. Does our society always work like that? No. But we sure always strive for that, and all things considered I think we do a pretty good job of creating opportunities. We could do better though, and I hope when all this is said and done we have implements things that improve people’s ability to escape their circumstances.
@FritzCat @Twich22
I can’t use my phone to explain all the things that miss important aspects of both how history affects today and your misconstrued version of my words. I’ll see if I can explain more tomorrow, but the short version is that I used to think like you. I’ve learned since then.
@klezman @Twich22 Twich22, Thou doth protest too much, methinks. Waaaay too much!
@FritzCat @Twich22 With respect to the various comments about “we’re doing a pretty good job”, I suggest reading about intergenerational income mobility.
Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive treatment of it, with references. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States
The section on race and mobility starts:
@FritzCat @klezman @Twich22 I think you’ve got it pretty much correct, @Twich22. No society has ever been freer than this. It’s not perfect, but it’s a damned sight better than the alternatives - unless the left succeeds in tearing it down.
@rpm Historical perspective, which you graciously lend, is important, but too often missing in modern day discussion.
You cannot truly appreciate where you are, as a people, until you know where you have been.
It would surprise many, that the idea of “slavery”, was not confined to race, as the same amendment to our Constitution which outlawed this, also outlawed indentured servitude, and debtors prisons.
It was no damned fun to be poor in Dickens’ day, and stiffing a creditor, or borrowing without collateral, could find you faced/forced into involuntary servitude (albeit for only 5-10 years.) No wages, your labor bought and sold on the market to third parties, your duty as your master decides, and such was your lot; much worse for the female then the male.
We have done quite well in elevating mankind in our short time, and though not perfect, represents the best hope that man has to elevate further.
Kind of delighted to see this still exists.
It’s good to see everyone here! I remain among the perplexed (referencing rpm’s post above) and the disgusted. It’s difficult to discuss the current political climate without using profanity.
@chemvictim long time no-see for you.
Ignoring the current political climate, how are you?
Still in NV, iirc?
@rjquillin we moved to MO to be closer to the kiddo’s grandparents. Life is good. How have you been?
@chemvictim It’s difficult to discuss the current political climate without using profanity. True ‘dat!
@chemvictim @rjquillin I think I saw that move on FB. Nice to see you back here.
@chemvictim Whereabouts in MO? I’m in the central part (Morgan County).
@chemvictim but at least Trump’s family members like him. Oh wait, no, they think he’s an idiot too.
@Mark_L I’m in the southwest
I agree this has been a fantastic forum for discussing diverse points of view in a shockingly civil way for the time/place. I’d like to pick up on the thread from @klezman:
How is it different now? For example, the 1890s “Yellow Journalism” of William Randolph Hurst using misleading or false headlines to drum up circulation or Thomas Jefferson’s enticement of Phillip Freneau to come to Philadelphia to edit the National Gazette*?
*He hired him as a translator at the United States Department of State in 1791 for an annual salary of $250
@KitMarlot I don’t know that it’s different from what was out there 130 years ago. Nor do I particularly care, to be honest. While there are certainly lessons to be learned from those times, we are now in a time when the internet makes this all available at the press of a button. It’s too easy to just stay inside your own information bubble.
But I’d also draw a distinction between the “infotainment” industry (take Hannity or Fox & Friends as poster children) that is heavily partisan opinion with a very tenuous relationship to truth compared to clickbait headlines on top of otherwise factual reporting. Nobody can make an honest argument that the NY Times, Washington Post, etc are infotainment. Even their editorial pages are largely filled with thoughtful pieces (regardless of whether one agrees with the thoughts espoused). One cannot say that about Fox News broadcast, maybe with the exception of Chris Wallace. Fox News’ website is bordering on pure propaganda.
I also heard on NPR this morning that Fox News staff have disclosed that they are more or less working for Trump. I don’t know much more than that since I haven’t had time to look it up, but it confirms what appears to be the obvious truth.
@KitMarlot @klezman
I think it’s interesting that you list the conservative outlets first, then say “and to a lesser extent” before listing the liberal outlets.
MSNBC is every bit as propagandized as FOX, IMHO.
Personally, I do not watch any of them. Most of the people who do, simply tune into the station that most closely matches their own beliefs, soaking up talking points while in the echo chamber.
@chipgreen @KitMarlot FWIW, I don’t watch any television “news” either. The stories I’ve seen via things like FB posts and the stories I’ve read indicate to me that MSNBC is more about news than Fox News, maybe not by a lot, but that’s my impression. Not a fact, by any means.
Whenever media bias comes up I reference this: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
Some people have tried to denigrate this effort and research, but having read their methodology it seems like a completely reasonable approach to me. MSNBC is leftish, Fox News is similarly right. CNN is a bit left but not as far as MSNBC. For Fox and CNN they evaluate the online and broadcast separately (which I seem to have reversed in my memory compared to the chart today). Associated Press, NPR, and Reuters are the most neutral and highest quality.
@KitMarlot @klezman
I remember CNN tried to remain neutral. They were the last of the major outlets to flip over to opinion-based news. They were getting crushed in the ratings with “straight news”.
I don’t know if there is any completely unbiased news source left on TV but Christian Science Monitor was a good source of unbiased print/online news last time I checked, which, admittedly, was well over a year ago.
@chipgreen @KitMarlot @klezman if you think Facebook is a reliable source of information that is outside bias then you should reconsider. Facebook is every bit as much of an echo chamber as all the news stations these days.
Just because you heard something on Facebook does not make that thing true. In fact, if you hear anything these days, on the news or social media or wherever, you are almost certainly not getting 100% of the information you need in order to make an informed opinion about a topic, let alone 50% of the information you need to know about a topic. We’re in an era where everyone thinks that they are experts on all subjects. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
@Twich22 I know @klezman can speak for himself, but I think what he meant by
is in regards to forming his impression about bias from media sources in general. I think it was his way of admitting he doesn’t have much first hand knowledge of Fox News or MSNBC. I don’t think he meant that he gets his news from FB.
I totally agree that we’re in an era where everyone thinks that they are experts, however (and I’m as guilty as the next guy.) Not entirely sure how we got here but it is certainly a stumbling block to empathy. We don’t understand anothers’ point of view because we’ve got the only logical solution, and anyone who disagrees is illogical and therefore not worth engaging in discussion. Pity.
@KitMarlot @Twich22 Yeah, what kit said. I’ll double down on the empathy comment.
I don’t search out my news via Facebook. But because I mostly don’t seek out biased news sources, I also don’t see stories either on Fox News or MSNBC (or CNN, and beyond) unless a friend posts it on FB. The news I seek out I seek out through other means.
(And for those who care, I have plenty of friends leaning in multiple political directions on FB.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/24/opinion/trump-conservatives-republicans.html
A very thoughtful examination of Trump and the current GOP by a conservative.
@klezman It doesn’t matter. Any present Republican will disregard it for being in the NYT (that liberal, Israel hating rag) unless, perhaps it’s something that Tom Cotton wrote or, after the fact, Bari Weiss.
@canonizer Sad but true
@klezman It’s really not about Trump or some ‘conservative’s’ view of OrangeManBad. It’s about the policy alternatives on the other side. Beyond saying that, I’m just not going there anymore.
@rpm I respect your very strong preference for “normal” GOP policy preferences, regardless of my agreement, you know that.
I think Peter Wehner has a sufficiently solid conservative policy background and views that his thoughts on Trump were worth putting into the conversation. His jumping off point in this article is:
This is not OrangeManBad, even though I think Trump is a stain on democracy and a sad excuse for a leader. This article is a discussion of a conservative policy guy’s views of Trump and the GOP under him.
Personally, I never would have thought that the fundamental humanity and decency of the person in the Oval Office would be a deciding factor in how I would vote if I were a citizen. But like with many things in 2020, here we are.
@klezman I read the article. I have never been a particular fan of Peter Wehner, but that’s beside the point. I think the policy implications of a Kamala Harris presidency (because I believe Biden quite senile and that he would be a figurehead for the leftists now running the party) are sufficiently dire for the country that there is nothing that could ever convince me not to vote against them. It’s that simple. Nothing more to say on the topic. Happy to discuss ideas and the like, but this election? No mas.
@rpm I guess this is one of those times we agree to disagree. I think Biden’s mental capacity is infinitely better than Trump’s. I think Trump’s presence in the presidency has already degraded the country in numerous ways that we don’t need to rehash. The racism he’s unleashed (not created) is detrimental to the country, free society, and we all know that antisemitism is never far behind. For me it’s also that simple.
I wish this was a “simple” argument about policy preferences and whether trickle down economics is thoroughly debunked or not.
@klezman Agree that we agree to disagree; we can pick up the conversation after the election.
@klezman @rpm - is there still disagreement between the right and left on the existence of climate change?
@canonizer @klezman I suppose that depends. I think everyone agrees the climate changes over time - it has been warmer and cooler within recorded history, e.g. the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age - where I think there is disagreement still is the extent to which climate change is anthropomorphic, the extent to which the models used to alarm people about climate change are sufficiently reliable to be the basis of policy discussions (let alone policy decisions), and the relative costs and benefits of various proposed courses of action or in action. Not sure if this is a topic any less charged than the current election right about now…
@klezman @rpm I know I sound alarmist but I think we should be buying as much wine as possible now. I wish that I had space to store it.
@canonizer @klezman Buy it anyway… need furniture, sit on cases… Need a bed, put a mattress on your cases… You know the drill… The only other thing you need is arms and ammunition so no one can take your wine from you when SHTF…
And, if you ever have to bug out when SHTF, make sure you have a Peterbuilt tractor with tandem trailers: one for your wine and one for your fuel…
@canonizer @rpm The science on climate change has become even more clear over the last year or two. We’ve caused it. It’s us. Even if there was a warming going on absent us, the speed and extent of it has been massively increased by putting CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. Whether we’re responsible for 50%, 75%, or 95% I don’t think is even relevant any more with respect to the “is this our fault” question.
As for what to do about it, well, there’s certainly a lot more that’s open to interpretation on that question.
This is outdated now, but instructive:
And NASA: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures
@klezman even if all that were true, much of which is dubious at best:
There are plenty of good causes in which we can devote humanities great efforts. Global climate control, in my opinion, is not one of them that is worthy of those efforts. It would be far better to take all that effort and put it towards something more productive. Not that im opposed to cleaner energy and alternative fuel and all that technological jazz.
@klezman @Twich22 I really hope this is where the conversation turns in the near future. The experts haven’t exactly made a persuasive case (otherwise there wouldn’t be a ‘climate change debate’) and their acolytes are even worse (‘it is settled science’). Walking around castigating ourselves for our sins and arguing about exactly what will happen decades in the future is counterproductive and feels like a political cudgel.
More energy efficiency, more fuel sources (hello Nuclear, hey ITER, are you ever going to give us fusion?), better building materials (wood can be made as strong as cement and apparently produces less CO2), better resource management (warmer global mean temps did not light any wildfires even if it made situations worse), etc.
At the end of the day, whether or not you believe the experts shouldn’t matter. What we do should have the tangible costs carefully weighed against the benefits and at worst, ‘do no harm.’
@KitMarlot @klezman @Twich22 I think that asks two things of experts: research and publicity. Scientists cannot make definitive claims.
@canonizer @KitMarlot @Twich22 Why should we worry about decades in the future? Because the signs are all over the wall that we’re screwing up our planet and changing where we’ll be able to live.
One of many examples: https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
Also, who said anything about planetary temperature control? That’s a head scratcher.
@klezman I thought the whole point in worrying about the global temperature was that some people were not happy with the current temperature, and would like to change it. I believe that would be considered global temperature control.
@Twich22 I feel kind of like you’re trolling me here, but I’m not sure…
At the risk of stating the utterly obvious, it’s not about the temperature per se. It’s about the effects on everything on our planet because of the changes in global mean temperature. Things from increased carrying capacity in the air for water that leads to more heavy rains, more flooding, and more unhealthy hot & humid days in certain parts of the world. It’s about the ice at both poles melting and adding several feet to the mean height of the ocean, causing almost unthinkable amounts of upheaval as coastal cities become below sea level. (You think it’s hard living in New Orleans now? Just wait until sea level is 5 feet higher…) It’s also about our ability to grow crops in what is now agricultural land. It’s about the availability of water in those same places. Oh, and then there’s the increased number of hurricanes and wildfires.
We, as a species, have been staring this freight train coming down the tracks for the better part of 40 years now. Early on it wasn’t clear how big and difficult it would be to keep our planet habitable. Now the train’s contours are much clearer and we need to figure out how to slow it down or stop it. I don’t know if you have kids, but I do, and I want them to be able to have kids of their own one day. The current path is not looking good.
@klezman yea. So when you pair it all down, its as i first said: its about controlling the temperature of the earth. In this case, people think that the temperature of the earth is too high, and want to try to lower it. In response, I basically said that this is a fools task, and a waste of human resources, though i am not opposed to new technologies that protect our environment in general. I also think that its worth pointing out that if this apocalyptic future that your theory predicts were probable or even in the realm of possible, that we would not be having this debate at all. No matter how misguided some people may be, in general, as a species, we are all willing and ready to fight for the survival of our species as a whole. The fact that we have to have this debate should suggest that our species is in fact not at risk from the changes in the earths temperature.
@Twich22 Everything you’ve written on this topic is dead wrong, perhaps because of the phrasing you’ve chosen.
This is not about “controlling the temperature of the earth”. That sounds like building a big air conditioner for the entire atmosphere. This is about undoing the effects of humanity’s deleterious impact on, among other things, global temperatures and the consequences for climate.
This is not that “people think the temperature of the earth is too high and want to try to lower it”. This is a response to well researched and highly vetted models of how the planet’s climate will evolve if we don’t alter our path.
Nobody said anything (yet) about “lowering” the earth’s temperature. Halting a rise is not the same as reversing it.
I fundamentally disagree about the nature of humanity you espouse, at least as applied to a long term problem. Humans (and all animals) are incredibly short sighted. The “fighting for the survival of the species” won’t begin until it’s well and truly too late to save this planet. So that will be endless wars, the super-wealthy will relocate off-planet if that technology is available, and billions will die.
Also, this is not “my theory”. This is well established fact based on decades of scientific research. Science doesn’t tell us the correct course of action and what technologies to build - but it sure as hell tells us what will happen if we continue to ignore global warming.
@klezman Indeed, I intentionally used phrases like “controlling the global temperature” to point out the futility of that endeavor. Whether you like that particular phrasing or not, that is exactly what is being proposed when suggesting things like “halting the rise in global mean temperature”. The idea that humanity has significant amounts of control over the temperature of the earth is quite far fetched and not at all scientific fact. If you were to model the earth and look at the net sum of heat entering and heat leaving the system, you would quickly see that humans have little ability to influence that system because of the massive numbers involved. You would also probably realize that so called greenhouse gasses play little if any role in increasing global temperatures, and if anything they would be more likely to decrease global temperatures then increase them.
Thus, I would describe human caused climate change as a theory at best, because from my perspective it does not have any grounding in theoretical reality. It simply does not hold with physics, thermodynamics, and systems analysis. In fact, it doesn’t even get off the ground. Its dead in the water.
To state that something is “established fact” based on scientific research implies that science is always true and accurate and inclusive of all information. However, science is often quite flawed, limited, and subject to enormous amounts of subjective interpretation, perhaps more so today then ever before in human history. Science is closer to art then it is to reality. Sometimes it paints an incredibly realistic portrait, but more often an artist was just throwing paint at a canvas and seeing what the result was. And then each person looking at that art might see something different.
As for the nature of humanity, I will not get into that except to say that you can look at history to see how humanity has responded under times of existential threat.
@Twich22 Um…I’m a scientist and engineer. Your characterisation of science and the establishment of knowledge via science is simply incorrect.
Cite your sources, please.
@klezman @Twich22 The problem with science, any science, is in the sample that they measure.
Anyone, can say something about anything, if they decide what is being looked at, and what factors are used in this determination.
Too much of that going on anymore, and it would serve everyone if this practice were abandoned.
@CroutonOllie yes, sadly much of science has given way to pseudoscience and science-for-purchase. For just a small sum of money they will scientifically prove any theory you want! But seriously, people do not seem to understand how science actually works, or perhaps more importantly statistics. Numbers and facts and statistics in a void without all the context are completely useless. Only through complete integration of all the relevant info can a number or statistic or data point be understood in its proper context.
For example i can use this statistic given in another thread:
Now, most people today would say that statistic proves beyond a doubt that there is a racial disparity in america. Perhaps even worse, they might conclude that the tone of ones skin determines how likely someone is to make it out of poverty. Then they would move on with their life with a newfound understanding of how the world works… However, this statistic does not at all say that. What it might say is that the two groups studied are not the same when it comes to upward mobility, though without actually looking at the data its impossible to know if the results were statistically significant, how samples were obtained, what the study design was etc etc. That is about as much as can be said from that statistic. You cannot at all tell WHY the two groups are different, or HOW they are different. In fact, without context, that statistic is next to useless. It does not inform about anything useful at all, but rather merely misleads anyone who might look at it and try to draw conclusions.
Upon reflection, I think that the problem is that, because of the internet, we have way more access to data and statistics and all kinds of “scientific” information than any time in history. So everyone can look up data, information, and statistics on anything at anytime regardless of how much they know about a subject or understand about statistics or study design or experimental research. Now, I am not saying that is a bad thing, I think its wonderful. However, it does lead to a LOT of misinformation and misinterpretation of “science”, simply because people just dont know enough about what they are looking at to truly understand it.
@klezman
I meant literally model it. You are a scientist and an engineer, so model the system yourself. Do a little napkin math. See what you come up with. You might be surprised.
@Twich22 So just to be clear, you’re saying that my back of the envelope heat balance equation on the earth will be able to disprove literally millions of person-hours of careful research and modelling by mathematicians, physicists, fluid mechanics experts, and a host of other scientists from dozens of disciplines? Do you think an error of that magnitude would have gone unnoticed all this time?
If you’re so sure of that result, then go get it published in a peer reviewed journal and post the link.
@klezman Yes, as a scientist and engineer you understand the importance of proof of concept modeling. You can easily do a basic model of the system in question just to see if it falls within the realm of scientific possibility and follows the basic fundamentals of science. Einstein modeled the universe in his head, it wont be hard to make a simple model the earth.
And then, if you do decide to have some fun independent scientific study and model the system, and if it indeed shows that whats been determined through millions of person hours of research and modeling does not actually fall within the realm of theoretic possibility, then you can start asking the most important questions of all, such as ‘how did an error of this magnitude go unnoticed all this time’ and ‘why hasn’t someone already published these findings, or if they have, why have I not heard about them’.
But I doubt you will do anything of the sort. People do not like to challenge their own convictions too much, it causes too much dissonance.
@Twich22 Exactly.
If you can’t identify the variables, how in the hell can you set up an adequate control environment?
When we don’t know, it is fine to do so, but understand that our results only apply to the subset of those things that we could resolve; certainly not everything.
The problem, now, is that the dish runs away with the spoon, and it is portrayed as applying to everything.
Let’s talk Jacob Blake.
@losthighwayz I haven’t watched the video.
But honestly, a black man being shot in the back? Multiple times? That’s nearly as egregious as George Floyd’s murder.
^^^^I entirely agree.
Tonight there’s more violence and looting in downtown Minneapolis. It started after a murder suspect committed suicide just as police were about to apprehend him. People began spreading false information claiming the police shot the man and now 16+ businesses have been damaged/looted over the past 4 hours.
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/live/cbsn-minnesota/video/6575348-20200827042347-looting-unrest-in-downtown-minneapolis/
@kawichris650 what does this have to do with Jacob Blake?
@kawichris650 @losthighwayz
Is he the only thing we can talk about now? Maybe you should start a Jacob Blake thread?
@kawichris650 @ScottW58 he was responding to Klez reply about Blake. The response has nothing to do with Blake, don’t you agree? When did I say only talk about Blake? I made ONE comment under this thread. Just as easy to enter a different comment… Since you are here, what are your thoughts about shooting a human being 7 times in the back?
@kawichris650 @losthighwayz
Looks to me like he completely agreed with Klez response who thought it was egregious as George Floyd and then made a comment about something that happened in his town. Is that a problem with you? I have not watched the news about the shooting so I will not comment although I will say shooting anyone in the back 1 or 7 times for any reason is not something I am happy about. And since you brought the subject up and said absolutely nothing about your thoughts on what happened or anything at all for that matter I think it’s time for you to tell us.
@kawichris650 @ScottW58 maybe I am missing something. Please show me when I said I had a problem. I did not see a connection with his reply to Klez reply about Blake so I asked for clarification and/or an explanation. That is what adults do, right?
In any event I have seen enough to know that black people are treated differently than others and if the exact same situation involved a white man the latter would be alive today. Agree or disagree?
@kawichris650 @losthighwayz @ScottW58
What happened to Jacob Blake, by all appearances, was cold blooded murder and I hope the cop(s) who shot him are charged appropriately. That said, let’s talk David Dorn.
@chipgreen @kawichris650 @ScottW58 do you agree that blacks are treated differently by police? I agree Doran is wrong but by you positing his killing is diverting from my original post imo
Let’s talk Doran. Thugs were involved and should be held accountable, no doubt. But I wonder if he would be alive today but for George’s unlawful killing by an officer and Trump’s inaction to denounce this immediately
@kawichris650 @losthighwayz @ScottW58
It’s “Dorn” and I’m guessing your first thought was “David who?” before using google to find out who I was referring to. Which is exactly the point. These types of stories get buried and nobody protests when exemplary people like Dorn get killed while risking their lives to help others.
Although you agree that his murder (which was viewed by his grandson while being live-streamed on FB) was wrong, you then try to explain it away with conjecture and speculation, much like those who want to point to Jacob Blake’s criminal record and failure to comply with police demands before being shot. Interesting.
Two sides of the same coin, like the rioters who drag people out of their vehicles and beat them to bloody pulps in order to protest against violence.
@losthighwayz
I clearly stated that I was in agreement with what @klezman said. He brought up George Floyd. The killing of George Floyd happened right here in Minneapolis and lead to protests, violence, and riots across the U.S. and in other countries throughout the world.
The fact that yet another death (albeit suicide) had occurred here last night and sparked even more violence and looting seemed relevant/connected (to the events surrounding the death of George Floyd) in my opinion. If you don’t see a connection and feel my comment was a detour, I truly apologize and that was never my intention.
You never actually said you had a problem but I assure you when you commented “What does this have to do with Jacob Blake?” many people would think that you might have a problem with what was said. And sorry I try to avoid all politics threads in every site that I frequent because in my opinion these days all it does it make people dig in even deeper to whatever side they might be on. Sadly I just blew my streak of avoiding politics is now over.
@ScottW58
@losthighwayz 's comment certainly came across that way. However, there’s clearly no tone or body language to go off of when reading plain text on a screen. So giving him the benefit of the doubt, I posted a response and hopefully that helps clarify things.
Opinion-free newscast “NewsNation” set to debut tonight on cable television.
Later today, Nexstar Media Group will debut a new 3-hour prime time newscast titled “NewsNation” to air nightly on WGN America. The goal: bring traditional news back to cable television between the hours of 8 pm and 11 pm ET.
“Inspiring viewers and readers to think, not how to think. That’s the foundation of NewsNation”.
@chipgreen who owns Nexstar Media Group? Who owns WGN? Without answers to those questions it is impossible to evaluate?
@chipgreen @rpm Why not evaluate it on its merits (once those can be evaluated) rather than on ownership? Some ownership is more hands-on (e.g. Fox/Murdochs) and others are more hands off (I don’t know any specific examples). Or maybe my assumption is wrong and all owners exert a lot of influence.
I’d like to see them on the media bias chart once there’s enough information.
@chipgreen @klezman Because I want to know if there’s even a chance of it being objective - if the people behind this are demonstrably right-wing or left-wing, it suggests the project is intentionally deceptive by purporting to be objective. Like when CNN says they’re not biased…
@chipgreen @rpm @klezman
It would take a bit more time to attempt to sort out leanings.
But the below at least provides some names to delve into.
https://www.nexstar.tv
https://www.nexstar.tv/investor-relations/
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. is a publicly traded American telecommunications company with headquarter offices in Irving, Texas, New York City, and Chicago.
Stock price: NXST (NASDAQ) $93.20 -2.81 (-2.93%)
Sep 1, 2:10 PM EDT - Disclaimer
Owner: John R. Muse
Headquarters: Irving, TX
Founder: Perry A. Sook
Founded: June 17, 1996, Irving, TX
Revenue: 1.1 billion USD (2016)
Subsidiaries: Tribune Media, Nexstar Digital LLC, WGN America, MORE
@chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin @rpm At the end of the day, I think bias matters less than journalistic integrity. Remember the media coverage of the Covington Catholic students in MAGA hats harassing a Native American in Washington? I wish traditional media outlets would let viral videos burn themselves out on the internet and focus on telling compelling stories. I know why they don’t, but I still wish they would. Is there even a market for unbiased news? And if so, how would that audience find it among the myriad cable news outlets already in existence?
@chipgreen @KitMarlot @klezman @rjquillin Journalistic integrity is - sad to say - an oxymoron.
@chipgreen @KitMarlot @rjquillin @rpm
I agree with KitMarlot.
CNN did better than most at sustaining a relatively unbiased news operation. They’ve been overtaken by opinion more and more over the last few years and the news bias has shifted as well. Today, cable news is all crap, sadly.
But it looks like for the best unbiased news is still Associated Press and Reuters. Why not read your news there?
@chipgreen @KitMarlot @klezman @rjquillin CNN did better than most at sustaining a relatively unbiased news operation. ROFLMAO!!!
The last time CNN was remotely unbiased was their coverage of the fall of the Berlin Wall - which I watched late into the night.
CNN was demonstrably anti-American during Gulf War I and - risibley so - during Gulf War II.
They have not played it straight in domestic politics since the early 1990s.
I have not considered CNN to be a reliable news source since 1992.
@chipgreen @KitMarlot @rjquillin @rpm I guess my set point is different than yours. I also don’t think we had CNN in Canada quite that early. But I also never really watched any TV/cable news with enough regularity to have used it as a primary news source.
@chipgreen @KitMarlot @klezman @rpm
Interesting Atlantic link to review.
@KitMarlot @klezman @rjquillin @rpm
FWIW, I just copied/pasted the headline (in bold) and text (in italics) from an online article I saw this morning. The quote at the end is from a NewsNation Tweet that was tacked onto the end of the article.
I am happy to see this development and hope that they are true to their word. I agree with klez, basically. “The proof is in the pudding”. Let’s see how this shakes out, then decide if it is truly unbiased. I have shunned cable news for years but tonight I will be watching.
@chipgreen I guess they’re trying to bring back the old ‘World’s Greatest News(paper)’ identity. Though I was always partial to the Sun Times. Though it’s been decades since I’ve looked at either for anything other than sports reports and movie reviews.
@chipgreen So what’d you think?
@klezman
I probably watched 2 of the 3 hours, on and off. I was surprised that they didn’t recycle stories although they did do some stories in parts (“more on that later in the newscast…”). They also had a healthy dose of human interest stories once they got past the major headlines.
It did seem largely unbiased. They tried to present both sides of most stories but if you go into it looking for bias you will probably find it anyway. One could argue that just the mere fact that they are reporting on some stories or quoting certain individuals indicates bias. It seems like a bit of a mine field with the hyper-sensitivity that exists today but they pulled it off pretty well, I thought.
They also seemed genuinely excited about being a part of it, thanking the viewers and praising each other saying how honored they were to be a part of this effort, etc. I am glad to have caught the first show. It will be interesting to look back on in 5 years.
@chipgreen nice. Thanks!
That’s actually something I like about the media bias chart I linked above. They consider what is reported, not just how it’s reported.
RIP RBG.
However things play out, I hope that we avoid court packing. Though I suspect that within the next decade it will become an inevitability.
@jawlz I guess it depends on exactly how hypocritical Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Senate Republicans are…
I suspect if they try to confirm a new justice and then Biden subsequently wins the court will expand by two seats.
@jawlz @klezman The Dems are talking about another impeachment trial to throw a monkey wrench in. Sure hope something works.
@FritzCat @jawlz That’d be interesting. There’s plenty of reason the guy deserves it.
@FritzCat @jawlz Also, this is quite a clever compilation of Republican statements into a coherent argument against confirming or even considering a new Justice: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/21/opinion/supreme-court-nomination-ginsburg.html
@FritzCat @jawlz @klezman
While I agree that Republicans forcing another SCOTUS justice in under the current President would be hypocritical, the last thing we need from the Dems is another impeachment effort, especially less than 2 months out from the election? It seems that all they have done for the last 4 years is go after Trump. And those efforts have been stunningly unsuccessful, expensive and distractionary.
@chipgreen @FritzCat @jawlz @klezman what legitimate member of democratic leadership is legitimately discussing this? Junior members of Congress and pundits aside, I have not heard this.
I wish Graham could just step forward and call a mea culpa. Yes he’s a complete hypocrite but can’t give up the opportunity to pick the youngest supreme court justice around.
@canonizer @chipgreen @FritzCat @jawlz True, I’ve also not heard of anybody in a position of authority/power talking about another impeachment. I’m just saying the guy commits (imo) impeachable offenses approximately biweekly.
But chip, let’s be honest - the only reason the Republicans didn’t impeach Obama was that he literally never did anything even remotely impeachable. That’s why they spent millions of our tax dollars re-investigating Hillary and Benghazi over and over and over again.
@canonizer @FritzCat @jawlz @klezman
Nancy Pelosi brought it up.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nancy-pelosi-wont-rule-out-impeachment-to-block-trump-scotus-pick
@chipgreen @FritzCat @jawlz @klezman Eh, I’m bad at these forums. My reply was below starting a thread in this topic. She declined to answer the question and definitely did not bring it up.
@canonizer @FritzCat @jawlz @klezman
Guess I should have read the article more carefully although I knew that when I first heard about it, it was said that Pelosi was threatening to do it so when multiple people claimed it was nobody of import, just some junior members of congress, I did a quick google search at 6 am before work and posted the first link I found with that headline from a known liberal website.
FWIW, one quote from the article says; “After saying the House has a “responsibility” to protect the Constitution, Pelosi reiterated that impeachment was an option on the table.”
How do you reiterate something if you never said it? Is the leftist Daily Beast putting words in Pelosi’s mouth?
Whatever, my point was and still is that another impeachment attempt would be ridiculous, especially this close to the election. Glad to hear that it is just fake news.
@canonizer @chipgreen @FritzCat @jawlz Would it be ridiculous to impeach Trump again? Yes. But I’d argue it’s on the same level of ridiculousness as the pure power grab being played by Mitch McConnell with the Supreme Court. Like squabbling children, all of them, except the consequences are substantial.
@canonizer @chipgreen @FritzCat @jawlz @klezman
But are they really? I thought something very bad was going to happen if Donald Trump got elected. I expected war with North Korea or a Nuclear Bomb or a coup after he was impeached and removed from office but refused to go*. But 3.5 years later the constitution is still intact, congressional approval rating is still 18%, Donald Trump’s approval rating is still 42% and our government is just as functional as before.
All this squabbling children stuff is Business as Usual for elected officials. It is only that there is so much ink being spilled and breath being wasted that makes us think the consequences are substantial. They only really matter if you face losing your job. The arguments are so loud because the stakes are so low.
*I’m aware that there is still time, that’s beside the point
@KitMarlot I disagree, but I really hope you’re right.
@chipgreen @FritzCat @jawlz @KitMarlot @klezman I think it’s fair to say that we don’t know the full impact of an administration’s actions in progress. Shrill people on the left (ie, me) point to the gutting of federal agencies, disregard for environment, withdrawal from the world order/trade agreements and see consequences of a fraying nation, climate change, ceding power to China.
As an aside: I’m flabbergasted by the support for Trump and always has been. I personally know architects in Westchester that he’s ripped off. He’s never done anything charitable in his life. His skin is thinner than a wine grape. He lies as easily as breathing. This cult of personality that thinks he could personally fix America has always had me flummoxed. Things (pre pandemic) are worse with Iran, N Korea and China than they were before he stepped into office*.
*(allowing for those that likewise think this was the natural fallout of the Obama admin).
The only thing he has succeeded in doing is stoking division in what many of us are learning is a fairly fragile democracy.
@canonizer
And yet his core constituency seems to be the honest, upright, hardworking, small town middle-American. I started learning just how much I didn’t know the night he got elected.
No, she didn’t - Stephanopolous asked “would you consider impeaching dt or wb” and she said “we have many arrows in our quiver which I will not discuss here.”
Interesting proposal I saw in Law360 today. For those who have access, the URL is https://www.law360.com/articles/1313119/how-congress-can-depoliticize-the-supreme-court
For those who don’t have access, the summary is simple and require no constitutional amendments according to the author:
These ideas strike me as quite reasonable. Thoughts?
(for those who care about the authorship, the man’s name is F. Franklin Amanat, currently at a private firm after 24 years at DOJ, including a stint as assistant US attorney)
@klezman based on your summary, I’m not sure I see a large difference from how things are currently done. Ultimately the senate would still have to vote on the candidate, so they would still probably hold hearings for that candidate anyways.
But let’s see what happens with this nominee. Its entirely possible that the senate won’t hold hearings at all anyways.
@klezman The notion of it being possible to have an apolitical federal judicial nominating commission is risible. The American Bar Association has become so left-wing that they haven’t approved a judge to the right of the Gang of Four for decades. The idea is a left-wing power grab, pure and simple.
The second idea is unnecessary - the President could always make a recess appointment in the event he or she deemed it necessary, until a new justice is confirmed in the current manner. The President could always make a recess appointment of a retired Justice or another serving federal judge. Unless the idea is that someone else would pick the interim justice, in which case it’s an unconstitutional idea.
I would not increase the size of the court. The idea of a Supreme Court is that the whole court hears cases, since it is the final judicial determination. What would you do if the result went the wrong way? Appeal for a rehearing en banc (i.e. everybody) the way it is now at the appellate level? Then you’ve just created another intermediary (and expensive) step.
@rpm I don’t have anything invested in the ideas in the article. There’s also plenty of proposals out there for Constitutional amendments to fix the court at 9 justices and establish term limits. I’m in favour of that too. I agree that the current system is flawed, probably beyond repair, and it is having the effect of delegitimizing the judiciary. Nothing good lies down that road.
@klezman @rpm Is it flawed? I read an article this morning by someone who worked with Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the DC circuit and he talked about how she and Antonin Scalia were buddies. That suggests to me that the current system is not flawed. Or are you specifically referring to nomination/approval process?
@KitMarlot @rpm the nomination and approval process is deeply flawed. When one person can deny a president his rightful appointment based on a statement of principle and then turn around and hypocritically do the opposite, it’s a broken system.
The more I think about it the more I like the idea of 18 year terms, one seat changing every two years. If these weren’t lifetime appointments it would be less crazy.
@klezman @rpm
I agree, and it has been broken going back at least 2,000+ years, when Brutus stabbed Caesar for the alleged crime of exaggerated ambition, and probably further. Politics is operated by people, people are hypocrites. In our representative democracy, when the hypocrisy goes too far we vote in a new guy. The alternative is tyranny.
Forcing a president to play nice with the senate is one of the many quirks of the American system of government. George Washington was incensed that the Senate wanted to evaluate his slate of judicial nominees, pacing angrily in the atrium until he realized that they wouldn’t finish discussions that day. I think we can all agree that Washington had impeccable personal integrity and judgement of character, but it doesn’t seem that it is asking too much to get another opinion, especially for a lifetime appointment.
I like the lifetime appointment, which differentiates the Supreme Court from the other branches of the government. It is supposed to be apolitical and has more or less approached that lofty ideal even in these divided times. Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s nomination had only 3 dissenting votes! How quaint. It’s not as if each President’s judge votes the way he hopes. Anthony Kennedy was nominated by Reagan yet infuriated conservatives as has John Roberts for some of his narrow rulings. Senators are accountable to the people and they all had to decide that it was worth it to block Robert Bork’s nomination or ignore Merrick Garland. Every system has flaws and I don’t see the merit of taking the risk on something new when we already understand the drawbacks of what we have.
@KitMarlot @klezman @rpm
FWIW, the argument I have heard as to why this is different is that the Senate majority is the same party as the President, while previously the Senate majority was Republican and Obama was a Democrat. The President-elect was Republican, so waiting for Trump to appoint a justice was “giving the people what they wanted”. Since they had voted for a Republican Senate and President, it was inappropriate for a lame duck Democrat to appoint the SCOTUS justice.
Currently there is no President-elect and the party of the President and Senate majority coincide, so appointing another justice under this regime is still “giving the people what they want”.
Just repeating what I heard (sic) on a PBS interview with Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming.
@chipgreen @KitMarlot @rpm Yeah, Senator Barrasso is making things up. There are innumerable statements from many Republicans stating, unequivocally, that during an election year the "people should have their say. Remember, Scalia died in February, nearly 9 months before the election. It had precisely nothing to do with a lame-duck President nominating somebody after the election.
Then there’s Lindsey Graham, just last year, saying he still believes that rule is the correct and fair one. And to hold him to his words.
I couldn’t find the video, but his words from after Trump was elected are just as clear:
“Justice Scalia dies in 2016. The primary process is ongoing. And if you look back at 100 years, no one has been replaced under that circumstance. If you listen to what Joe Biden said in Bush 41, you should hold it over to the next election. Joe is right a lot. So I felt like I was doing the traditional thing when it came to Sotomayor and Kagan, I thought I did the traditional thing.
“Now I’ll tell you this. This may make you feel better but I really don’t care. If an opening comes in the last year of president Trump’s term and the primary process is started, we will wait to the next election. And I’ve got a pretty good chance of being the judiciary –”
“And you’re on the record?” asked Mr Goldberg.
“Hold the tape,” Mr Graham replied.
He already called us suckers for paying taxes.
@canonizer Might turn into the biggest set of tax fraud cases in this country’s history…
@canonizer @klezman
How so? Although Trump has fought to keep his tax returns out of the public eye, the IRS is well aware of him and has been for decades. If there was fraud, he would have been indicted long ago.
Not saying that his tax team doesn’t use creative accounting - I’m sure they do but Jeff Bezos doesn’t pay any taxes either. They take advantage of loopholes, accelerate depreciation and write off everything they can until the losses balance out the income. Oftentimes they will even cash out on bad investments, purposely taking huge losses just in time to claim them on their taxes and it’s all allowed under the current tax codes.
@canonizer @chipgreen Oy.
Jeff Bezos pays taxes, even if Amazon can wrangle their way out of it.
Yes, using the tax rules to the best of your ability has become something of a ridiculous sport in this country. Nonetheless, one cannot deduct expenses paid to a “consultant” for your company if that person is also an executive for your company. It’s doubly suspicious when that person is your daughter and it looks a lot like trying to avoid taxes on gifts to your kids.
There’s also the previous reports of Trump’s rather, um, situational valuation of his properties.
Did you read the entire story in the NY Times? I don’t care what you think about their opinion pages, but their investigative reporting is top notch and even-handed.
@chipgreen @klezman
Yes, paying people who don’t work for him + we’ll see how the depreciation for taxes/appreciation for loan application plays out. Maybe his accountant goes to jail and property owners have substantially new guidelines.
He excoriated Mitt for, iirc, a 14.5% effective tax rate and said he would release his returns if he ran. Why do Republicans not care about the lies?
If you anyone feels like whataboutxyz Dem, please consider saving it. I know why no one cares: Trump has been a proper puppet so his morality, lying, and countless other flaws mean little.
@canonizer @klezman
I have not read any articles about Trump’s taxes other than the fact that he paid $750 one year and had a couple years where he paid nothing. I am pretty sure the media has not uncovered anything that the IRS doesn’t already know. Don’t you think the IRS has audited his taxes many times over the years?
If there are some shady expenses, he may end up paying some reimbursement $ and fines but “the biggest set of tax fraud cases in this country’s history”? Oy, indeed.
@canonizer @klezman @chipgreen
https://thepatriotsreport.com/2020/09/28/joe-biden-exploited-s-corporation-loophole-to-avoid-payroll-tax/
https://s-corp.org/2019/07/joe-bidens-s-corp/
@canonizer @chipgreen @rjquillin
Chip, please read the full accounting in the Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html
Ron, even if the assertions in that article are true, there has never been anything wrong with setting up a business for your, well, business. Also, the ease with which S-corps get away with paying little to no taxes in that way are in part due to the Republican tax shenanigans of 2017. (And I’m taking that website at its word even though its other headlines were pure clickbait at best and outright false at worst.)
@chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin omg, this is absurd. S corps are pass through entities which provide a liability shield. The scandal would be whether he paid taxes as income at the much higher marginal tax rate for someone earning 13M instead of using the corporation as a piggy bank and just leaving the money there while using it for personal endeavors.
If he’d been taxed at corporate rates, he still would not have been an employee requiring payroll taxes but taxed at 20%
And I love the idea that the nyt is partisan hackery but whatever the hell that was is trustworthy.
@chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin Sorry, I’m having trouble getting over this. The fraud/crime would be claiming to employ people at an s-corp that did not actually work in the normal course of business (ie, pretty much Trump is doing with his daughter).
If not for all of the other “whatabout xyz dem” bs, this would be the least informed.
@canonizer @chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin Friends, for the record I do not like Donald Trump and did not vote for him in 2016. The only comment I want to make in this discussion is that while the investigative journalism of NYT may be top notch, the prose and rhetorical flourishes make it difficult for me to read. Speculation such as
and red herrings such as
combined with
makes me wonder which facts are being reported.
Further, I don’t see the point of this article. The man drove 6 entities into bankruptcy long before he became a reality TV star. The fact that he is good at manipulating the US tax code should come as no surprise. Is it a subtle argument for the Flat Tax and abolishing the IRS?
@chipgreen @KitMarlot @klezman @rjquillin
Sure - abolish the IRS and run our tax collection like other modern countries by limiting all deductions (including ones I like - charitable contribution, SALT & home interest). It should still be a progressive code.
It is staggeringly unfair how we subsidize the wealthy.
I suspect this has to do with it being obvious where the leak was from. If he has amended his return at various stages, any figures contained therein might amount to a watermark.
@canonizer @chipgreen @KitMarlot @rjquillin
I don’t think those are speculations in the first quote. Those are (to me, valid) questions that many of us have wanted answers to for nearly 4 years.
I think a comparison to previous presidential tax information is valid. I think a more useful comparison is to other tax amounts paid by us normal folks.
I obviously agree that anybody who was paying any attention knew that Trump only pretended to be successful on tv. But how many people were paying attention? How many people still claim Trump is a brilliant businessman? It boggles my mind.
But this goes beyond legal use of the tax code. There are clear violations of the rules (NPR had a segment with a financial analyst this morning that explained it better), and more importantly it highlights just how ridiculous our taxation system is if it legally lets somebody have such a ridiculously lavish lifestyle while paying essentially no tax.
There’s yet another very important question: who holds Trump’s debt, and what are they asking him to do for them in his official capacity so that he gets more favourable terms? Those who think that the “natural-born American citizen” requirement for being president is an important safeguard against foreign ties should be mad as hell if it turns out to be foreign debt owners.
@canonizer @klezman @rjquillin
Who said that the NYT is partisan hackery?
@canonizer @klezman @rjquillin
Huh?
@chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin
Virtually every “conservative” - but that does not mean that mean we should give equal footing to “patriotsreport.com” or oann or any of the zillion “news” sites that spring up to support Trump/division.
I find that when I try to discuss what Trump is doing right now, I’ll hear about something (likely false or inflated) about Hillary or something Biden said 25 years ago.
@canonizer @klezman @rjquillin
Your preconceived notions about “every conservative” are not amenable to an open discussion. Especially when taken to the point of attributing opinions that haven’t been expressed and giving pre-emptive warnings that anybody who has anything to say about “xyz democrat” should just save it.
@canonizer @chipgreen @rjquillin
Let’s take a breath for a sec, shall we? I think the attribution of non-expressed opinions has gone both ways here.
Chip, your first post about this tax topic did invoke (at least a basic form of) whataboutism when you said Bezos pays no taxes. That’s regardless of the accuracy of that statement.
For the “save your whataboutism” comment from canonizer, I completely sympathize. Just about every political discussion I’ve read or participated in seems to draw in at least one person who prefers the Republicans who feels that “Democrat X did something vaguely similar once upon a time” is a valid argument for why it’s ok for a Republican to do what they’re doing now. It’s a logical fallacy to debate in that way, and its repeated use has gotten extremely frustrating. Ron’s posting of something related to Joe Biden’s use of an S-Corp, even if true, is a prime example. It has nothing to do with Trump’s use of an (army of) S-Corp(s).
It appears the “NY Times partisan hackery” notion came from a combination of Ron’s post plus KitMarlot’s post that described his (?) view of partisan rhetorical flourishes. Maybe it tweaked a nerve because many people, here and elsewhere, have claimed that the NY Times is nothing but a partisan Democratic newspaper. I wholeheartedly disagree, but that’s ok.
Chip, I know you to be a great guy who is generally reasonable. It would be a shame to lose that sort of voice in this forum.
@chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin hey, I’m sorry, I shouldn’t be driving a wedge in the community. I’m so infrequently participating and shouldn’t be stirring trouble.
@canonizer @klezman @rjquillin
Bezos was just the first name that came to mind as a reference point that lots of rich people are very good at skirting tax laws without actually breaking them, although - mea culpa - I should not have said Bezos when, as you mentioned, it was really Amazon that paid no taxes. FWIW, a quick after-the-fact google shows that Bezos only collects a salary of a little over $80k per year, so despite his billions of net worth he does not pay a whole heck of a lot of personal taxes after all. I assume that he pays his fair share on the $80k, however.
AFA “whataboutism”, I think it’s generally fair to compare and contrast in the context of topical discussion as I (somewhat clumsily) attempted to do by interjecting Bezos. It wasn’t meant to be an indictment of Bezos or a justification for Trump.
I agree wholeheartedly that to try to justify illicit actions by saying “so and so did it too” is just wrong. Personally I think the “whataboutism” is usually more of an attempt to deflect attention than anything else.
While I didn’t appreciate what I felt were preconceived notions, I am not angry or upset with canonizer. Just pointing out that IMO, it’s the wrong approach if there is any hope for open dialog.
Most political discussion forums are filled to the brim with people preaching to the choir. This forum has consistently been a notch or three above the fray and I appreciate your efforts to help keep it that way!
@canonizer @klezman @rjquillin
No need to apologize. I understand the passion and know that it is difficult not to get jaded about “the other side” but this is a unique venue where us fellow wine lovers try to remain courteous and considerate while discussing hot-button topics. Not always an easy task!
@canonizer @chipgreen @rjquillin
Yup, I agree with just about everything you’ve said, chip.
I would also assume Bezos pays his fair share between his salary and whatever stocks he sells or however he gets his living money. The thing about owning and being CEO of a public company is that he can’t just skim off the top or turn personal expenses into “business” expenses. And that’s not a dig at Trump specifically - that’s a dig at the tax code that lets S-Corp owners who are less than fully honest get away with these sorts of things. The enforcement budget at IRS is dramatically lower than it should be. The last estimate I saw was that a few hundred million more spent on enforcement would net tens of billions of dollars more per year.
1000% this.
Might be my last post, in this segment of the forum, but have been watching the debate tonight.
I believe, as Klez did, on why don’t people just think about country first? I do, always did, didn’t take a military oath for me to do so, but Democratic rule, right now, would be terrible.
I don’t give a rats damn, about whether I am liked, or not. Never believed in the “Death of a Salesman” thing of Willie needing to be liked.
Earlier apologies, were for stepping into anothers domain, which I don’t want, as all are fine by me. I don’t have to agree, to be fine with a person, but crap is crap.
Happy, bs, Mr. Rogers ways of looking at things don’t exist in reality.
We are fine here, better before than now, but work towards the future, rather than sow cranky, little, decisiveness.
It all is, what it is, and my best to all.
Not being a history buff, I found this article about the nature of American democracy interesting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/opinion/trump-supreme-court-missouri-compromise.html
Not about the election! Thoughts on child care vis a vis school?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/coronavirus-schools-child-care-centers.html
@klezman Great article, great commentary, and it raises a great question that I’ve been talking about with my friends and neighbors a lot over the last few months. I used to see public education as a means “to make democracy function”, but that doesn’t take 180 7 hour days for 13 years. I now realize that it is “state funded daycare”, allowing many households to move away from extended family and have all adults working. It is also a delivery mechanism for basic necessities, counseling, workforce engagement, etc. What has made the coronavirus related shutdowns so surprising is how many public school districts (at least in Central Ohio where I live) are not open for in-person education, while private schools and day care centers are. Despite their best efforts (and there has been tremendous effort in my area) public schools simply can’t meet their expanded mandate remotely.
@KitMarlot @klezman The dirty secret of public education in the United States is that it hasn’t done a very good job of either education or day care since the mid-1960s, and hasn’t done a very good job of education since WWII.
@KitMarlot @klezman My mother was very active in early childhood education from the very early '50s and later child care until her retirement in the '80s. She was a tireless advocate for good programs, which were unfortunately few and far between; a couple of centers she started were used by the California Dept. of Education as models, but replicating the model only works when you have first rate staff. I think it would be fair to say she had very mixed feelings about day care, as do I. Her preference, based on what she believed was best for children, was combination of (1) part-day early childhood education programs to provide an environment for developing social skills, free play with resources most families don’t have, and directed learning activities, including music and art, and (2) most of the day with a stay-at-home or part-time working parent (usually, but not always, mom). In structuring and running day care centers, where young kids were there all day and the older ones came before and after school, she would not tolerate ‘custodial-oriented’ staff. Many had graduate training in early childhood education at elite schools like Bank Street. Daily staff meetings were as intense as anything I’ve ever seen. In order to be able to place their children in the program, parents (whether single or couples) had to agree to attend monthly group meetings and parent-teacher conferences at least every couple of months, depending on age and how things were going.
Of course, my mother was born during World War One and was part of the last generation where education (though usually not early childhood) was one of the better careers open to bright and motivated women - had she been born when I was (which is long enough ago!), she undoubtedly would have been a successful doctor, lawyer, or businesswoman, and a successful politician (runs in the family - I have a 90 year old 1st cousin who was a state senator in a Western state for 30-odd years after she raised her kids). The people she was able to recruit were all very good, and she brought out the best in them, but she herself functioned at a much higher level yet…
All this is my long-winded way of saying that the chances of government-run child care being anything more than warehousing, despite good intentions (which I won’t always concede) are very slim. Even my mother worried about teachers with ideological agendas and the use of child care (and elementary education generally) to indoctrinate rather than educate.
@KitMarlot @rpm Interesting ideas. I keep coming back to the modern necessity of dual income families and how to square that with education the way it goes today. We are fortunate enough to have found jobs we like that pay well enough that we can send our kids to good schools. But even still, the hours we have now simply do not permit us to excel at our jobs while also attending to our older kid when he’s home from 3pm onward.
@klezman @rpm
This is a matter of opinion. While it is commonplace, all choices come with trade-offs. This was thrown into stark relief with the school shutdowns in my area, when I heard many of my neighbors complain that “kids can’t learn from home”. Mind you, I live in a wealthy white suburb where most homes have a college educated mom and dad. What they were really saying is “I want the school to watch my children 5 days a week so I can get a break.” Despite all the evidence that parental attitude and involvement are the greatest drivers of educational outcomes, these seemingly conscientious parent just want state funded daycare. And apparently they forgot how much time is wasted in a 7 hour school day; home school curricula cover more material in half the time.
Unfortunately, public schools have become hopelessly entangled in myriad political snares, all with the best of intentions. The discussions will continue to miss the mark unless we get to some sort of consensus about the purpose of school: is it daycare? A “safe space”? Growth Engine? Indoctrination Station? Community services dispensary? The last bulwark against tyranny?
@KitMarlot @klezman - you’re certainly correct there is no societal consensus on the purpose of school. The schools would have you believe they are the sole appropriate place of learning, which is clearly not the case. I’m old fashioned, I think school should be for education in academic subjects, and possibly civic education, with parents in charge of moral and religious instruction and learning more generally. We certainly took that approach with our kids and my parents did with me.
@KitMarlot @rpm Believe it or not, rpm, I agree with you. While most of us can agree on basic tenets of morality, there’s not a single “true” morality code.
Thus far, though, we’ve opted to send our kids to a religious school because I’ve seen what happens to non-orthodox Jewish kids who only have Judaism at home. Turns out they abandon most of the traditions, and I want my kids to carry it on. Or as the old saying goes: you can tell a good Jewish parent by the fact that they have Jewish grandchildren.
@KitMarlot @klezman I would also go so far as to say that the schools rarely go beyond the average level even in academics, which means that parents who expect excellence generally, mastery of more advanced material, and a broader scholarly perspective must take an active role in the way in which their children’s education is delivered, what their children study, and the viewpoint(s) presented to their children. Again, we did. My parents did. You simply can’t trust professional educators. We certainly didn’t with our kids, and my parents didn’t when I was a child. Apparently my grandparents’ and great-grandparents’ educations were also closely overseen by their respective families, and were not typical of their respective times.
@KitMarlot @klezman @rpm
I think it’s pretty clear that whatever we believed education to be we must now acknowledge that a substantial part of its import is ultimately daycare.
@canonizer @KitMarlot @klezman If the kiddies were working, we wouldn’t need day care… just sayin’… Historically, over the past 2000+ years, school was not even remotely considered day care until the 20th century. For most of that time, only a small fraction of children got more than rudimentary schooling. Most children worked - whether in agricultural situations, households, trades, etc. The whole notion of childhood as a special part of life where children had no responsibilities or were not expected to contribute, is a modern invention. Schooling - education in academic subjects - was a privilege, and those who received it knew that and (usually) appreciated the fact they were getting something unusual. That was even true in America through much of the 19th century, when schools were entirely local, usually only a few months a year, and voluntary.
@canonizer @KitMarlot @rpm That’s also why our kids learn about responsibilities from the minute they can understand the term. I guess it’s a bit flipped around from what used to be the norm. Parent now have to instil values like hard work and responsibility in their kids because that’s not really a focus of schools these days. We’ll see what happens when mine are old enough to be in academic school - still in preschool overhere!
@KitMarlot @klezman @rpm Productivity gains in manufacturing and agriculture + improved infant mortality has made it necessary to find something for people to do; there is no vocation now that is not improved substantially by edumacation (not necessarily what’s taught k-12 but dealing w computers & communication(s) are part of everyone’s daily life).
I would recommend the book BULLSHIT JOBS by David Graeber. It has a lot to say about the performative nature of many of our roles.
Watched, yet, another Town Hall.
Was going to vacate the thread, but decided to ask a stupid question. Why do people fixate on the individual, rather than the result?
I can find many faults in any individual, myself included, but results are what matters. If your child were dying, would you care if it was a witch doctor, or a physician, that cured them?
No, of course not, but it seems that true argument and reason are lost now.
Too many times, nowadays, argument and reason are confused with noise. Noise equals increased decibels without any supporting argument. To many, the old adage of “the squeaky wheel gets the oil”, might seem a proper way of positioning themselves. Just remember, that the ‘squeaky wheel’ can also be replaced.
There will be those that disagree, fine, but remember that this system gives, and protects, your rights to be that way, if that is what you choose; others do not.
Try living, trying to be happy, and seeing that those you care about can do the same; this is the essence of life.
@CroutonOllie which town hall did you watch
The NBC one; figured I’d stay with the principal.
It was about as expected, but don’t know why someone doesn’t go for the jungular, when they display it so prominently.
I’m going to leave these here. I’d be very curious to hear from our more historically-inclined friends here. I was actually quite surprised to read about the evolution of originalism from a fundamentally historical endeavour to a fundamentally ahistorical endeavour.
Two interesting posts about originalism as a method of constitutional interpretation. These are both from historians - both Stanford professors.
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5157&context=flr
http://www.processhistory.org/originalism-history/
@klezman I only have time for a brief glance, but at the end of the day its semantics. The constitution was written as a result of the culmination of historical events that proceeded it. In my opinion, understanding those events as they would have been understood at the time the constitution was written is paramount to being able to interpret it. Everything else is just semantics.
And, being semantics, it wont make any difference in the here and now. The supreme court will make their decisions, regardless of what history says.
@Twich22 But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it? The “originalism 2.0” as it’s called in the second article explicitly disavows historical inquiry into anything beyond isolated words and attempts to divine the semantics. It apparently leaves out exactly all those other things that a historian would use to figure out the “original meaning” of the text.
@klezman Agreed
@klezman Well, these happen to be a couple of historians whose hostility to originalism drips from their pens… I was trained as an historian before I studied the law and have always believed that the profound ignorance of history displayed by almost all lawyers has had a baleful effect on their jurisprudence. So, I’m probably closer to a ‘historical originalist’ than most current ‘semantic originalists’, but as an intellectual historian I do take the words seriously and think that justices trying to determine whether particular laws are compatible or incompatible with the strictures of our written social contract ought to do their very best to try to understand what was meant at the time. I note that none of the Framers thought that the Supreme Court would be in the business of determining the Constitutionality of legislation - that was the work of Chief Justice Marshall (incidentally nominated by John Adams after it was clear he had lost the 1800 election to Jefferson, and confirmed by a lame duck senate…) in Marbury v Madison in 1803. But, I digress… Despite my understanding, as an historian, that one can never know with certainty what was meant by the Framers and the ratifiers, I think that being guided by a close reading of the contemporary documents, and a thorough understanding of the intellectual context in which they were written and the knowledge with which the Framers worked, is a damned sight better approach to Constitutional law than the ‘living Constitution’ cr*p that has been espoused by so many leftist jurists for the past hundred years or so. There is a lot of historians ‘inside baseball’ in both articles, which I won’t bother to get into. Let’s just say that I think that the politicization of the historical profession over the past 40-50 years has been profound and that I tend very much to deep skepticism of the motives of historians when the step out of pure historical analysis into areas in which they are not trained - such as understanding legal documents and reasoning.
@rpm I agree
@rpm Fair. If I read your critique correctly, you would be more aligned with “originalism 1.0”, which (again, if I read correctly) sought to understand the entire context of the constitution’s drafting and ratification in order to ascertain its meaning. And truth be told, that version makes a lot of sense to me.
I read another article, which is where I got these links, that was asking the question of whether the reconstruction amendments altered the meaning of the original parts of the constitution and/or that the social compact re-entered to in that era supersedes the prior one. I thought it was argued well, but again, neither a historian or a lawyer over here.
@klezman Without having read the other article (link please) or any underlying sources for it, I suspect I could make a plausible argument either way.
Part of the difficulty here is that, while historians are (or used to be) trained to ferret out and evaluate evidence, unless they’re also lawyers (or perhaps philosophers of law), they’re not trained in how lawyers analyze statutes (or contracts, for that matter). A lawyer looking at an amendment to the Constitution might well ask does the amendment fundamentally alter the meaning of the original document?. For example, does it delete a right expressly preserved or enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Or does it give the federal government, say, the general police power which was explicitly reserved to the states? Amendments of that sort might well be reasonably seen as superseding. But would they be superseding as to all matters or only as to their limited sphere? In keeping with the limited powers delegated to the federal government, it seems to me the more correct reading would be superseding only within the specific grant. Amendments which might be seen as superseding are 16 (income tax, which was forbidden under Constitution) and 17 (direct election of senators), but neither was (or should ever be) seen as giving the federal government a free reign. Both were, in my view, grave mistakes, but they were duly enacted (as was 18 - Prohibition and 21 - its repeal). Most amendments, and specifically the Reconstruction Amendments should probably be seen, both historically and legally, as not superseding, but clarifying amendments which ratified the outcome of the War of the Rebellion (for my Yankee friends, btw that’s what it was called in the Official Records) or War Between the States (for my Southern friends - btw, I’ve never heard a Southerner use the term “War of Northern Aggression” other than to get some damnyankee’s goat or in some sort of jest or jocular manner).
From a lawyer’s drafting perspective, which you should take into account when you read a lawyer’s document, small changes in a document call for an “amendment”. When lawyers make very large changes, they at least “amend and restate” or even “replace” the document.
@rpm Here’s the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/opinion/amy-coney-barrett-originalism.html
This columnist has recently written a series of historically-oriented pieces. Another one you might find interesting, and even agree with: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/opinion/down-with-judicial-supremacy.html
Perhaps “supersede” was the wrong word to express my understanding of the author’s point. It’s probably better termed as altering and/or clarifying our understanding of what the words mean and the intent behind them.
@rpm
You think, thanks for a robust explanation.
Interpreting the Constitution is like asking ‘what do you think the author meant?’
Maybe, just what they said, and nothing more, or less.
Republican-leaning friends, I am curious for your take on this editorial:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/opinion/sunday/trump-republican-party.html
While I find a few things maybe a bit overstated, I am having a hard time finding anything incorrect here.
@klezman
Hello, and I find more than most things overstated in the article; glad it was an opinion.
Mr. Trump is not your traditional politician. Maybe that is how he gets things done, much to the dismay of many, who confuse the person with the result.
Results are what matter to me, and not the incessant diatribe that tries to discredit our nation, and all she stood for, simply because their little wheel wasn’t greased.
There comes a point where people get sick and tired of all of the would be ‘martyrs’ and ‘victims’ who would rather whine and remain as such, rather than take responsibility for their own shortcomings. To address, and vanquish, them is what gives people a sense of real worth and pride, and stands in the face of just handing people things, or making everyone ‘make believe’ heroes; that doesn’t work.
I’m sure we all want the same things, but some methodologies just fail over and over again, and it would be nice if we could just have business move forward, without expensive, time and effort draining, distractions.
@CroutonOllie sure, such high minded principles are fairly easy to agree with.
What I didn’t see was any substantive disagreement with the article. Or are you saying that only results matter, and so might makes right?
@klezman
You caught me, as I found it a tldr once I gauged the tone; more sour grapes. Shortcuts that old farts take, after reading so many of them.
Uhh, written by people who are not part of the republican party, and who certainly dont understand it. The republican party was dead before Trump came along. Trump built a new party from its ashes, thank god. This is what republicans were meant to be.
@klezman
Just noticed the ‘might makes right’ insinuation that you interjected; clumsy.
Since you went there, yes, might does make right in some instances, especially if against the Constitution and rights of the American people as guaranteed.
Some of what we have been seeing here is outright sedition, and those in power who sanction this should be removed from office for violating their oaths.
Edit, <sp>
@CroutonOllie So, being specific, then, you agree that Mitch McConnell and all but one Republican senator should be removed from office for violating their oaths to defend the constitution when he didn’t even seek the truth in Trump’s impeachment trial?
Bill Barr should be removed from office and sanctioned for politicizing the Justice Department?
Everybody involved in forced family separations should be tried by the international criminal court for violating their human rights?
@Twich22 I’m confused - you seem to disagree with their perspective, which aligns quite tightly with many Republicans’ thoughts? Because you don’t like the messenger?
If this is a new party that Trump has formed (and I think that’s true in many respects) then I hope to god they never hold a single seat in Congress ever again. The Trump Party seems to have no moral code that I can agree with. The former Republican Party, while I didn’t agree with their policy positions often, I could at least respect the thought process behind them.
@klezman just because you are not aware of the moral code of the new Republican Party does not mean it does not exist. It could merely mean that you, and the people writing this article, do not know what those morals are or what the Republican Party stands for. Which is what I’m saying. As a Trump Republican.
@Twich22
I didn’t say the Trump Party has no moral code, just not one that I agree with or could ever support.
In any case, I’m all ears, honestly. What is the moral code of the Trump Party? What about it do you agree with?
@klezman I wish I had the time to tell you all about it but I don’t. The Republican Party is about empowering the individual, opposing corruption, supporting the lower and middle class economically, and so much more. It values the rights of the individual above the rights of the business or the government. It values eliminating government intervention in areas where the government does not need to intervene. So many things, so little time. This website is very Democrat biased, and some of these points are incorrect, but if you truly want to learn more about what the values of the Republican Party under trump is then you need only look at the policy positions. But note that any position not supported by a direct public statement about it by the president is as likely to be wrong as it is to be right from what I can see. https://www.isidewith.com/candidates/donald-trump/policies
@Twich22 I recognise those ideas/principles from the Republican party of before 10 years ago, but none of that rings true for the Republican party for the last (roughly) 10 years after they dedicated themselves to anti-liberalism. I honestly, no matter how much I’ve tried, cannot see those ideas present in the Trump party. Especially opposing corruption and supporting the lower and middle class economically (unless you believe in trickle-down economics despite the lack of evidence for it).
Regardless, none of that is a moral code, except perhaps empowering the individual. The rest are (theoretically) policy positions.
I also cannot fathom how one can, with a straight face, say that the Trump Party opposes corruption. I don’t have an active subscription to the Economist, but they just published a piece examining his record: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/10/31/donald-trumps-record-on-corruption-and-conflicts-of-interest
I can’t speak to any political leanings of this site, but they have tracked Trump’s corruption: https://globalanticorruptionblog.com/profiting-from-the-presidency-tracking-corruption-and-conflicts-in-the-trump-administration/
along with his new executive order that invites additional corruption: https://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2020/10/27/trumps-new-executive-order-on-the-civil-service-poses-a-grave-corruption-threat/
Meanwhile, the rest of the Trump Party stands idly by, using your tax dollars and mine to enrich the president and his family.
@klezman I have no interest in disabusing you from your beliefs. All I can say is that it’s clear to me, from the article you posted, and the things you are saying, that you don’t understand the Republican Party at all, and do not have a good perspective on what it represents.
@Twich22 I’m sorry you seem to think I’m such a dotard that I can’t comprehend a reasoned explanation and that it’s not worth your time to explain your beliefs about the Republican Party or the Trump Party. I’m well acquainted with what the Republican Party says it stands for*, which is what you repeat, but to my eyes it bears little resemblance to reality.
*It’s not even clear it still even says it stands for those things in this election. The party did not devise a platform for reelection and Trump has not actually outlined any plans for a second term.
@klezman I don’t blame you, nor do I think less of you than any other human being. That is a value that republicans believe, that all humans are equal. The sad truth is that our country is so polarized that the republicans and democrats no longer understand one another. We live in two very different worlds, although we are physical neighbors. Strange times.
@klezman What you have stated here, are all matters of opinion, and as such, carry no more weight than any other opinion.
As for the ICC, they have no jurisdiction here (the US), as our membership was never sent to, or ratified by, the legislature.
@CroutonOllie Sort of. I’m pretty clear what my opinions are vs facts. It is a fact that Trump is self-dealing and directing millions of our tax dollars to his businesses. It’s a fact that self-dealing in government is corruption. You are, of course, absolutely entitled to the opinion that you don’t care that Trump is lining his pockets with your money, but you aren’t entitled to “alternative facts” whereby it’s all my opinion that he’s doing so.
@Twich22 At the risk of going down a rabbit hole, I am curious how you can justify the statement that Republicans believe all humans are equal. Why, then, do Republican policies so frequently leave identifiable groups at significant disadvantages?
@klezman I would never claim that all republican politicians are not corrupt. Any person has the capacity for corruption. And no doubt sometimes policies have bad consequences. But those things do not apply to president Trump, nor to the beliefs of the people of the Republican Party. We would never support a policy that was a detriment to the people of America. And as for your facts, it sounds like pure derangement. The president was investigated for over 2 years by the most corrupt and biased group of lawyers and investigators. They had full power to investigate all aspects of the presidents life. And they were unable to bring a single charge against him. That is a fact that I know to be true. So whatever corruption you may accuse him of, it has never risen to the level of a crime. And his policies have done nothing but elevate the lowest of the American people to new levels of prosperity. So to claim that he does not care for the people of this country does not match up with the results of his policy.
@Twich22 Wow. Clearly one cannot compete with Fox News. If they repeat it enough times, apparently enough people think it’s fact.
You argument is circular: the Republican party only does good things, so all things the Republican party has done are good.
I’ll note here that you didn’t respond to my questions, but you simply disagreed with the premise and didn’t engage with the topic. I’ve provided links to sources chronicling Trump’s corruption, which you’ve also referenced, but you’ve chosen not to engage with that either. Oh well. I keep hoping against hope to have a fruitful conversation here, but keep getting rejected.
@klezman Look, I already told you, I have no interest in changing your beliefs, nor engaging with you in a debate. One of the most beautiful parts of this country is that you have the freedom to believe what you want, and I have the freedom to believe what I want. And thats fine with me, live and let live. But at the end of the day, elections matter, and this country is based on the will of the majority. and that majority will decide the fate of this country on Tuesday, regardless of anyones beliefs. And thats just the way it is.
@Twich22 I guess you didn’t understand. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m trying to understand why others with different opinions from me hold those opinions. You’ve refused to engage in it, which is your perogative. I remain disappointed that almost nobody who leans Republican is actually able to articulate why.
And you know as well as I that the majority of this country disapproves of the Republican agenda. The only reason Republicans have power is due to anti majority structures in this country’s system.
@klezman I see that you are trying to understand the opinions of others. I applaud you for that. But I do not have the time to educate you on my beliefs. And I know the futility of it. People must make their own decisions, and make up their own minds, and rarely does a debate on an internet form lead to an change of opinion. I used to debate endlessly on the forms. Then I grew tired of it and eventually stopped altogether. Now I am merely content to my own beliefs, and content to let others make their own way. God bless America.
@klezman Facts require proof, and I’ve seen none. Further, I find it interesting that you somehow ‘know’ what my opinion is, that I am supposedly entitled to; how magnanimous! You worry about alternative facts? First grasp the concept of what a fact is. Anecdotal evidence, no matter how widely accepted as representing ‘facts’, do not necessarily a fact make. It may, or may not, help to establish what is fact, but it is not enough on its own to meet any burden of proof.
@klezman @Twich22 Klezman, give it up. Twich22 is a troll who gets his jollies yanking your chain…and he’s yanking it hard! These republicans have no interest in reality or truth, and none of them will debate issues. Their only interest is in not admitting that they’re wrong, because that would show weakness. At this point, all we can do is vote, and I have done so. And, contrary to what Twich said, and as you intimated, it is not a majority of the populace that elects the President, because podunk hillbilly rednecks have an advantage with the electoral college. Again, give it up, and vote. (my apologies to all you hillbilly rednecks from podunk)
@FritzCat you belie your own ignorance by blaming the electoral college. I could not possibly begin to explain to someone what my perspective is if they do not even understand the purpose of the most foundational and important documents in america, meaning our founding documents and laws. We are simply too far apart to be able to meaningfully communicate. I am content to merely win this election and let my voice be heard in that manner. May you be content with your truths and beliefs.
@FritzCat Yup, I give up. Everything is so obvious that it’s an utter waste of time to explain it to us imbeciles.
This country needs a mega dose of empathy.
@klezman sorry. It’s just not something that can be explained. It has nothing to do with intelligence. It’s just the way it is. I wish I could explain it in a way that everyone could understand. But I cannot. It’s a very personal thing. Everyone makes their own decisions.
But understand that, whatever you may think of republicans, our one and most fervent intent is to give every citizen of this country the greatest chance at prosperity and happiness, especially those of the low and middle class. I know that you may not believe that, but that is my truth that I believe.
Just as I know that most Democrats wish for the same thing.
@Twich22 Gotcha. To paraphrase: I think we both want the same things but I am unwilling and/or unable to explain why I think the Republican party in the year 2020 espouses values and policies in line with my preference.
@klezman I cannot explain my perspective in a way that you would understand. Our viewpoints are just too far apart. Maybe if we were talking in person, and had a long time to discuss things, I could make you understand. But not online via written word, at at least not quickly and not in an amount of time that I would be willing to spend trying to explain to you.
@klezman perhaps, if you want to gain some perspective, you could watch some videos i think are representative of my values and beliefs. I can think of a few that do a decent job of conveying such complex ideas.
One, from Michael Moore in 2016, if you have not seen it. I think he was trying to be ironic, but ironically he hit things closer to the mark then probably he will ever know.
Also, this next video is long but shows what the president is all about and why Americans love him so much.
I think these two videos are probably the best way to show you my perspective in the shortest amount of time. It’s still pretty limited but if you really want to know then you are free to watch and, if you want, you can ask me questions about the videos. I may have to rewatch them myself.
Well regardless of the outcome of this year’s election… I’m not sure why we shouldn’t eliminate the Electoral College. As I have read, it was originally agreed upon as a compromise. Some of the founding fathers believed that Congress should select/elect the President… while others believed it should be by popular vote… and hence the Electoral College was agreed upon by men trying to figure things out… slaves back then only counted as 3/5ths of a person when accounting for a State’s population (and couldn’t vote). We’ve obviously progressed a bit from our horse and buggy days… but not when it comes to electing the most important Political Official in our Nation. Thoughts?
I can appreciate that… and I know that’s one of the reasons it was originally written that way… but we are the “United States”. Today the Candidates are concentrating on a handful of States to get over the line… makes the rest of us feel like we’re a surplus to requirements. I think it may be time to rethink that logic. A popular vote would mean a vote from Western Kansas means as much as a vote from NYC… don’t know… just a thought.
@Savagesam one of the intents of the constitution is to provide states equal rights. It is not merely the people who elect the president, but the states as well. The whole idea of America is that we are a republic. We are not all one people, but a group of peoples, each with our own state, and each state has the power to govern their lands as they will, within the bounds of the government. If the federal government begins to do things that most of the states don’t like, then the states are granted the right to legally revolt against the federal government, and one of those legal methods is by electing a president of their choosing. What you are proposing is to undermine the very framework of our nation. I cannot even begin to explain how detrimental the longterm consequences of that action would be. The idea that someone could even suggest it shows that they either don’t understand the foundational framework of our country, or they have not thoroughly considered the long term consequences of their actions. It would likely destabilize the entire country and throw it into chaos, and after that who knows what the outcome would be but it would be horrendous.
Thankfully, the point is entirely moot. To get rid of the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, which right now is not something within anyone’s reach, or anywhere near anyone’s reach. Another intent of the laws of this country, the constitution was meant to be damn near impossible to change, and for good reason.
I appreciate your thoughts… but a popular vote for President (in my opinion) doesn’t undermine a state’s right to govern how it’s people choose. That doesn’t change. I could be missing something…
@Savagesam it removes a massive lever of power, and tilts the scales of power away from the states in a profound way. Instead of doing what a majority of states wanted, presidents would start doing what 2 or 3 states wanted. You don’t see the problem with that? States could simply population pack in order to gain political power on a federal level. You don’t see a problem with that?
@Savagesam @Twich22 Um, we already have the situation where a very small handful of states dictate much of national policy. Ethanol subsidies, anybody? If this country should be controlled by each state as an individual entity all on equal footing then each should get a single vote for president. That, imo, would be equally as terrible as the electoral college.
The revolt you’ll see is if a candidate gets 5 or 10 million votes more than the other candidate but still loses the election because of the electoral college. I understand the compromises that went into the electoral college, but like many things from the 1780s they have not all worn so well.
Well, I don’t see how you could population pack… although I wouldn’t discount that… and I will consider your thought about “doing what 2 or 3 states want”… hadn’t considered that… although 5 States deciding who our next President is… is troubling as well.
I would also say that each State does have a say on a National level…2 Senators per State… regardless of size…
@Savagesam Which is becoming more problematic when the population at the state level becomes as out of balance as it has become. If trends continue, (I forget the exact numbers) something like 20% of the states will have 80% of the population, or something equally out of whack. True minority rule, even more so than the senate today.
@klezman I am sorry you feel that way. I think it’s rather wise to focus on the decentralization of power and provide states a significant amount of power over the federal government. I certainly understand the disappointment of people that live in a large population state when their vote means the same as someone in a low population state like hawaii or Iowa. But to me, that’s the most wonderful thing. I cannot think of a better way to ensure that no ones voice goes unheard for too long.
But an even more beautiful thing is that states have the power to decide their own fate, largely free of the federal government and the rest of the country. Even when a majority of states vote in a way that differs from the preference of a large state, the large state can still forge ahead with its own ideas and plans. And because they are so large and have so much power on their own, their decisions can have wide reaching consequences beyond the boarders of their lands. How wonderful and marvelous such a system is. One in which the rules that govern a majority of the lands of the country can do one thing while the rules that govern a minority can do something completely different. It’s simply astounding to me.
@Twich22
You keep saying you don’t have time, yet you continue to post in a thread that’s meant to encourage civil conversations about politics. Color me confused.
As @klezman stated, he’s simply making an effort to understand why others with different opinions from him hold those opinions.
I personally commend him on his efforts. He’s very respectful about it and his comments and questions have oftentimes resulted in very informative conversations amongst some tremendously educated members here on the forum. I find it enlightening and at times, dare I say, even entertaining. No one is twisting anyone’s arm to post here. You either choose to engage in the conversation or you don’t. It’s really that simple.
@kawichris650 it’s not that I don’t want to post. But he’s asking me to do something that I simply cannot do. We can discuss more specific things, but I cannot easily make someone understand my perspective, or the perspective of the people who support the president, if they do not already. That’s a near impossible task to do in person, and closer still to do via written word.
@kawichris650 @Twich22 @klezman It is indeed tricky: Necessary for discussion is:
And the list could go on. Some of you can certainly add great things to the list.
I’ve been wanted to jump in here for a while, but a few times after taking the time to catch up on where the discussion currently is, I’m usually out of time to post anything.
How about this: I’m a Trump supporter, and a reasonably good communicator. Any non-Trump person have a question or two?
@PatrickKarcher Absolutely! (You knew that, of course.) I’ll start with two somewhat loaded questions.
@klezman
Trump is squeaky clean, certainly compared to recent Democrat rivals. An exhaustive and very expensive witch hunt was conducted for the purpose of getting ANYTHING on Trump, and came up with nothing. The mainstream press made utter asses of themselves with the Colusion Hoax, which we now know was based on Russian misinformation paid for by the Clinton Campaign. Yes, the Clinton Campaign colludes with with Russians, and then Trump gets investigated! Imagine the Clintons or Bidens undergoing a Meuller-type investigation; THAT would be entertaining.
I saw some links above hinting about horrible things Trump has done. How many such articles you want about Obamas/Clintons/Bidens? Here’s one that came out this afternoon. News articles desperately trying to find something, anything that Trump did wrong, continue to erode what little credibility the press has left. Narrative Group (former newspaper) New York Times got a hold of Trump tax return (for a year he’s still being audited for), which could only have happened with someone breaking the law. As usual, a nothing-burger (as CNN chief calls them) are release as if it were a smoking gun bombshell. NBC made the mistake of having an accountant on, who simply explained how this stuff works. If you’re a real estate developer, you borrow money, which you leverage into profitable property; you make more on the property than the interest on your loan. It’s called business. You also pay taxes unevenly in fits and starts, paying massive amounts some years and little or none other years. Trumps paid over $60M in taxes since 2000, and if it was an even amount each year, it would be strange. In the year in question, he had credits for previous over-payment and previous losses that carried forward. But if you listen to people with TDS, or who don’t understand how real estate investment work, it sounded horribly ominous.
Here’s a summary of 2018 Trump corruption bombshells, in case you missed it. I bet he can feel the walls closing in!
It is seriously nice having a president who is already rich, and doesn’t need to “play the game” to get rich off of the system. Since he can’t be bought, he is not welcome in DC. As happy as we are with Trump and his copious kept campaign promises, one where he’s come up short is Draining the Swamp. He took too many (republican version) swamp rats into his administration. I hope in the next administration he does a much better job cleaning house.
Attacks in democratic institutions? He’s certainly failed to clean up the highly politicized justice department and FBI. Insane what went on there.
Attacking the press? He criticizes the press and calls out their BS (a full time job!), but I’m not aware of him siccing the IRS on them like them like Obama administration did. Attacking . . . the House Intel Committee? Where Adam Schiff lies every time he opens his mouth? Talk about a liar! The justice and FBI have disgraced themselves with the double standard, where Republicans are harassed and framed, while Democrats get a free ride. A lot more for Trump to do, and the main reason we need to send him back.
@PatrickKarcher I was hoping for something that wasn’t just repeating Fox News talking points.
The NY Times pieces on the tax returns, btw, have been very clear at what is and isn’t normal. And what may be unlawful. The re-tweets and such are clickbait, but the actual reporting was rather in depth.
It’s also not true that they could only have gotten hold of the tax returns in an illegal way. I’m not sure why Trump supporters keep repeating that.
@klezman Just so you know, fox news is not a great source, though no modern news outlet is any better. Most republicans only tolerate Fox news because there is no alternative on most cable TV. But in general, most republicans do not get their news from Fox. And anyone can use the line “CNN talking points” or “MSNBC talking points”, but that is not an argument nor does it validate what you say. If you expect us to engage, then you should hold yourself to the same standards.
@klezman Also, I think fox’s viewership during prime time generally runs about 2-4 million. Thats about 1% of the US population. Just for some perspective.
Well, that kills any discussion. “I was hoping for something that wasn’t just repeating Fox News talking points.” Oh well. It was worth a try.
@klezman, I don’t have time for Fox News. Like other Networks, they are out to give their viewers the expected narrative. Their opinion people / morning show people are just the mirror image of CNN/MSNBC/NPR etc. (Tucker Carlson is independent enough to almost be worth the time, sometimes, but not enough for me). Their TV news people are (just like all other TV news) don’t give you enough information to really understand anything. Actually, Fox doesn’t even have their own narrative. Last I checked a few years ago they spent their time reacting to MSM narrative. So, I have no idea what Fox News talking points would be.
That’s certainly good technique, for dismissing what someone says rather than addressing it. I figured you probably had very slanted info, from the MSM news silo, but I was determined (for the sake of discussion) that you were trying to get the best info you could, and not just repeating someone else’s talking points.
(NYT does spend a lot of time with long exhausting articles attacking Trump. By the end of them you’re sure there’s definitely something there. Even Russian Collusion has just gotta be true, after some of those articles. It’s just gotta! I once read there how Michael Avennati was gonna take Trump down. With all the, you know, stuff.
Now, if you rely on NYT as part of your news and information cocktail, realizing they’re job for 45 years has been to Set the Liberal Narrative, and you mix with other imperfect sources from various angles, including some favoring Trump, then I absolutely respect that. The best any of us can do is try to get different sources and angles, even though each individual one is suspect.)
Cheers! And, let’s all vote, and get along, and remember that 90%+ of the people on the other side want the best for everyone. (best achieved by staying off twitter, ha ha)
@PatrickKarcher you are quite right about Fox News not choosing their own narrative. This has been one of my biggest issues. If you are just reporting the things that others have already decided are newsworthy, then are you really breaking any news, or are you merely parroting what others have authorized you to report. Granted, they covered some of the Hunter Biden scandal when all other news stations refused to report it, but that is the only exception I can think of.
@PatrickKarcher I respectfully disagree. You talked about TDS, and unless you mean testicular dysgenesis syndrome that’s an ad hominem attack.
I asked about corruption and you simply asserted that Trump is not corrupt. No evidence, no reasoning, nothing. You simply talked about your perception of corruption of other people. Classic straw man argument.
Calling a thorough investigation by a largely Republican FBI a “witch hunt” is also needlessly inflammatory. But since you brought it up, do you feel like you should also take the opportunity to lambaste the previous Republican-led House for wasting many millions of taxpayer dollars “investigating” Benghazi over and over and over again?
You assert that Biden is corrupt because his son got a job he wasn’t qualified for from a private overseas company, but you neglect to mention the nepotism Trump has bestowed on his own family and benefited from himself.
I’m more than happy to engage on the issues, but leave the logical fallacies out of it and provide evidence.
As for criminality, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Trump indicted in New York for tax fraud. He’s already had his “charitable foundation” disbanded for self-dealing and fraud.
![these are some of the things I care about, and a big reason I voted for the president in 2016 and 2020][1]
![and these][2]
[mod edit since the links got buried and didn’t work since they were linked as images, and don’t appear to be]
https://res.cloudinary.com/mediocre/image/upload/q_auto/dxs9oczuoxx8cmccg9tg.webp
https://res.cloudinary.com/mediocre/image/upload/q_auto/vtqjmoc6hvyy4k6wgss1.webp
/[mod edit also don’t didn’t work for me, but perhaps for others]
Yea. Some weird formatting error. These should work better for those who cannot see the images above.
@Twich22 I dunno. I found this analysis:
It seems the story behind all this is rather complicated. For example, a significant portion of lower wage income growth is due to increases in minimum wage at the state level. Lots more tidbits and analysis in the full length report, written before COVID. The full report is at https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/.
@klezman well at least we can agree on something. However I have two issues.
As for minimum wage hikes, I totally agree that minimum wages are way too low. It’s a sign of how broken our economy has been for a long time. And I think it’s great that states are trying out different methods of increasing the minimum wages. I have never been opposed to trying out new things to see what works. And that is what this country was built to do, to allow cities and states to try out different things independent of the rest of the country in order to try to make life better for its citizens. The great experiment as it were. But I would not support doing such a thing at a federal level. Each state should be able to control these things on their own, and not only is their no reason for the federal government to intervene, but it would be bad if they did. In some areas, it is appropriate to raise wages artificially, although the best solution would be for them to have risen naturally. The fact that they have not risen is again a sign of serious flaws within our economy. But in other places, where their wages are more appropriate with the cost of living, forcing such areas to comply with a federal minimum wage well above their cost of living would be no good. Thus, I think the best thing to do would be tk proceed on the current path and watch to see what works and what doesnt.
I have seen first hand what artificial minimum wage increases can do. On the one hand, they provide a means to provide necessary income to those living in high cost areas, and is a blessing for many people. But it also drives away others who cannot afford to cope, and it also causes a destabilizing effect in the surrounding areas that do not change their wages, so a disparity develops and life becomes more difficult for those outside the area where wages are increased. We will have to wait to see how things Pan out long term. Hopefully for the better.
Now, back to the original discussion, it’s debatable whether artificial minimum wage increases are solely responsible for the majority of wage growth or not. Obviously increasing the minimum wage de facto causes wage growth for the lower percentiles, however those numbers don’t tell the full story. For example, if you have 100 people working at $10 an hour, and then you raise wages to $20 an hour, and as a result you have to shed a certain number of workers to make up for increased costs, then while the percentage wage growth may go up for the remaining workers, the other workers become unemployed and either have to find new work, or move, or remain unemployed. If they remain unemployed or go find a job making equal or less money then they used to make, especially if they moved, then either they get dropped from the statistics all together, since they are no longer making a wage, or they increased the perceived disparity because they moved from a high wage city which increased its own wages to a low wage city which did not increase its own wages. The ultimate effect on the statistical analysis is a double effect: you have less workers working for a higher wage in the cities that increased wages, leading to a higher percentage wage growth in those cities, and at the very same time you have increased numbers of people working in cities that didn’t increased wages artificially, potentially at a lower wage than previously, leading to a negative skewing of the data in cities that did not increase their wages artificially.
What’s more, depending on how many workers get laid off, the total amount of wages paid out could be more or less than original. If for example 40 of the original 100 workers is laid off, the total wages paid goes from $1000 at $10 an hour to $1200 at $20 an hour. If however 60 of the workers is laid off, the total wages paid out actually drops from $1000 to $800. So again, the numbers do not come close to the whole story, and I would have to study them in far greater detail to be able to make a particular judgement.
Overall however, I am neither endorsing nor opposing minimum wage hikes, merely pointing out how the data may not be always saying exactly what it appears to be saying.
In conclusion however, I think it’s safe to agree that things have been working out for the lower percentiles lately, and I think myself and those who have been the beneficiaries of those wage increases would like the trend to continue, and thus will continue to support president trump until such time as he fails to deliver to the people prosperity the likes of which has not been seen in a long long time.
@Twich22 Actually, the report I linked to does not bear out the idea that the lower wage earners are doing all that well under Trump. Since the table didn’t print, I’ll put a couple numbers here of annualized wage growth for the same periods listed in the table for the 10th percentile of earners:
2000-2019 -> 0.5%
2000-2007 -> 0.4%
2007-2019 -> 0.6%
2018-2019 -> -0.7%
The picture looks better at higher percentiles, where the 20-50th percentiles all show wage growth over the 2018-19 span.
Note, I didn’t say anything about a wage gap. This report notes several times that so-called “top-coding” makes it impossible with the official data they use to calculate much at the top end of the scale.
Insofar as this relates to Trump, I think it is actually quite important to understand whether low wage earners are doing better (if, indeed they are - see above numbers) because of state-level actions or federal policy. I’m not claiming one answer or the other, but it’s clearly not entirely anything at the federal level that’s driving low wage changes.
On a different note, I disagree that minimum wage increases are “artificial”. Ask yourself the question: who should be paying for things that low wage earners need? Should companies (Walmart, cough cough) be able to subsidize their corporate profits by paying their employees less and relying on our tax dollars to make up the difference? Or should a company that cannot make ends meet by paying their employees a living wage remain in business? Put another way, if a business can’t charge its customers enough to pay its employees properly, I submit that said business should go bankrupt.
@klezman As to the data, the two sets of data that you and I have cited clearly do not line up. The only way to clear such a dispute would be to figure out why the numbers do not match up, and what the real numbers actually are.
As for the “artificial” thing, I just add that in to make it distinct from natural wage growth. Normally wages grow because of supply/demand forces, not because some politician decides to make it so. Thats all that i mean by “artificial”. it is not meant to be derogatory, merely informative. There is a distinction between wages that naturally inflate and wages that are legeslated higher. as I said, its a sign of a sick economy that wages have not naturally inflated over the last 40 years, and is one of the most important causes of disenfranchisement in america. If we were able to isolate the cause for this problem, we might be able to solve it and get back to prosperity.
Disputes aside, Donald Trumps number one campaign goal and promise has always been to improve wages for americans of all walks of life. All of his economic policies put this goal as number one in terms of objectives. So while I am fine arguing the details of what policies caused what changes to whom, most people who are the benificiaries of these changes, if indeed wages have grown at acceletated rates lately, will thank the president for these wages because he has always promised to make it so. And I find it difficult to believe that all of his efforts have not had a fairly significant positive effect. As would almost anyone who votes for the president.
Also, as an aside, I pointed out the discussion about wage gap not to dispute something you said, but to throw doubt on the sincerity and intent of the source you cited. It makes me think twice about the source im reading when they focus on an agenda that is not academically one that a normal statistician would necessarily focus on. Thus, it gives rise to the possibility of slight or significant bias in the source.
@Twich22 It was just the first link I found that seemed to be a proper study of the issue. I, like you, cannot speak to the details of the analysis.
As one who works with data for a living, I know that one can often slice and dice data to come up with a result they want to talk about. That’s generally dishonest. I see no such motive in the report I linked, as it covers a pretty wide variety of wage growth issues over the last 40 years.
This I agree with. Although there are many economists and analysts who have done the work of trying to isolate many of these factors. Near the top is the outside gap in remuneration to those at the top of the corporate ladder vs the rest of the company. When the official goal of a corporation is to deliver maximum returns for its shareholders (public or private - and enforced by myriad lawsuits) then the pressure is naturally to pay as little as possible to your workers. That is a dominant force in wage growth issues. With the economy increasingly out of line with the markets, the signals that used to keep these things in check appear to no longer be working.
EPI’s statement about themselves: EPI is an independent, nonprofit think tank that researches the impact of economic trends and policies on working people in the United States. EPI’s research helps policymakers, opinion leaders, advocates, journalists, and the public understand the bread-and-butter issues affecting ordinary Americans.
And about the report’s author: Elise Gould joined the Economic Policy Institute in 2003. Her research areas include wages, poverty, inequality, economic mobility, and health care. She is a co-author of The State of Working America, 12th Edition. Gould authored a chapter on health in The State of Working America 2008/09; co-authored a book on health insurance coverage in retirement; has published in venues such as The Chronicle of Higher Education, Challenge Magazine, and Tax Notes; and has written for academic journals including Health Economics, Health Affairs, Journal of Aging and Social Policy, Risk Management & Insurance Review, Environmental Health Perspectives, and International Journal of Health Services. Gould has been quoted by a variety of news sources, including Bloomberg, NPR, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, and her opinions have appeared on the op-ed pages of USA Today and The Detroit News. She has testified before the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, Maryland Senate Finance and House Economic Matters committees, the New York City Council, and the District of Columbia Council. Gould received her Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
@klezman
(as a foreword, I just want to note that this is one of the reasons I dont generally like to get involved in these types of debate over the internet. The burden of proof becomes so onerous that it just takes too much time. If we were talking in real life, it would take a matter of minutes. Instead, it can take a long, long time on the internet. like, way too long. But I actually learned quite a bit in the process so im not entirely upset about it)
In response to what you said, a statement about the company made by the company itself is not something I would use to judge the merits of said company. And I care little for the credentials of an individual, and credentials also do little to ensure that their motives are honest. But regardless, I only wanted to note that reading the article gave me warning signs that I could not disregard. I did not look into it, so I cannot actually make a claim one way or another.
However, what I did do is go directly to the source of the information I posted. The bureau of labor and statistics.
The user interface is a bit cumbersome, but actually provides a lot of data once you get used to it.
The first table and graph is Median weekly earnings among all workers in current dollars.
Okay, so we see steady increase. Big deal.
But heres where things start to get interesting. Next I looked at the same value, Median usual weekly earnings, but this time in constant (1982-84) dollars. At first when I looked at the numbers, They all looked the same to me. It seemed like wages had not changed at all after you adjusted for inflation.
But then I learned how to use the graph, function, and once I graphed it I saw that there was, indeed, a not insignificant increase in median weekly earnings when adjusted for inflation.
Wow. Just look at that. That picture speaks a thousand words in my mind. Now granted, this is just median income were talking about, not lowest 10%. Still, When you adjust it for inflation, the result is quite staggering. Whats more, when you start looking further back in time it tells an even more interesting tale!
This next graph is the same data, median weekly income adjusted for inflation to constant 1982-1984 dollars, except in includes data all the way back to 1979.
I was truly shocked when I saw this. I was skeptical about my own facts after reading what you posted. To be honest, im not even exactly sure how to interpret this. But in general, it shows that indeed there has been terrible wage stagnation since at least 1979, as we are well aware of, but it also shows that things have begun to change since around 2015 and have accelerated greatly in the last 2 years. We were on an amazing trajectory until covid hit. I dont know about you, but I think this is pretty cool. It does not prove much about who’s policies are responsible for such a dramatic change. But it does prove that there has been a significant change from the status quo, and as I said, I believe many people will thank the president for such a change, as that has been his number one platform.
I am going to continue sleuthing through the data and see if I can drudge up info on the bottom 10% or 25%, etc. But Its gonna take me a while to post more, might not happen till tomorrow. In the mean time I’ll let people digest what I have posted.
Link to bureau of labor and statistics data website, in case anyone missed it: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswktabs.htm
I encourage others to go digging through the data yourself and see what you can find. Consider it a journey of discovery!
@Twich22 The report I linked uses the same data that you’re plotting. I just reported annualized change while you’re looking at an indexed version, which is (more or less) a cumulative measure. You can find these plots basically replicated in the paper I linked as figure E. The conclusion the author drew (fwiw) is that real wages only grew during periods of very tight labour markets. At least all can agree at that point, that being unable to find employees at a lower wage will lead to a higher wage. Some economics still works.
Who’s responsible for the tight labour market, as told by the proxy for who was in the Oval Office at the time? In this case, Clinton, Obama, and Trump.
The plot for the bottom 90% of workers is Figure D and shows the same story. Figure F shows something more like what you want - same cumulative percentage change (which is more important than actual dollar amounts) across time. It shows that until 2015 the 10th and 50th percentiles were basically in lockstep with each other until 2015, when the 10th percentile actually outperformed the 50th. (It also shows the 90th and 95th percentiles dramatically outperforming the median, putting the lie to the old saying that a rising tide lifts all boats.) They also do a bunch of subgroup analysis, which certainly is useful for informing policy decisions, but I’ll not go down that rabbit hole.
I’m happy to be in a spot where two people can at least agree on the facts and derive/debate different meanings from them.
@klezman Thanks for the info. I will take a closer look at the article you posted when I have more time.
As to the rising tide lifts all boats, Obviously its not that when the top rises the bottom also rises, but its pretty fair to say that, in general, you cannot get a rising bottom without an also rising top. and now we have come full circle, we are back to the whole “wage-gap” argument, which I basically said was a red-herring. Its, in my opinion, silly to focus on what the tops doing. The only concern should be on what the bottoms doing, and the top can sort itself out.
With the stagnation of the last 40 years, obviously the disparity is going to be enormous. Which is the main reason that donald trump was elected, as I keep saying, and also the reason that he will win tomorrow. And, as I said, the last graph I posted shows an amazing story. It shows that the last 2 years have been true outliers, far outperforming any year in the last 40. I would like to see that continue for the next 4 years and see where we end up.
Also you left Reagan out of your list of presidents.
@Twich22 the years of real wage growth were 1994-1999 and 2014-2019 according to that analysis. That’s Clinton, Obama, and Trump.
I’m also not making an argument about a wage gap. It was just an interesting aside since that report discussed it.
@klezman looking at the last graph I posted, you seem to be talking about wages reaching levels previously unsurpassed. No doubt an important value, but, void of context, meaningless. Since it all depends on your starting point, as we are all well aware of given What happened in 2008, it’s fair to say that real wage growth does not tell the whole story.
From the perspective of a Trump supporter
video
Heres a good one, oregon may be the first to vote to decriminalize possession of small amounts of hard drugs. Thoughts?
https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/oregon-could-become-1st-us-state-to-decriminalize-cocaine-heroin-other-hard-drugs
@Twich22 Yes please. It may have sounded like a good idea 35 years ago to criminalize all this, but with the experience under our belts it’s clearly bad policy.
@klezman I tend to agree. I am generally all for allowing the individual to choose their own destiny, even if that destiny is to do drugs. But I have trouble coming to grips with the fact that there is little gray area between decriminalizing drugs and legalizing the death of your citizens at the hands of drugs. Should we allow the government to sell the drugs to its own people? And if not, how does it even make sense? These are the questions I struggle with. However, I do wish we had better education programs to prevent people from becoming addicted to drugs. It’s pathetic that we do not. I have seen the effects of substance abuse first hand on hundreds of people and more. It’s a horrible fate. I just wish we had better ways of managing it. Perhaps Oregon will find a way.
@Twich22 @klezman There are actually important competing interests here. On the individual liberty side, I’m very much in favor of letting adults do what they please with respect to drugs.
I am not in favor of allowing minors (and the definition of a minor is debatable) to use drugs before they are old enough to make a responsible decision about drug use.
There is a very difficult question about whether and how the state should intervene to protect children if their parents abuse drugs. On balance, I probably come down on the side of removing children from adults who abuse drugs to the point that it harms the children - easy in theory, the practice is difficult. I’m not sure the state should be the one to care for children so removed, it’s track record is terrible. Religious and private charities have a better record, but there are issues there as well.
Then we get to the elephants in the room: who should be responsible for paying for medical care of the health conditions that result from drug abuse? And, should those who abuse drugs be eligible for government benefits for housing, disability, or welfare of any kind?
To both of these questions I answer an emphatic NO. The law abiding taxpayers whose behavior with respect to drugs is socially responsible should not under any circumstances be required to subsidize the medical care or any other sort of benefit provided by federal, state or local government. If you believe in the freedom to choose to behave irresponsibly, the flip side of that is you should also take the view that those who do are responsible for ALL of the consequences of thir choices.
I qualify that only with the view that voluntary private charity to assist those who behave irresponsibly is permissible, and might even be regarded as a superogatory act. But it must be voluntary on the part of those who donate time and money. And the charity must have the right to set whatever conditions it chooses on the provision of assistance.
It’s a little like immigration: if you have a welfare state, you should very, very picky about who you let into your country and who can become a citizen and enjoy the benefits of that welfare state. No one who will be a net burden on the society or who will not assimilate to the language and civic and moral values of the country. On the other hand, if you have no public welfare state, and only voluntary private charity, then pretty much open immigration (subject to health condition and subject to excluding those who are potentially subversive) as we had before the Chinese Exclusion Acts and before birthright citizenship for aliens, makes much more sense.
@klezman @rpm you bring up a lot of good points. I agree that, generally speaking the government should not be involved in charity. That is an individual decision. However, I think the Oregon solution is an interesting one, namely that those who are caught using drugs or in possession of drugs may pay a fine or attend rehabilitation. Depending on how the math works out, the rehabilitation programs may be able to pay for themselves with the amount of money brought in via fines. Which could be an interesting solution.
@klezman @Twich22 But the abusers still receive government benefits, including in many cases Oregon’s equivalent of medicaid, disability and welfare benefits. Just no.
@rpm hmm, I understand where you are coming from, we dont want to be paying people to do drugs. But at the same time, are you saying that drug users should receive less benefits than every other citizen is entitled to? I am not sure I would agree with that position. We should not be subsidizing drug use, but neither should we be unequally punishing those who abuse drugs. I think they should be entitled to what all citizens are entitled. Just because they use drugs does not mean they are scum. However, we can certainly argue about what exactly the benefits are that should be entitled to citizens. Its a fine line to walk I guess. I think the best solution is to invest in programs that prevent drug abuse in the first place, and programs that help people to stop abusing. A safety net if you will. Who knows, maybe some day one of my family members will end up abusing drugs, and I would want some kind of safety net for them if that happened.
@rpm @Twich22 I’ve been marinating on this topic a fair amount recently. I don’t like recreational drugs. Never used any of them (unless you include alcohol and caffeine.) I think pot is a gateway drug (I’ve seen it personally, don’t waste your time showing me studies for or against my opinion.) I don’t think people should do drugs, but should they also wind up in prison for usage? And if so, why don’t all the users wind up there? But then, when you decriminalize drugs you could end up with Amsterdam. But maybe there is a middle way (beyond the obvious solution of parents raising their children in a loving home and teaching them about making good choices.) Perhaps employers could make decisions about hiring based on drug screening (even if it were legal, they could still choose not to hire users), penalties for infractions while under the influence could be onerous (suspended driver’s license for first time infraction) and the price of health care could be higher (already happens for tobacco users.) Perhaps it is even possible to continue to enforce statues against drug dealing while allowing users to use. Enforcing consequences for anti-societal behaviors might reduce the pressure on prisons, remove an apparent source of societal disparity and prevent chronic abusers from using more than their fair share.
Of course, this discussion of the ‘how’ ignores the questions of ‘why’. Why do people choose to abuse drugs? Why did an ‘opioid epidemic’ happen, why was there a meth epidemic some years ago, cocaine/crack before that, etc? Perhaps understanding why those people were abusing drugs will inform policy to remove the allure. Or maybe I’m just naive.
@KitMarlot as to the why, its a combination of a lot of things, but most importantly our failed economy and failed education system. Fixing those things will help to fix the root cause of the problem. But I think we all can agree that Drug use has been increasingly becoming a major issue in this country, and we need to find new and better ways to deal with it. Doing nothing at this point is really not a good option.
@Twich22 I’m not saying less benefits per se (of course we can discuss what benefits should be generally available, but that’s another question…), but that conditions specifically (though not entirely) resulting from drug use should not be paid for. And, if they can’t hold a job or pay the rent because of their drug use, there are not jobless benefits or subsidized housing.
@KitMarlot @Twich22 The gateway drug issue is real, but why is it that some (many?) people can smoke some pot, even experiment with hallucinogens, and snort some cocaine, in their late teens and 20s, eventually give it up and live perfectly responsible lives, and for others (many?) it really does seem that they tried some pot and either totally freaked out (anecdotal: a kid in my HS class, not a close friend, but a friend, went off to college ~55 years ago, smoked pot a few times, had a psychotic episode and was never even close to right after that - couldn’t do school, hold a job, etc. ended up on disability - don’t know what happened when his folks passed away, but he’s been gone some years now…) or they do pot and move on to more and more potent drugs as they slide down the slippery slope into addiction and degeneration. It really is a mystery.
@KitMarlot @rpm medically speaking, it’s no doubt that marijuana can be a dangerous drug, and can result in psychological issues in some which can be completely disabling. That’s why I think we need better education on these things, people need to be aware of the risks involved, and I think for the most part people are not really aware of these risks. These risks are especially potent for those who are not full adults and have not fully developed in terms of brain architecture. Now the age at which someone is “mature” enough to smoke marijuana is up for debate, but in some cases people may not be fully developed even into their mid to late 20’s.
I also agree that it’s clearly a gateway to harder drugs. I don’t think that is a realistically debatable point. I struggled with issues in my youth myself, mostly with alcohol but the end result is the same. From my own experience, people turn to drugs, with increasing frequency and increasing severity, such as harder drugs, when they have nothing better to do. That’s why I said that the education system and the economic system has failed these people who go on to be persistent drug abusers. They were not given the chance to bloom into a full adult and take on the responsibilities of adulthood because the system is so out of balance.
@KitMarlot @Twich22 It’s not fashionable to talk about, but I think individual character has something to do with it as well. I understand that everyone has predispositions, etc., but I am really uncomfortable with making everything about a lack of education or a lack of opportunity, or … or anything else that is not the fault of the individual. At some point, you have to accept that individuals are responsible for their own behavior, regardless of how they got there. Building character isn’t necessarily easy, and it’s certainly not all about fun.
There are plenty of rich kids who have had every opportunity and resource in the world, and every educational resource known to humanity, and still become drug abusers and/or low life scum. And plenty (well, at least a not insignificant number) of kids from the ‘wrong side of the tracks’ who develop solid characters, avoid abuse of drugs, and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Rich (meaning upper-middle and higher class) kids rarely have to endure the consequences of their actions in youth, poor (meaning lower-middle and lower class) kids are often stuck with the consequences and end up permanently adversely affected by a pregnancy, drug arrest, or addition behaviors. It’s not right, but there it is.
The lack of lee way the middle and lower classes have is a major reason why the ‘strictures’ of traditional middle class values of honesty, hard work, abstemiousness, thrift, and monogamous marriage are so important for them to build stable lives.
@KitMarlot @rpm yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am all about the character of the person, and some people do not develop the right character to pull themselves out of the pits of substance abuse.
That all being said, the government play little if any role in those sorts of things. From a policy position I cannot think of something that would help prevent drug abuse from destroying lives due to character flaws, besides educating people. However, society can play a role in promoting a productive environment. Let’s do a mini thought experiment to emphasize.
Say I’m a drug abuser and one day I grow tired of it and decide I want to pull myself out of the gutter and start a normal life again. If my economic and societal environment is one of high unemployment, low wages, expensive education, no support for rehabilitation, and lots of free shit from the government, then I’m going to have a pretty damn hard time pulling myself out of the gutter no matter what my character is or how much I want to change. However, on the flip side, if you lower those barriers to kicking the drug habit by providing a stable economy, lots of jobs with an amazing worker supply/demand environment, resources to help those trying to change, cheap education that leads to real skills that can be used immediately in a well paying job, then it becomes significantly easier for people to pull themselves out of the gutter.
Now I’m not saying that maybe they never should have gotten into that gutter in the first place, but I am saying that I believe in second chances, and I believe that people CAN change for the better, learn from their mistakes, and become productive members of society.
So it’s these things that I advocate for, even though as you say the individual should always take responsibility for their actions, and I strongly believe in that value. I do not think it’s appropriate to blame society for your problems, however I do think that society can play a role in helping you to solve them.
@KitMarlot @rpm @Twich22 I agree with much of what you all have said, and I also believe in fostering character in your kids, in individual responsibility, and in returning to a society that values two-parent families. (I know, from a left of centre guy! I kid…I kid…)
A very important issue, though, is the settled science that addiction is primarily a medical problem, not a character problem (edge cases and exceptions, of course, apply). There may be some people who can just pull themselves out of it, but most cannot. It’s like depression, if people think depression just means “not being happy”. It’s a disease and needs to be treated as such, but as with diseases that manifest in psychology/psychiatry, part of the treatment means giving those people tools to deal with the cards they’ve been dealt by genetics.
@KitMarlot @Twich22 I’m not against second chances, but the larger question is how much should those who behave responsibly be forced to pay to provide those chance, and how may chances should be provided… 3rd? 4th? And, of course, general economic policy matters.
@klezman genetics play a role in all aspects of life. That does not excuse people from their actions. As humans we have been granted the power to have self control over our actions, a power to change our destiny. To simply chalk it up to genetics provides people a false out from taking responsibility for their actions, and that is an unacceptable position to take, especially as a medical professional. Just as in most things in life, despite genetics, you are still responsible for your actions, and you need to take responsibility for those actions. Some things in life are out of your control, but if you just stop there and throw your hands up and say “whelp, its genetics”, then you have robbed yourself or another from the power within you to take charge and change your life. No, that is not okay.
That doesnt mean people dont need help, of course they do. But any medical professional knows that if a person does not want to help themselves, then no amount of doctoring will lead to that person rising from their own ashes. To tell anyone that they were destined to their current situation is to literally rob them of the will to escape that situation. Its a terrible perspective to take, and i wont tolerate it. And that applies for mental health as much as it does for drug abuse or any other struggle. Its okay to acknowledge when there are things out of ones control, but its not okay to absolve someone of all responsibility when they are not without any responsibility.
I also disagree with the idea of settled science. That term is an oxymoron, and only serves to say to another person “im right and you cannot prove otherwise”. Its absurd, any scientist worth their salt knows that science is an ever changing and ever evolving entity, and that any scientist who implicitly believes that anything is inherently settled has already failed to be a scientist, even the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow.
@Twich22 You misinterpret what I said. Understanding that genetics predisposes some people to addiction neither takes things out of their control nor absolves them of their actions. It’s simply recognizing that there are factors that are out of one’s control and that affects how one needs to address the issue.
As for the concept of “settled science”, you could not be more wrong. It does not mean one cannot later prove something wrong, but it does mean that the evidence is in, and the amount of evidence needed to prove something false (literally the only thing science can do) increases. Unless you’re saying that basic physics and evolution are not settled.
@klezman I think most people do not understand science, and take things way out of perspective. Most of today’s “settled” science is little more then pseudoscience and statistics that have been taken out of context and then used to make a claim. They then call it settled science and thats it. What a joke.
Whats more, theres this emerging religion of “science” that people are begining to worship these days. Its really the modern day hucksters, people claiming to have scientific proof for things based on data or studies they have done. But a study showing a statistically significant result these days is just as likely to be incorrect as it is to be correct. Perhaps its even more likely to be incorrect as it is to be correct. So to place any amount of faith in such science is foolish, and no scientist worth their salt should do so. With enough money, I could pay a company to perform a study and end up with whatever results I want. I could call it settled science, and then sell whatever product I wanted using my new science, and then all the people who follow my science would buy my product. Hucksters.
Elections got me all fired up. What I really mean is that people, almost a majority of the time cite “science” when really what they are citing is a study, or a series of studies. They claim that these studies make their claim “settled” science. But logically that does not follow. There are a million ways for a study to get things wrong, and even more ways for people to misunderstand what a study actually means. They may confuse causality with correlation or not be able to understand how bias plays a role, etc etc. Whats more, as I said, its entirely possible to fabricate any study results you want these days, and then fabricate another study to verify your results. So, as I said to begin with, a scientist understands that study results ≠ “settled” science. That’s just a way to manipulate the ignorant into believing what you want them to believe. Thats not science.
@Twich22 I’m glad you saw the errors of your first post and revised. I am a scientist and engineer with a doctorate. I know how it works.
So yes, honest research is not always “correct” in the long run, but that’s why science rests on replication, and peer review usually does a good job of finding errors in study design/execution. Others may use the term incorrectly, but when I say “settled science” I mean something that has been replicated and stood the test of time. Nobody can say with a straight face that a single study leads to settled science.
You are incorrect that honest science could lead to fabricated results. We all know there are some dishonest people out there who make shit up, and they eventually get found out. Take Andrew Wakefield or that stem cell guy in China, for example.
As part of my work I investigate and model bias resulting from industry funding of studies. Like most things, it’s complicated. There is a definite bias from industry vs government funded studies in some areas, but in others it’s not there.
Any scientist worth their salt will acknowledge that contrary evidence must be accounted for in any theory. That’s how we got quantum mechanics and relativity, after all, once the limits of Newtonian physics became apparent. It didn’t mean Newton was wrong, but the scientific method is self correcting over time.
@klezman Im glad we agree. I think a particularly stark example of this today is the polling errors. Some people might consider the national presidential polls as settled science, claiming statistical significance and margins of error as proof. But clearly, we can all today agree, that they are no where close to settled, let alone science.
@Twich22 Nobody said interpreting polls is settled science! More of a dark art…
Conducting polls, however, has a rather robust literature behind it. Even if it leaves room for more than one method and the consequent quality differences in the results.
@klezman I know, I was just being obtuse as im wont to be. But it is an interesting topic. The fact that all the polls were so very wrong I think says a great deal about a great many things. And it does show how science can be very misleading for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is less than honest intentions. The wrong model leads to the wrong results, just as bad data leads to bad results. The list goes on.
Yet, often, there is no way to readily identify such flaws that I am aware of. I am sure you will argue that peer review and reproducibility ensure honest results, but I am quite dubious of even that these days. But if the intent is dishonest to begin with, its entirely possible that the verification process is also compromised, in which case you have verified science that is in fact wrong. Working in the field, what are your thoughts about my musings?
@Twich22
Peer review rests on the assumption of honest intent, which I think you know. It’s not meant to catch lying authors or manipulated results. It’s just not. Whether other processes should be implemented to try to catch these things is a good question, and the journals that have started doing that have been successful, as far as I know. A few image manipulators have been caught this way. It’s not a compromised verification process, because that’s not what the process is designed to do.
Honest scientists, which are the overwhelming majority, like 99.9%+, detest the dishonest ones. It’s a field that seeks truth, best as we can figure out, so it’s extra painful to see miscreants making stuff up.
But what you have to also always remember is the credo of replication. A single incorrect result (whether by honest mistake or ill intent) can’t move the needle that much. I build models that evaluate this exact issue, and the whole thing rests on consensus. (Sometimes there is no consensus.)
As for your musings on models, yes that’s right. The old aphorism “all models are wrong but some are useful” is the key. You have to ask the right question and you have to give the model an honest appraisal if it’s going to be useful.
As for the models the pollsters use, the inaccuracies seem to stem from two forces: a rather unusual election (particularly with turnout), and an electorate with fairly rapidly changing correlation between opinion and demographic. Models of human behaviour are way harder to get right than models of physical processes. We bags of mostly water are complex.
@klezman thanks for the info. Though I think you cut the pollsters way too much slack. They had the info from 2016, they could have used it, but they didn’t. That’s just willful ignorance, or perchance dishonest intent.
@Twich22 Disagree - they had the info, but didn’t know how to look at it. Having the polling data that wrong likely secured Trump the win, as well, because it could easily have depressed Democrat turnout because they thought they had it in the bag.
They were much more circumspect this time around. They also (especially sites like fivethirtyeight.com) spent a lot of time explaining how these things work and how to interpret the results.
I don’t understand why you are so quick to assume ill intent by most people. That’s by and large counter to my experience.
@klezman not most people, just those involved in politics. Which admittedly is a lot of people these days.
@rpm @Twich22 this separation feels impractical if their existence results in theft or a body in the street. Our lives are very interconnected and assessing whether someone is entitled to a benefit or not could easily be more expensive than providing it.
yes to government out of charity - remove all tax deductions.
I’m going to bungle this but…I can understand that from a small government perspective the effects of both the Rockefeller Laws and expansion of opioid/opiate distribution represent failures of intervention. However, since the ramifications from criminalizing (and over policing populations of color) AND addiction from pain management continue, it feels at best hypothetical to say that perhaps millions of people should be cut out from support.
I don’t understand the limited migration thing. We have an aged population which is not a wonderful fuel for economic engines.
@canonizer @Twich22
I literally cannot make sense of your first paragraph.
To address what I think is part of your concern, the closer to the point of need those who make the decision on providing/not providing are, the lower the cost deciding – on at least one level that was an argument in favor of local charity rather than government poor relief or welfare at a state or national level. Those who actually know the mendicant have a much better idea of whether relief is warranted than some bureaucrat far away. From my perspective, there is no such thing as an individual entitlement to stuff from government.
Immigration is not just an economic issue, but on the economic side, no nation (and certainly not this one these days) is wealthy enough to give lots of free stuff to everyone who wants to come and have some.
In my mind, the non-economic argument is more important: you should not let anyone in (on a permanent basis, at least) who is not committed to assimilation into American society (which includes English fluency) and our fundamental political values as enshrined in our founding documents. We don’t need to import people who want to change the system.
But, I’m a bit of a curmudgeon on that point. My ancestors were among those who settled the colonies, fought in all of the colonies’/America’s wars from suppressing Bacon’s Rebellion forward through WWII, and who settled the West. I’m kind of attached to our republic, and I’m exceptionally unhappy about what’s become of it on multiple levels.
@rpm @Twich22
I should have better referenced the quandary of what to do with the people who exist in our system if not supported (ie - addicts who resort to theft or die of exposure).
On the economic point, the trade off between what immigrants take and give strikes me as more nuanced wrt their contributions. Clearly the thirst for labor has been an important driver in immigration patterns for a long time.
Separately, I suspect (perhaps incorrectly) that you would want the benefits of our republic generally to extend to those citizens or legal residents, as applicable. I do not think it is possible to do that without, in some cases, more government. To me it means doing all of the bureaucratic things like testing water, creating environmental standards so home/business pollution does not infringe on neighboring premises, having labor safety standards, making sure medical treatments/procedures are safe before made widely available, enfranchising those entitled to vote with access, etc.
These very bureaucratic responsibilities are often ignored without State/Federal enforcement, especially in working class and minority communities.
@canonizer @Twich22 I understand, but do not entirely share, your quandary.
There is no doubt that thirst for labor has been a driver of immigration - to a greater or lesser degree over the years. There is no reason why letting people in temporarily to provide labor cannot be managed successfully. My larger point is that the question about permanent admission should focus primarily on the ability of immigrants to assimilate - not a fashionable concept these days, but I remain with people like Teddy Roosevelt on this one: welcome anyone who will assimilate and accept our values, but there is no room for those who wish to bring the values of elsewhere (e.g. totalitarian political ideologies and religion) here -
On your larger point that providing benefits only to citizens requires more government, I would argue two things: first, government should not be in the business of providing so many ‘benefits’ and second, it should be up to the citizen to demonstrate his or her eligibility, not up to the government to sniff out cheaters.
Enough, we’re unlikely to agree. Cheers!
settled science that god exists: mere days before an election that will be decided by the supreme court, a supreme court justice dies and is replaced by a conservative justice, giving just enough votes to tip the scales to one side. Thoughts?
@Twich22 Interesting, I’ve been reading lately about the benefits of psychedelic drugs and talking with God. However, I don’t think our SCOTUS wants us quite that close to God. An awareness of, but not too chummy.
@FritzCat @Twich22 I dunno…this Supreme Court has been pushing the country closer and closer to god. Developments that I am NOT fond of, regardless of the fact that I adhere to a religious tradition.
@FritzCat @klezman since we have been talking about statistics a lot, what do you think about the fact that Wisconsin voter turnout was 5 standard deviations above the mean?
@FritzCat @Twich22 Low probability != impossible
This is why discussions of statistics in the media are usually terrible. The general level of innumeracy and the lack of scientific literacy in the United States doesn’t help matters either.
@klezman @Twich22
Hey, if Toyota can do six sigma…
The air is pretty rarefied way up there!
I am impressed that we are finally getting out the vote.
And finally; yes, that is so statistically significant that one might suspect hanky panky.
@FritzCat @Twich22 Here’s a good piece about model forecasting and statistics: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/01/opinion/election-forecasts-modeling-flaws.html
@klezman @Twich22 Yeah, that’s true. It’s not over 'til the fat lady sings. Anxiously awaiting those dulcet tones.
@Klezman I have never heard of bedfords law but I’m guessing you have. Any thoughts assuming this data is accurate?
@klezman here is a link to the thread where the author explains how the data was obtained, in case you are curious
Also, here are the results from 2016 compared to 2020, for comparison
@Twich22 I’ve not heard of this law, but I have heard of the phenomenon. I have a hard time seeing why it would apply to an election where it’s almost (but not quite) a zero sum game. But unless you describe exactly how those plots were derived I can’t comment on their accuracy - especially the level of aggregation being applied to the data. Not to mention what data - percentages or vote counts or something else.
@klezman I have not looked into the data either. who knows whether its accurate. I was more curious about whether this stuff would apply to an election or not.
@klezman also if you really want to know about the data you can read the tweets
@klezman @Twich22
So - I will candidly say that I’m in the dark about this statistical analysis. Could you clarify how it adjusts for batches of votes coming from different constituencies at different times? If this is saying that Biden’s vote is anomalous because the totals are so different in the last tranche of counted votes (ie mail-in ballots when Biden encouraged people to trust the system and Trump discouraged people from sending ballots) then I’m not sure I understand the value.
@canonizer @Twich22
Best I can tell, the statement is that many times, a naturally occurring bunch of numbers will tend to sort itself out rather asymmetrically if you only look at the first digit. There will be a lot more numbers starting with 1 than with 9, and the frequency appears to be roughly exponentially distributed.
How does that apply to voting? This is what I’m not sure of. Since the tweets above didn’t load for me, I can’t even see what the above analysis was attempting to do. But if you’re looking at partial returns, then obviously it’s an incomplete data set.
More importantly, though, I think is how the data are being organised in the first place. If you’re looking at vote counts at a precinct level you won’t get the same distribution as looking at percentage of the vote by state or even county level.
I understand how analysing data against this pattern can help detect fraud, but I still fail to see how it applies to an election.
@klezman @Twich22
Thanks - that’s sort of my point. It’s an incomplete set coming in arbitrarily. And subsequently there isn’t a reason to think a vote (as opposed to a set of phone numbers) should be a normal distribution.
@canonizer @Twich22 Actually, you picked a great example of something that doesn’t follow Benford’s Law. Phone numbers, especially within a small geographic area, are highly constrained and don’t follow that law.
(And I’ll nitpick that voting doesn’t follow a Normal distribution either.)
For those who want to know more about benfords law
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37243190
@Twich22
I don’t see any of these conditions from that article being met
They are talking about turnout in excess of 98%. We are in the mid 60s percentage.
Has this been discussed? I haven’t seen any chatter but could have missed it.
There is no indication of invalidating large numbers of votes in this election.
Again, no evidence of this. I worked at a polling station in NY on Tuesday. We could check if someone in the County had already voted - there were lots of juniors and iii’s so we had to pay attention. There’s a whole subsequent round of reconciliation.
huh?
and, lastly,
We normally don’t count every vote when the mail-ins/provisional/etc are outside the margin of victory. It’s taking longer to count them, not announce result.
All of this fear mongering (along with 4 years of norms breaking) feels very bad for our democracy. Trump’s undemocratic push to stop counting votes in areas moving blue and keep counting them in areas potentially moving red is awful. He is making future transfers of power more tenuous and rotting our republic from the inside.
https://andmagazine.com/talk/2020/11/06/data-security-specialist-outlines-key-election-system-flaws-and-vulnerabilities/
@Twich22
Ok - I did not watch or read. The democrats literally spent the last 4 years trying to improve election security only to be thwarted by Dear Leader McConnell at every stage. And forgive me for not wanting to read something published by andmagazine after looking at their Trump Train Twitter.
https://twitter.com/andmagazine?lang=en
I found this fairly fascinating. This is from 1963.
Source: https://usm.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma991014220506305566&context=L&vid=01USM_INST:MDL&lang=en&search_scope=MDL&adaptor=Local Search Engine&tab=MDL&query=any,contains,naked communist&offset=0
@Twich22 what about it is fascinating?
Well possibly this about the Author
Willard Cleon Skousen was an American conservative author and faith-based political theorist. A notable anti-communist and supporter of the John Birch Society, Skousen’s works involved a wide range of subjects including the Six-Day War, Mormon eschatology, New World Order conspiracies, and parenting.
… and this about the John Birch Society according to Wikipedia
Businessman and founder Robert W. Welch Jr. (1899–1985) developed an organizational infrastructure in 1958 of chapters nationwide. After an early rise in membership and influence, efforts by those such as conservative William F. Buckley Jr. and National Review, critics of the Society, pushed for the JBS to be identified as a fringe element of the conservative movement, mostly in fear of the radicalization of the American right.[9][10] More recently Jeet Heer has argued in The New Republic that while the organization’s influence peaked in the 1970s, “Bircherism” and its legacy of conspiracy theories has become the dominant strain in the conservative movement.[11] Politico has asserted that the JBS began making a resurgence in the mid-2010s,[12] and many political analysts from across the spectrum have argued that it shaped the modern conservative movement and especially the Trump administration.[13] Writing in The Huffington Post, Andrew Reinbach called the JBS “the intellectual seed bank of the right.”[14]
See that…conspiracy theories and the Trump Administration all in one paragraph… which begins us back to the election…
@Savagesam wow. Now that was interesting.
@Savagesam I see. Calling something a conspiracy makes it a conspiracy. Got it. I just found the flyer quite fascinating. Never seen it before. Thought others might find it interesting as well. I wouldnt call that a conspiracy.
@Savagesam @Twich22
The flyer was made up by, and attributed to, the “patriotic american youth”, an anti communist (whatever that means) high school group. They sound like the proto McCarthy propaganda youth brigade.
Well it might be very interesting. I wasn’t calling the document you presented a Conspiracy Theory.
More the Trump Administration’s handling of this Election… and unfounded claims he is making about the vote… but it’ll all be sorted out in the Courts.
So how about Trump still not conceding after losing the election?
Arizona flipping back would be embarrassing for fox but georgia seems steadily democrat regardless. Neither is necessary for 270.
@canonizer
As widely reported:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/07/trump-email-fundraising-would-pay-campaign-debt-fine-print-says/6202250002/
@canonizer NBC news estimates 8.9MM votes as yet uncounted. Every vote counts, right?
@KitMarlot Of course, count every vote - but the election itself is outside the margin of victory. If the 8.9M outstanding votes were located in PA, GA, NC, NV and AZ instead of nationally it would be a different story. I’m not suggesting that States expedite certification.
I’m not sure I understand how/why anyone would defend Trump’s failure to concede the loss unless they were tired of the peaceful transfer of power. For all of the Mitch McConnell talk of the Democrat attempts to ‘invalidate the 2016 election’, they actually did the exact opposite - Hillary conceded that day and no one with standing ever suggested that Trump didn’t win the election*. They/Democrats/We/I did (and continue to) whine about the election system being anti-democratic.
If you wanted to point to FL in 2000, the entire election hinged on 1 State’s electorates. It doesn’t here.
*they believe he acted criminally while president and, for better or worse, impeached him, which should not be confused with invalidating an election.
@canonizer @KitMarlot
but the election itself is outside the margin of victory.
That is absolutely not true. The allegations of fraud (under oath in many cases) are substantial enough that, if proven, the results in several swing states would be changed from the current media projections.
We shall see.
What we certainly won’t see is remotely fair reporting.
I have been observing national elections closely, and fraud allegations, since 1960 - the election which is widely acknowledged to probably have been stolen as a result of the Daley machine in Chicago and Johnson’s machine in parts of Texas. Nixon should have challenged those results, but didn’t. Orange Man Bad will not take it lying down like Tricky Dick did.
@canonizer @KitMarlot @rpm Which states in particular have credible allegations of fraud serious enough to swing their statewide votes back from Biden to Trump? Why has every judge that’s looked at these so far thrown them out of court?
@KitMarlot @rpm big orange is retiring campaign indebtedness. He’s not in it for the country, Republicans, the base or anyone besides himself.
@KitMarlot @rpm also
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/postal-worker-fabricated-ballot-pennsylvania/2020/11/10/99269a7c-2364-11eb-8599-406466ad1b8e_story.html
I can’t get worked up over such a disingenuous challenge. It’s a shame about the country though. Encouraging people to assume fraud because votes are being counted after deciding not to count before election day is damaging.
@KitMarlot @rpm well now here i am replying to myself about the usps pa story. Exciting times
https://nypost.com/2020/11/11/usps-whistleblower-denies-wapo-claim-he-recanted-allegations/
@canonizer @rpm Fox News (not the talking heads) doesn’t seem to be taking these seriously, why should we.
@hershelk oh, I’m not. I think Trump’s efforts are four season landscaping worthy. He needs 115% of the outstanding vote in pa to take the state and that wouldn’t get him to 270.
simultaneously accepting the additional house seats while alleging voter fraud is unconscionable.
Interesting discussion on potential sources of polling errors in the 202 election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/upshot/polls-what-went-wrong.html
Y’all have fun here, now. From my perspective - and I’m not going to discuss it, just stating my view - the 2020 election has been stolen by voter fraud of many kinds. Most of you are fine with that because you like the result, or you are pretending it didn’t happen. Just as you are pretending the Biden family is not thoroughly corrupt. Things are only going to get much worse in this country - the economy will go down, taxes will go up, and liberty will be steadily eroded, and, if what the Democrats are saying about revenge against anyone who supported Orange Man Bad, and about “truth and reconciliations commissions” is to be taken seriously (hint, it is), political persecutions in this country will be at banana republic level. And, racial division will reach levels not seen since the Jim Crow era. I’m very sad. I’m very angry. And, there’s not a damned thing I can do about it.
@rpm I just don’t know how to square your belief that the election was stolen with the myriad statements by federal and state prosecutors, independent watchers, and every judge who has seen a case. I also don’t know how to square it with the fact that Republican candidates generally outperformed the polls and made some gains in the House.
Not trying to drag you into an argument, just stating my befuddlement.
As for politically-motivated prosecutions, I don’t share your belief that those will happen. But if they do then I would be just as angry as you.
@klezman Acknowledging you responded, but not going to engage. On wine, we can agree in large part. Politics, not so much - there’s just no basis for a discussion anymore.
@rpm I’m sorry you’re feeling that way. I don’t have strong feelings about the election, but I have a lot of friends and family who are very disappointed. I share some of your concerns about what is to come. I had different concerns about Trump, for what it’s worth.
@rpm What you say is true if Biden were to become president. I still do not think he has a chance of becoming president, and am quite optimistic that Trump will prevail, but there is still a long ways to go until we know for sure. Just hang in there for now and dont beat yourself up over what is not yet decided!
@rpm I’m sorry you see this election as transformative and fraudulent. For the former, I hope it feels moderate and on the latter, I hope whatever plays out in litigation is satisfactory.
I don’t think it’s productive to focus on the criminality of Biden’s family (brother or son (subject of an inquiry)) or Trump’s relatives now.
In any event, I’ll toast to a better 2021 and even better 22, eventually.
@rpm I’m not sure.
There are enough inconsistencies to where I am suspect, but I will watch this play out in the courts, and will follow the arguments.
I don’t expect the courts to ‘want’ to be involved in this, as I can’t recall a time where they’ve ever moved to overturn a ‘seeming’ result, unless the person in question was found guilty of a crime/felony. The burden of proof will be great, much more than usual, because it would show our system to be lacking in the internal safeguards that most take for granted.
I can see a myriad of ways that it could happen, very good evidence of some, but have to see the evidence, and how it all plays out. Like it or not, I may just be stuck with the result, and will remain an American regardless; not the first time. I do feel a greater concern, now though, that people who truly do not understand, will place a burden on us, themselves, and our future, that we may never recover from. It’s like the old saying: ‘Be careful of what you wish for…’
@rpm No idea if this is any good or not, or their veracity, but the maps are astounding.
I will still watch this play out, but if there is any wrongdoing in our election process, they need to be addressed, and the perpetrators prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law, regardless of which side is doing it.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90572489/u-s-election-maps-are-wildly-misleading-so-this-designer-fixed-them
@rpm Duh, reply to myself.
This was for 2016, not 2020.
I apologize for posting this in error.
@CroutonOllie @rpm
Saw this on Breitbart, with a link to NBC
LA: over 8,000 fraudulent voter registration applications submitted
@CroutonOllie @rjquillin @rpm
Thankfully they linked to the NBC story that reported the whole thing.
This guy was trying to get himself nominated for mayor, it sounds like. And presumably the mail in ballots he tried to get would have been used to vote for himself.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/pair-charged-with-voter-fraud-allegedly-submitted-thousands-of-fraudulent-applications-on-behalf-of-homeless-people/2464168/
Sounds to me like the system is working…
@CroutonOllie @klezman @rpm
How many more haven’t been identified?
@klezman @rjquillin @rpm
We need to have a way of identifying eligible voters.
Usually, the argument against this, is that those without the means to afford a state ID, would be left out.
If we can hand out $1200 to each American citizen because of the pandemic, we could certainly afford to underwrite the cost of an ID to those (verified) that can’t afford it.
If elections are that special, I think that we should verify that only those eligible can vote.
@CroutonOllie @rjquillin @rpm believe it or not, I mostly agree with you on the identification thing. If States can guarantee that all of their citizens can easily get a photo ID then requiring them for elections makes sense.
Sadly, too many states don’t make it easy to get ID and there are a surprisingly large number of people who don’t have the documentation required. I was shocked to learn that, but so it goes. Apparently it’s a hard problem to solve when people get stuck in a loop of not having the requisite identification to get the other needed piece of identification.
@CroutonOllie @rjquillin @rpm how many more not identified? You know you can’t prove a negative…
Every investigation ever done finds extremely low rates of either voter or election fraud, though.
@klezman That remains to be seen, no-one is an oracle. Maybe many, maybe few.
@CroutonOllie @klezman @rpm
So, if they (potential legal voter) can’t be identified, how can it be determined if they are legally entitled to vote? A rather basic question I would think.
@rjquillin
Precisely the point, sir.
@CroutonOllie @rjquillin I can’t tell if you’re willfully missing the point or are that unaware of the problems many (mostly poor) people have in getting photo identification.
@klezman @rjquillin
Quit playing advocate for the universe, and just see that we need to be able to identify eligible voters; you agreed not that far back.
You can describe a fine wine exceptionally, but not so sure how they affect you.
Edit: left out a noun
@CroutonOllie @klezman @rjquillin
I would surmise that every election in our history, as well as all future elections, will have a non-zero (borrowing some recent legalese) level of accidental (human error) and intended (fraudulent behavior) error. But going back to the original premise of this post, why should we consider the 2020 election as being uniquely fraudulent/erroneous that we as the electorate should invalidate the results? As counties and states audit/certify the votes, there will certainly be some issues identified. However I have seen no analysis/proof that these issues are so unique, widespread and one-sided (I never have understood the assumption that errors/fraud only happens in favor of Democratic candidate) that there must be an organized effort to defeat Trump. One of the benefits of state/county controlled elections is that it makes such organized widespread fraud very difficult, especially without any evidence. Is the theory that this election had so many corrupt individuals acting on their own that a sufficient number got past the established election systems to change the results? Again, these same individuals still kept Republicans in control of the Senator and gained seats in the House and Governors.
@CroutonOllie @rjquillin I’m a practical guy. I agree with the principle, so there’s little to debate. There are implementation issues and difficulties that need to be solved so that eligible voters are not disenfranchised. I presume that you are not in favour of disenfranchisement.
So let’s put it into practice. Figure out all the issues with it, solve them, get a prize, and we can all move on.
@CroutonOllie @klezman @rjquillin on ID - I’m all for removing barriers such as forcing people to go to a rarely open office far away… I’m not in favor of relaxing documentation requirements. Make it easier to obtain copies of your official documents if you’ve lost them, but absolutely require certified copies of a birth certificate or a passport (which required a birth certificate to get) and/or naturalization papers if not native born (or legally acknowledged equivalents). The idea is that to register to vote one must be able to prove US citizenship. Without the documents, the presumption is you are not a citizen. Sorry. I’d also require English proficiency - no voter forms in any other language. Yes, there may be legal citizens who don’t speak English, but if you want to participate in our English-speaking government, you should have to be competent in English. [possible exceptions for native Americans]
@rpm I largely agree - making the original documents easier to get would be an important step.
Don’t most states already require proof of citizenship to register? I thought it was only about needing it physically at the polls.
The “system” here continues to confuse me.
@klezman @rpm
At first glance, it doesn’t appear so for California.
§ 20107. Standards for Proof of Residency or Identity When Proof Is Required by Help America Vote Act
@CroutonOllie @klezman @rjquillin @rpm It strikes me as the only effective way to do this would be a national system, which would likely create a furor about national id numbers etc. That seems like a step away from alleviating States of the burden of administering elections.
Also, there are places where it is legal to register but could be a crime to vote depending on the person’s level of enfranchisement (eg convicted felons in FL). I’m sure there are a host of other contradictions depending on where one resides.
Are most conservatives convinced the election was stolen? Or is the majority waiting for investigations, lawsuits, and recounts to play out first? Or is it just obvious to those on the right that enough fraud occurred in enough places that a legitimate Biden win is not possible?
@hscottk obvious that the fraud was overwhelming. Numbers don’t lie. But moving such a thing through the legal system is a different matter entirely. It seems hard to imagine a scenario where Biden gets away with such an illegitimate election, although its not impossible, especially given the fact that such widespread fraud could ever even occur in the first place.
@hscottk @Twich22 Still confused as to where the fraud allegations are coming from. Literally everything that’s gone in front of a judge so far has been thrown out.
@hscottk @Twich22 I’ve seen lots of allegations of fraud, but absolutely no substantiation. And the courts seem to agree.
@hscottk @Twich22 what numbers are lying? Is it the popular vote that has Biden leading by ~5% or, despite that, the Republicans taking back a substantial number of House seats.
Trump is challenging in every state. Barr is enabling him by allowing for challenges ahead of state certification. If there is a case to be made that fraud affected the election, they will make it.
For all of that, I personally believe the allegations are fiction. Some states were not allowed to count mail ballots ahead of election day but that’s why the total count has taken longer to complete, keeping in mind that Biden encouraged mail in voting and Trump encouraged people to show up day of. These purported numerical anomalies don’t exist.
And impugning the work of bi partisan and non partisan poll employees/volunteers is a disappointing tactic. We spend so much of our own time carrying out the election and following commission regulations.
@canonizer @fritzcat @klezman With all due respect, I was really hoping to hear from conservatives who support Trump. Thanks @twich22 for the response. Would love to hear from others. Just trying to understand how much distrust and division exists right now. It feels like virtually all Trump supporters feel this way, but I could be wrong.
@canonizer @FritzCat @hscottk @Twich22 I’m in the same boat. I’m particularly keen to understand how these voting or election fraud allegations have come into being. The distrust and division seems at record highs.
I hear there have been some predictions of the future that have been disagreed with.
In case any of the disagreeing parties want to put their monies where their mouths are, I offer this unattributed quote:
From a fiscally conservative, socially liberal person (my ballot consistently is split between parties), I continue to be amazed that so many people believe in this widespread fraud conspiracy theory (I have seen no proof). How does this theory work? It only applies to ballots in states that democrats won and doesn’t apply to states where conservatives picked-up/held senate, house, governor, and state legislative seats?? There is this secret/“deep state” group somewhere that can be so organized that they are able to secretly change, throw away, create (whatever you want to claim) ballots across so many states/counties just so Trump doesn’t win?? If this group was so good, you would think they could figure out that they needed to rig votes to flip the Senate to Democratic control.
Just maybe more Americans voted no to the Trump Administration and the division he sows, but wanted to keep split government,
Do people blindly believe this theory just because Trump and his administration says so, with no proof? This theory comes from the person that pushed the Obama birth certificate theory, claimed there were 3 million fraudulent votes last election (which the person he personally selected to investigate could not prove), said his inauguration was the most attended ever, and rejects science when it comes to wearing masks to protect our fellow Americans. I wish those that believe that this election was rigged and stolen, would actually produce proof/evidence that actually holds up in a court of law.
@Twich22
Yes, he said (or tweeted) that, but, considering his veracity, it is meaningless.
Bellweather counties
@rjquillin Interesting article, and I’ve seen other similar articles. It is still a big leap to go from a statistical oddity to believe there was fraud/corruption in our election system.
If there is evidence of potential fraud, then this bears more consideration. But without the evidence, then this election can simply be an outlier from a statistical standpoint, which happens all the time. Heck, is it unreasonable to state that this election was already an outlier in terms of turnout? Does the increased voter turnout change the predictably of these counties? Also, are these counties primarily suburban, urban, rural or a representative mix? How does that impact predictably of these counties based on this year’s turnout? It would be interesting to see more analysis on how/why these bellwether counties missed the winner versus jumping to the conclusion that it means widespread fraud.
@Twich22 This is basically a table presentation of the previously posted article, not adding any new information. As I said before, outliers in statistics happen all the time and it’s still a big jump to go to widespread fraud without proof. I googled to see if anyone had analyzed this data relative to voter turnout this year, but I couldn’t find anything. If someone has, I would be interested in reading.
@dirtdoctor It looks like people have a tendency to vote for incumbents and older, whiter counties would be even more likely to vote for Trump. Some states that used to lean red now lean blue and vice versa. The historical correlative value of these counties does not overwhelm me.
I guess I’m tired of waiting for any help learning more about the purported fraud and will try to keep my maw closed.
@canonizer @dirtdoctor
These bellwether counties also don’t account for the massive demographic shifts we’ve seen over the last several years. People have been moving to cities more and more, people leaving California and other liberal-leaning areas have been settling in places that have been redder before. The people who make up the electorate also change by growing older and such while others come in at age 18.
So yeah, might be a statistical outlier. Might be a sign of shifting political coalitions. Might be a sign of changes in voter turnout. So many explanations that are far simpler than a fraud perpetrated nationwide when thousands of counties each have their own system.
@rpm I’m just going to drop this here with you in mind. Yes, it applies to you.
Trying to imagine what the outcry from Republicans would be if two Black, Democratic canvassing board members tried to stop white, rural counties’ votes from being certified because they have suspicions about how the votes there got tallied.
The fact is, EVERY place where this B.S. is going on is a black voter stronghold. Philadelphia. Detroit. Milwaukee. When Trump and the GOP say they only want “legal” votes counted, what they are dog whistling is they only want white votes counted. Why else would Monica Palmer agree to certify all the communities EXCEPT Detroit, which had a better accuracy in its poll books than a neighboring white area?
While it’s amusing to see Rudy Giuliani crap himself in the courtroom and Trump lose case after case, we have to remember one thing: This is the largest, serious and well-funded effort to disenfranchise and delegitimize Black and Brown votes since Jim Crow laws were passed. We have to push back on it, call it out for what it is, and pass laws to make sure they can’t insert these kinds of dangerous, partisan and racist roadblocks ever again.
@losthighwayz
This … this is why conservatives are crying foul. Everything is “Racist” to Liberals when that has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!
You want to talk racism, let’s talk about the repeated racism from the Democrat Party, where someone “can’t be Black” unless they vote Democrat.
The divide is also there because the Left have people taking names and threatening future consequences, as well as our Constitutional rights, over feelings and false numbers.
Unite us? Biden is going to divide us even more. !
No change
This is not from the Trump legal team, but these are some of the things being investigated. This is from Michigan
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.283580/gov.uscourts.gand.283580.7.1_2.pdf
I don’t remember selecting email notifications for this thread but I should really turn them off.
@Twich22 These townships purported to be in Michigan are actually in Minnesota because Ramsland is an incompetent partisan hack.
I’m sick of this. No actual evidence of fraud has made its way into court, which is why Trump has lost every legal battle, fired Powell and allowed (a)gsaemily to initiate the transition; it’s because he lost. He lost a fair election, which was fairly counted.
Unless FL or TX flips, Republicans will continue to do well in future elections because our republic’s rules and regulations. Notwithstanding the reestablishment of the “blue wall”, this is likely a brief hiatus in the inevitable march towards a Republican republic, financed with so-called “coastal elite” money.
If I were a devout republican, I would be focused on the GA senate races. The real win for the GOP was proving that it could turn out an unprecedented number of voters. Without Trump’s name on the ticket, I would not be confident of their showing up. I am similarly uneasy, as a bleeding heart, of the Dem turnout in January.
@canonizer you can go to the top of the thread to turn off the email notifications
@canonizer also, the data you are referring to is taken from the Michigan Secretary of State. So either the data has townships from out of state in it and is inaccurate, which if true needs to be looked into, or there are simply townships with the same name in both Michigan and Minnesota.
@Twich22 Please read @savagesam below. The information did not come from Michigan - it came from Texas data analyst Ramsland who transposed MN townships with those in MI and incorrectly tabulated the anticipated voter turnout.
My feeling is that by grasping at fabricated straws, Republicans are making future fraud more likely.
@canonizer @Savagesam the affidavit says directly that the data came from the Michigan Secretary of State.
@Savagesam @Twich22 Yes, only it didn’t. And now you can see why I am saying Ramsland is incompetent (as is Lin to rely on said affidavit).
@canonizer
I agree you!
@canonizer @Savagesam you are right, looks like this guys an idiot? Nonetheless, some of what the affidavit is talking about are things that will be coming out in court. For those who want a preview.
https://www.radio.com/wwjnewsradio/news/local/trump-supporter-confused-minnesota-and-michigan-in-lawsuit
I think this is all that needs to be said. “Expert” files case in Georgia based on results in Michigan… that were actually places in Minnesota.
Summary of a project investigating whether there was any substantial fraud in swing states.
Analysis looking in to the possibility of large dumps of potentially fraudulent ballots in swing states.
https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020
@Twich22
I did not read the entire article, just skimming through most of it. My takeaway is the author is arguing that large groups of vote totals had significantly higher ratios of Biden votes than would be expected, and therefore must be evidence of fraud. In addition, they argue that these significantly higher ratios should only be expected in smaller vote totals. I did not see (maybe I skimmed over) where the author accounted for how the votes were cast. Instead of fraud, could it not be possible that the votes were simply reporting the results of a group of mail-in/early votes from a heavily democratic county? If such a county voted 65-70% Biden as a whole, I wouldn’t be shocked if mail-in/early vote totals had an even significantly higher ratio for Biden. Many of these counties processed in-person voting first, followed by mail-in/early votes. Again, I may have skimmed over such a discussion/analysis, but it seems like a logical explanation that the author should evaluate before automatically jumping to the conclusion that fraud occurred. That’s unless there’s a preconceived narrative prior to looking at the data/statistics.
@dirtdoctor you are right, the analysis is not intended to serve as proof, merely to say that there are some anomalies that need to be rectified. However, what they are suggesting is that these vote totals are well beyond the norms in any other county of the over 8000 they looked into. So while large numbers of votes going to Biden in a democratic county is not an anomaly in and of itself, when compared to the patterns seen in the other 8000 counties, you may be able to spot a significant outlier that may be an indication of fraud, which is what this analysis has done. Outliers are not fraud, but given the size and degree of what we’re talking about, it certainly deserves an official investigation and explanation.
@Twich22
I would argue that it is irresponsible to even suggest fraud without presenting some evidence or at a minimum a discussion about other reasonable (I would argue more likely) explanations. I didn’t notice such a discussion when skimming, but I will admit I was likely more aware of claims of fraud since I skimmed the article assuming the author would proclaim fraud as the cause. I just think it’s very dangerous to suggest fraud without any hard evidence, only statistical anomalies and affidavits that have no supporting evidence. I’m sorry, but I will not blindly believe an affidavit presented by an administration with a sketchy history with the truth. I will wager that this President’s continuing claims of fraud will likely end in a similar manner as Kris Kobach’s investigation into 3 million illegal votes that apparently caused Trump to lose the 2016 election popular vote. This absence of truth is a primary reason I was ready for a change in leadership, but at same time voted to keep a split government. And as I have said in previous posts, such a split in presidential and non-presidential election results does not support the mass fraud theory. I am truly amazed that so many people actually bought into this election fraud conspiracy theory. I think I heard that 70% of Republicans now believe that there was widespread fraud that impacted the election results.
@dirtdoctor @Twich22
It’s actually batshit crazy to think that Dems would lose so many house seats, perform so poorly in the senate but simultaneously orchestrate such a calculated fraud only to win the presidency. And every so-called study has begun with this theft conclusion in mind, despite the fact that voter turnout was 15-20% higher than normal. The whole election is anomalous.
@canonizer @Twich22
This theory of fraud also means that the Dems were smart enough to organize all these efforts without leaving any evidence, but too stupid to flip Senate control so that they could pass whatever legislation they wanted.
For those interested, here is the lawsuit filed tonight in Georgia by Sidney Powell and company
https://defendingtherepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/COMPLAINT-CJ-PEARSON-V.-KEMP-11.25.2020.pdf
Here is the lawsuit filed in Michigan
https://defendingtherepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Michigan-Complaint.pdf
You realize that complaints are not actually evidence, no matter how many pages you pile onto one? I suspect those will be thrown out for failure to state a claim or for pleading with insufficient specificity.
That is exactly what happened in the federal case in PA: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf
Or for those who read these a lot, they got TwIqballed.
Regardless of what you think about Biden’s agenda and potential policies, he and Harris are putting together a really diverse team with very impressive resumes and tons of experience. It’s a nice change.
@klezman Not hiring with intent to destroy departments.
And this quote from his Thanksgiving address:
https://buildbackbetter.gov/speeches/thanksgiving-address-as-prepared-for-delivery-by-president-elect-joe-biden-in-wilmington-delaware/
Nice article for those who are not medically savvy discussing deaths in the US due to covid
A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19
@Twich22 Here’s the thing about people who aren’t experts in medicine and epidemiology - they don’t always get it. You can slice the data a number of ways and find something to say that supposedly goes against the grain. But economists aren’t necessarily that good at these sorts of things (I work with several, their skill sets are important but not always on target) and the assumptions behind the analyses can lead you astray.
The claim the author makes about there being no excess deaths in the USA over the time of covid is also a lie. The CDC collects the data.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm
I read this article, and don’t think it clearly shows what you intended it to show. Yes, old folks are, and have always been, the ones dying in greater numbers. And a chart showing percentages of deaths shows that. But, what we need to look at is absolute numbers, and for that, excess deaths is the metric to be considered. The following article shows that COVID is indeed killing a lot of Americans, and oddly more Hispanics between the ages of 25 and 44.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
@FritzCat You are quite right that the first graph is not very useful, however it is only discussed in the opening paragraphs. Indeed, most of the article is discussing total numbers, not percentages, as you astutely recommend.
For example the following excerpt:
Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.
These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.
This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?
To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.
Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.
“This is true every year. Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes,” Briand pointed out.
@Twich22 I disagree that your article clearly states that. In fact, at least on my phone, the data is obscured, and I don’t see any clear data that would support your contention. On the other hand, the CDC article and data show that deaths have increased. I will look again when I can get to a better device, but for now, I’m calling BS.
@FritzCat I don’t know how else to help you. I pasted a quote directly from the article. It directly states
It specifically says total number of deaths, in juxtaposition from percentage of deaths. It goes on to discuss this in more detail throughout the rest of the article.
@Twich22 Yes, I read those words in the article, but didn’t see any data, numerical or graphical, to support them. Did you do me the courtesy of reading the article that I linked to?
@FritzCat no
@FritzCat is correct. I linked the original CDC article above as well from the authoritative Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. MMWR is considered the bible of epidemiology.
@Twich22 the article you linked is highly misleading at best and outright meant to lie at worst. Honestly, I think it’s an article about an analysis by an honest skeptic who doesn’t really know how to get and analyse the relevant data.
@FritzCat @klezman I suppose it’s all a matter of perspective. The total number of deaths for 2020 is 112% of expected, so 12% more then expected based on average.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
But I agree, most people don’t know what’s going on with epidemiology or medicine. Which is why I posted this article in the first place, because I feel that it accurately reflects the data and what the data is telling medical professionals. You are free to disagree with that.
@FritzCat @klezman @Twich22
I’m confused. @Twich22, you state that most people don’t know what’s going on and that “you FEEL it accurately reflects the data”. Does that mean you have analyzed the data yourself or seen other analyses with data, or just that you “believe” that this one article is correct? I ask the question not out of disrespect. If you have seen additional analyses/data that helped develop your opinion, it would be great to share. As an engineer/scientist, I personally try to avoid words like “Feel” when discussing analyses. This is about data, facts and analytical methods/assumptions. Data can be used in all kinds of ways to support a preconceived opinion, that’s why it’s so important to see the raw data and understand the methodology of the analyses.
One of the biggest problems today is people blindly believing things they they read on their Twitter and Facebook feeds, never digging into the background, data and analyses. Just last week a co-worker was telling me about a horrible Democrat backed law in NY that allowed abortions all the way to birth, and that’s what Kamala Harris would support. I knew nothing of this law, kept my mouth shut, and did some Google searching afterwards. It turns out that statement was inaccurate, and after forwarding the information I found to the coworker, they apologized and admitted they just read it on Facebook. I’m sure that’s just one example of something that happens every day.
@dirtdoctor @FritzCat @klezman yes this stuff happens to be in my wheelhouse. The data is all publicly available, mostly from the CDC as you have already cited.
@Twich22
This subject is not in my wheelhouse, but a quick search brought up a website, https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid, that published excess mortality rates for several countries, clearly showing an increase this year when compared to the previous 5 years. What is your take on this data?
@dirtdoctor music to my ears
@dirtdoctor @klezman You guys are so friggin’ diplomatic. I just don’t have it in me.
@FritzCat @klezman @twich22
FYI, I just clicked on the link that @twich22 provided to start this conversation and was not too surprised to see the following note:
“Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.
We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we explained on social media. However, it is our responsibility as journalists to provide a historical record. We have chosen to take down the article from our website, but it is available here as a PDF.”
@dirtdoctor @FritzCat @klezman indeed, I am not surprised either. I was surprised that they posted the article at all, as it’s generally not the type of information that they want people to know, for whatever reason. There are archives of the article however, for those who still wish to read it:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201126223119/https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
@Twich22
So what’s your take about the data published on the website I posted earlier? It’s time for me to move on until you provide data that shows Covid has not increased the mortality rates. I will consider it your “belief”, just like the “belief” there was widespread election fraud. As @klezman mentioned in a post earlier this month, I get the sense you just like to troll, especially after you once stated you don’t have time to explain things.
@dirtdoctor @FritzCat @Twich22
This is the issue. It’s a misleading article, it’s not that the information is stuff the “deep state” or “the people in charge” want to withhold from the public. Disinformation is dangerous. I’m not 100% sure whether this article is disinformation (i.e. meant to disinform) not simply misinformation (i.e. potentially honest mistake).
@dirtdoctor @klezman @Twich22
Not going to buy that. The “information” was carefully crafted by someone who claimed to be an authority, in such a manner as to skew people’s beliefs on the subject. The same as Twich22’s intent on this forum. It’s just that it didn’t work in either case. People apparently aren’t that stupid…at least not the majority of people.
@dirtdoctor @FritzCat @klezman actually, they didn’t say the information in the article was inaccurate at all. It’s not innacurate, it’s very accurate. They just don’t like what it says.
@dirtdoctor @FritzCat @Twich22 I dunno…if something that may not be counterfactual is presented in a way that leads readers to a false conclusion then I’d say that’s dishonest and a proper example of disinformation.
@klezman
It seems that most of what you find on the net, is written after someone has taken Propaganda 101.
I studied this, for a time, and see many aspects played out on a daily basis.
To look at the 20th century, and its most influential person, it would certainly seem that it was Goebels, as it seems as if every government, institution, and crackpot individual, try to further their causes using his formula; and to think it was once a notion of what was right and wrong. How abhorrent.
Restraint…
An original TLDR I wrote awhile back. I’m sure it will just about have something to po just about everyone
TO: The “Once Upon a Time” Icons of American Industry and Manufacturing
CC: Amazon, Target, Walmart, Consumers, et al.
What do you call it when the quality of goods in our landfills, exceeds the quality of goods on our store shelves?
Progress?
It is the death of American retailing and manufacturing, as no-one stands behind anything. Products are shoddy, poorly engineered, and designed for short term gain, rather than long term existence in the marketplace.
Brands are meaningless, as once trustworthy, reliable names, have been prostituted for immediate returns, and their value siphoned off. What took years of sacrifice and effort, by generations to build, has been drained away in a comparatively short time. Once reliable manufacturers, have assumed the role middleman junk peddlers, importing everything, and only exporting dollars and jobs.
What they once contributed to society is but a memory, leaving them to exist as not much more than parasitic entities on the greater society, their host. Dollars leave in a pipeline, but return through a straw. This has to change.
If an American corporation can’t build here, they shouldn’t be able to sell here, at least not without some penalty. There are foreign corporations that are
better corporate citizens than many of our own, and these American “failure” corporations should find a special designation in the tax code, just for them.
Commerce is taxable, and commerce requires wealth. When a company exports dollars, that wealth is then taxable in a foreign jurisdiction, but lost within ours. In a sense, your purchases are helping to build new roads and bridges in faraway lands, while our own are crumbling. We are helping to build foreign militaries, while being taxed to support our own to counter them.
Doesn’t seem to make much sense, does it? Let the modern day carpetbaggers foot the bill for this disparity, or let them take their toxic business practices elsewhere. Revenue is lost whenever wealth changes hands outside of our economy, and makes that much less available inside of our own society.
This wealth has always been taxed, over and over and over again, as it changes hands inside of our economy. It builds our infrastructure, helps to pay our public servants, and provides for the safety net that more and more of us seem to need. What do we get for this, now, besides higher taxes, or deficits and debt, to fill the gap in revenue? Junk, junk, and more junk!
Oh, I almost forgot, we also get money that is incapable of purchasing anything other than junk. Junk pollutes our retail space, and has effectively reduced the value of our
money, and labor, by making it impossible to attain the standard of living enjoyed by the working/middle classes of the past. We may see larger numbers in our paychecks, but we can’t even buy a reliable product anymore; something that we used to be able to take for granted.
If something was crappy, word got around, and if it were good, word got around, too. Lousy manufacturers were weeded out, or produced better quality products; the market worked.
Now, almost everything is crappy, so the choices are to buy crap, or do without and keep your money; more progress?
The market still works, and since most purchases aren’t for necessities, anyway, it might be prudent to keep your money until acceptable products are offered again. You’ll have more money to spend on necessities, or on something actually worth having; you might even get closer to being rich.
Most people don’t like taking crap, so why are they paying for it? You work for your money, make business work for theirs. Who knows, they might even get it through their head that they actually have to provide acceptable merchandise to generate income; who would have thought?
Retailers might find an easier time of it, too, if they quit loading up on the garbage. It’s hard, when that’s almost all that there is available, but put your buyers to work and scour the marketplace. You’ll find more loyalty from your consumers when you offer them quality goods that fill a need, and not just crap, conceived of only to generate a profit. Your retail space is an asset, make manufacturers compete for it.
A certain amount of demand has always been generated by people who shop to fill voids in their life, in a misplaced attempt to find meaning within it. I’ve done it, a short term catharsis for life’s little stressors, bringing a slight euphoria along with your measured indulgence.
Much better, and safer, than chemical means, which can have unintended consequences and carry risks which far outweigh their usefulness. It was a kind of a “first world” benefit, that just seemed to come along with the consumer environment, but I don’t notice this as much anymore. It may be that I am older, or don’t perceive the voids that I once did, but it seems to be gone.
What I do feel is a sense of stupidity, almost anytime that I make a purchase, whether necessary or not. Why?
Because I’m feeding junk magnates. No pride in their product, or their name, just concentrating on volume, and cutting costs and liability. No-one stands out, and no-one wants to: Just move as much junk as you can, and more than your competitors do.
Purchasing a television, or appliance, was a major capital expenditure for most families, and these items were always referred to as “durable goods.” Extra consumer protection, in the form of long warranties, was
the industry standard. The only thing durable about these goods, now, is their ever increasing price tags, and the bad taste left in your mouth when they prematurely fail. The warranty periods have shortened, with “manufacturers” not even standing behind the crap that they ordered/branded themselves.
Perhaps the word “durable” was redefined, and I missed it.
New industries have been born, some to insure products never fit to be in the marketplace to begin with, and others to peddle this defective junk, once again, as refurbished. Amazing.
As business salivates over the prospect of expanding into new markets, they have forgotten how to service the ones they’re in; not exactly a recipe for success. They have sold their identities and collective souls in the pursuit of greater volume, seemingly blinded to realities
which threaten their very existence.
What happens when their shareholders rediscover the dirty word, nationalization, and find that assets allocated to capital improvements, in faraway lands, have been seized, or when regional or global conflicts make the companies they invested in unable to service any market?
Is cheap labor now, and the lack of regulation, worth asset forfeiture later? I don’t think so, but someone had better be graphing this. Market based savings, and retirements, will evaporate, and the threat to civilized society will be great.
Robin Hood isn’t just messing with your money now, he’s
messing with the fabric of your future, not to mention the ability to retool these foreign facilities into producers of war materials, which can then be used against ourselves, our allies, and our interests. It seems that genius knows no bounds.
The practice of relying on foreign production, to supply domestic manufacturing, is flawed. The domestic industrial infrastructure, necessary to fill holes in the supply chain, simply doesn’t exist anymore, and it is not built overnight. It would require major investment, local sources of production machinery and controls, and a labor force that knows how to use the equipment.
I’m sure we could find countless people to tell us how to do something, but very few who have actually done, or are capable of doing, anything. Just how long can a production line sit idle, before a bottom line and market share are in irreversible decline?
Are we so self absorbed, by our selfies and texting, that we can’t see the firing squad before us? Well, we had better all take a selfie of our posterior, then, so we will have something to kiss goodbye when it all catches up with us.
Communism has always had an obsession with who owns the means of production, and without domestic industrial capability, they will.
We’re paddling ourselves up that proverbial creek, with foreign made oars, and our best hope, right now, is that the oars don’t work right, either.
It might help if business didn’t have to contend with ridiculous governmental restraints and litigation, but in a society that litigates every dizzy notion, this may be too much to ask; this does not obviate the need for a reduction, though.
There is no grand transformation taking place in the tenets of Communism, and they are not our friends.
It means nothing for an atheistic state to sleep with the Devil, as long as the end justifies the means. There will be plenty of time for their “Utopian Society”, once Capitalism has been destroyed with its own tools and greed. I’m sure that the irony of this isn’t lost on our competitors, and it must make for quite a few smiles in their political circles.
Compete fairly, compete amicably, but never lose sight of this.
In case you haven’t noticed, all of this has much graver implications than just our underwear flying to pieces after two washings. It affects our standard of living, our ability to be self reliant, and, ultimately, our national security. I’ll not go into detail here, but it is not difficult to project the
consequences of such shortsightedness, throughout all of the industrial sectors we rely on.
If “We the people” want to continue to exist, we had better address our vulnerabilities, and quickly, because the “Neverland” that many think we live in, doesn’t exist.
Let’s hope our descendants can say “America is…” in English, rather than “America was…” in Mandarin.
AFTERTHOUGHT: Trade imbalances will never go away, or be conducted on a level playing field, until this society reins in counter-productive litigation.
No-one is going to invest, and risk their wealth, simply to have the courts effectively steal their money, and profits, and award it to a bunch of useless whiners who never produce or risk anything.
As it stands, we have institutionalized the theft of wealth.
I know of no nation, that has ever tried harder to become a Third World country, than this one.
May God bless America, and please protect her from ner own.
@CroutonOllie
This is an interesting topic, although somewhat frustrating as an engineer. Your post focuses on the many problems we have in America, without any discussion about ideas to solve these issues. As an engineer, I’ve been trained to identify the problems but focus on and spend more time on identifying the potential solutions. What do you propose as a means of addressing some of these things?
@dirtdoctor
The short answer is that I don’t really know.
It is frustrating, as it would require the efforts of people wearing many different hats, in many different roles. It was written by myself, mainly to myself, out of frustration, and along the lines of “Houston, we have a problem.”
It seems that the ethos of the country changed, when we went from a society composed mainly of producers, to one composed mainly of consumers. Just another perception, which may or may not be valid, but such is the nature of perception.
Two people can look at the same thing, and see two entirely different things, and even when everyone is in agreement on what they see, they may be collectively in error. (Consider the case of the sun rising in the east; it only appears to.)
Without getting too philosophical, the only thing that I really know, is that I don’t really know anything.
@dirtdoctor
I don’t mean to suggest that my perceived change in the ethos was caused by this change, but rather that it was symptomatic/coincidental to other factors.
If I were to hazard a guess on what was the chief culprit, in many of our societal ills, I would blame Zeus, as the curse of Narcissus certainly seems to be upon us. ie: The ‘It’s all about me, and to hell with you’ syndrome.
I’m sure that the followers of Bacchus, and all true hedonists, would disagree.
Crouton, your message is quite dispiriting, and it involves the macroeconomics of the world as a whole. What you describe is quite complex, perhaps more complex than I (and perhaps even yourself) can fully grasp. I hope someone here can clarify the situation…not just someone who claims that this is “in their wheelhouse”, or spouts poorly thought-out drivel that they have seen somewhere else, but someone who can explain clearly, at an elementary level not out of fear, but out of sound economic thought. My opinion opposes yours in several respects. First, we do export a lot of products, and we export more armaments than anybody. We also export our unsafe jobs and our filth to other parts of the world, as well as using people from around the world as our virtual slave labor. Also, you talk about product quality…think about cars for example. They last longer, are safer and more economical than they have ever been. And, in real terms, they are no more expensive than they have ever been. What about technology? The utility of the products that we have now are incredibly robust and actually cheap for what they can do. The world is an incredibly small place. How ‘bout we try to increase the standard of living for everyone, not just whatever limited group that you claim. Basically, I’m not sure it’s all as simple as your writings imply, or as hopeless. Great topic for discussion and clarification.
@FritzCat Additional (related, I think) topic: one of the issues with current American style capitalism is the relentless focus on the next quarter’s earnings. This, combined with the supposed highest level duty of a company being to its shareholders, massively distorts markets and leads to many of the effects noted above.
@FritzCat
Yes, I agree that it is a dim view, but is what I see.
As for macroeconomics on a global stage, that is not my concern, I am an American.
The wealth that is being, and has been, drained, makes our ability to effect beneficial change, anywhere, less and less possible. It also makes our ability to exist, less and less possible; not something I want to pass on to the next generation.
I’ll not respond to other insinuations, as they fall within the pretext of personal opinion.
@FritzCat
Oh, almost forgot: They could build cars that lasted a long time for a long while. Look at all of the old cabs that were on the road when we grew up.
Sounds nice, I agree, but what do we get for this?
We did it for China, now they threaten their neighbors more than ever, and even us!
The real world is not a pretty place.
@CroutonOllie
2 important things:
The pie gets bigger;
Mitigating climate change requires global coordination
@canonizer @CroutonOllie The world is not a Zero Sum Game.
@FritzCat
Late in responding, but please define this.
I’m a little thick, and not all that trusting.
Certainly our recent trend toward isolationism hasn’t helped. Here is a link to “How Chinese Financing is Fueling Megaprojects Around the World”. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/global-chinese-financing-is-fueling-megaprojects/ (Oh, and of course, I understand that those projects are designed to benefit China.) By the way, the website containing this map is amazing.
@FritzCat And, Crouton, I’m surmising that you are suggesting vast isolationism…
@FritzCat
Sorry for the late reply, but isolationism, in the economic sense, is sometimes necessary, when state resources, on one side, are pitted against private resources on the other.
It isn’t all about money, it is about the ability to be self reliant.
Interesting facts about the 2020 election
https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
@Twich22 no, not facts. Speculation and just some dude on the internet saying things.
@Twich22 Unfortunately Twich, your credibility is shot.
@Twich22 The author’s Democracy Institute seems to be a think tank with a pro tobacco slant.
Twich, why are you investigating the democratic turnout and not the completely unprecedented republican one? why is one so much more anomalous than the other?
Why is it that an argument in favor one’s position requires no supporting authority, but there is no supporting authority, or quantity or quality of authorities, that would be sufficient to substantiate an opposing argument?
@davirom
Logical, and why arenas such as these are generally a waste of time.
@davirom Some here won’t even consider reading opposing information.
@davirom
It’s like Propaganda 101 again.
Want to avoid an argument, place the burden back on the writer, as if they couldn’t have an original thought? Ask for sources. Dance while looking studious.
Being a bit facetious, but think of Moses now.
Up the mount, once again, after that idolatrous episode. Comes back, once again, with the Covenant/10 Commandments, then he hears: Sources?
“What sources would you have? It is the Word of God.”
Will Moses throw them, yet again, or let them know he’s not about to go up there another time, with thunder, lightning, burning bushes, and soiled robes? Will a great code be lost for all time?
(Based on 2 trip, fictionalized Hollywood scenario, not as written (I’m not blasphemous.))
Source, that it isn’t: https://www.thetorah.com/article/what-really-happened-at-mount-sinai
I’m Christian, but the Old Testament is the Old Testament.
@davirom
Oops, forgot to add why it is a Propaganda 101 trick: It shifts focus from the argument itself, to that of ‘sources’, which are then attacked, thus avoiding what was being said, altogether.
Sorry for missing the most important part.
Have fun, c
Does Texas have standing to sue other States over their certification process?
@canonizer From what I’ve read, no. I’ve wondered, however, if Paxton (or other Trumpian lawyers) could be disbarred for filing a complaint filled with lies.
Paxton is being investigated by the FBI for abuse of authority. The suit is his way of asking Trump for a pardon.
At what point do all these efforts to overturn the election turn into sedition? At what point do the offending senators, congresscritters, and state-level officials run afoul of section 3 of the 14th amendment?
@klezman
Ha, the free speech/sedition line is probably something we want to avoid testing in the judiciary. Just hoping that the spineless sect of Republican elected official will put their pandering behind them by inauguration.
I’m interested in seeing how the gop handles Trump in 2021. It’s not inconceivable to see him both being on media all day and/or being deplatformed on Twitter. Since he requires obeisances to satisfy his venality, there’s a rush to align with him. But any such alignment will ultimately be compromising for those looking to inherit his mantle. Some of these politicians may have actual red lines (not Cruz, obviously). Shocking to see Barr thrown under, although no one will be surprised to see him push his own agenda if he chooses to appoint special prosecutors before closing the door behind him.
@canonizer Yeah, that’s true on all accounts. I’m just wondering who will actually stand up for facts and reason in this country. The Republicans have proven themselves to not give a crap about facts, while the Democrats (in this instance) have facts and morality on their side. So who stands up for the country, its institutions, and living in the world of facts?
And yeah, Barr has proven himself to be a dude with his own agenda. Not that different from our two most activist justices: Alito and Thomas.
@klezman The Texas suit would open the door to every State’s statutes on enfranchisement. Not even Alito and Thomas could take that case.
Anyway, Trump continues to ruin America and encourage internal strife, if not warfare. Congressmen and Senators are complicit. What else is new.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12/14/michigan-arizona-threats-electoral-college/
@canonizer @klezman funny how @rpm is hiding under a rock these days. Very quiet for an attorney to say the least!
In this thread? Perhaps.
He’s been pretty active in the Denier-Handal thread. Which fostered a very interesting and informative conversation with Clark and Lucas about alcohol levels in DCV Zin.
@canonizer @klezman @losthighwayz @rpm
He stated his intention to abstain from this conversation awhile ago and has kept his word.
Don’t like the echo chamber?
@canonizer @chipgreen @klezman @rpm yup. Very convenient imo. When the going gets tough…
@canonizer @chipgreen @losthighway so you want Rob to swing by so that you can heckle him? I don’t get it.
@chipgreen @klezman @losthighwayz
Yeah, he politely took a leave. No reason to tag him. I’m sure presently he’s hoping for the republicans to maintain the Senate, subscribing to the theory that the government that governs least governs best.
@canonizer @chipgreen @losthighwayz
And enjoying his new resident state away from the Northeast.
@canonizer @chipgreen @klezman @Losthighwayz not at all
@canonizer @chipgreen @klezman true dat. No reason to tag at this point.
@klezman
Want to find sedition? Look a bit north.
No reason, and no excuse, for Americans in ‘no go’ areas, to have any less guarantee of their freedoms than any other Americans.
Should have been stepped on in the earliest hours, and if the local ‘executive’ didn’t execute their function, they should have been removed.
It’s really not hard at all, if you just follow a thing called the law.
@canonizer @chipgreen @klezman @losthighwayz
People get busy, get sick, and generally have better things to do than entertain useless exchanges, with arguments lacking in substance.
I don’t know, but can’t see why anyone should/would, feel compelled to play when life is so much more compelling.
@klezman
Looked again, really disgusted.
Would put a uniform on again, myself, and could guarantee this mess would be eradicated; move on or die.
No American should ever be subjected to the law not being followed to protect them.
Have just about had enough.
Edit, clarity.
@CroutonOllie I haven’t the foggiest clue what you’re talking about.
@CroutonOllie @klezman
I haven’t checked this board in a while, but I’m with you. No clue what any of that meant. Maybe CroutonOllie is experimenting with some alternative “medicine”.
@klezman
You mentioned sedition in the original post, responding to what I view as sedition, and where.
@dirtdoctor @klezman
Not quite, wish I were, as it sits easier with me than other Americans not being able to live as we do.
Regardless, hope the season is progressing well for all, and want to see it for all of us.
@CroutonOllie @dirtdoctor All you said was “north”. Is Canada seditious now? That’d worry me as a Canadian.
@dirtdoctor @klezman
Now who is being facetious? At least I said I was, when I was.
Sorry, being not from here, you may not have noticed you drove through/flew over, Oregon.
Edit, o to e, tense matter.
@dirtdoctor @klezman
Just an extra, about how I view Canada.
Had I died, when assigned in the CONUS, one of your countrymen would have vaporized with me. My Inputs and Countermeasures Officer was Canadian, and a very fine man and officer.
Edit, sp
@CroutonOllie @dirtdoctor Didn’t see any sedition in Oregon. Still don’t know what you’re talking about.
@dirtdoctor @klezman
When people decide to cordon off an area, prevent law enforcement (only because they have been directed to do so) from entering, there exists a real case of sedition.
Americans/residents no longer are under the rule of law, but by clowns that are not being addressed by the local government; local authority thinks it’s fine.
@CroutonOllie @dirtdoctor @klezman
I think you mean Seattle, WA and their “Autonomous Zone” although Portland, OR had ongoing nightly protests that gained a lot of notoriety for awhile.
@CroutonOllie @dirtdoctor If the local government, the one supposedly closest to the people and most able to respond to their desires, thought it best to let them do what they did, isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work?
Also, it’s beyond specious to claim that Americans are not under the rule of law because a small section of a mid-sized city had an “autonomous zone” for a couple weeks.
I submit that those not living under the rule of law are the Trump family who are stealing from their campaign, funnelling government money (i.e. OUR tax dollars) into their private businesses, and giving pardons to their friends who have actually ratted them out and been found guilty by our laws. Shouldn’t be controversial, but in 2020 apparently half the country doesn’t believe in facts. Sad.
@CroutonOllie @dirtdoctor @klezman
When you make blanket statements such as “half the country doesn’t believe in facts” it does not support your stated goal of engaging in open-minded discussion to gain additional perspectives. IMHO.
@CroutonOllie @dirtdoctor @klezman
Maybe he means ammonn bundy’s 2016 Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation.
Some overwhelming majority of polled Republicans believe Trump won. My hope is that they are just screwing with pollsters but I mostly believe that they trust my pillow guy more than facts because they’ve been conditioned to believe only Trump approved outlets. Thank God his pillow solved the pandemic.
@canonizer @dirtdoctor @klezman
I’m not familiar with the circumstances in the occupation you reference above, but if the sovereignty of the public was violated, then my remedy would be the same: Move on, or be removed, using whatever force is necessary to accomplish this goal.
The public has every right to expect, that ingress, and egress to all public areas be enforced, and that lawful activities regarding traffic and commerce be able to be conducted in an unimpeded manner.
Private property is another matter, as probable cause would need to be shown in a court of law to obtain a warrant, unless the law were clearly being broken, and life or public safety was in imminent danger without immediate action.
It is about the rights of every American to live under the guarantees of our Constitution, and in protecting those rights from a subset of the citizenry. Freedoms only exist until they impinge upon the rights of another, and this needs to understood.
@chipgreen
This may be, as I really don’t stay as much up to date as I should.
I quit consuming the ‘news’, on a regular basis, quite some time ago, as I find it too often misleading or aggravating.
I find it interesting that the conclusions, so often jumped to, are in error, and that ‘political diaper rash’ is so prevalent. Most would assume I am a registered Republican, for example, but my only registration is as a voter.
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @dirtdoctor
It makes me quite happy to hear that you fully support all of the following:
-The right to unionize
-The right of LGBTQ people to marry, adopt, and to live life free from discrimination
-The right of non-religious people or those with different beliefs than some religious adherents to be free from having those religious beliefs imposed on them
-That government should not favour one religious belief over any other, including those who have no specific religious beliefs
-The absolute right of every single citizen to vote with as few impediments as possible
I’m sure there are more, but that’ll do.
Merry Christmas
@canonizer @dirtdoctor @klezman
OK, and what?
Once again you come up with a litany of items that ‘you believe’ I am against, without knowing.
While the attempt that you made to associate these items with me might be commendable on an elementary level, for the purposes of trying to substantiate a non-existent argument, it really reflects far more on you than it does on me.
Clumsy, and something much more befitting a troll or zealot of some kind.
Thanks for the holiday wishes, though, if they were in earnest, and wish you a great holiday season in return.
@canonizer @CroutonOllie @dirtdoctor Nope, I assumed nothing beyond what was written there. I believe, given the quoted statement, that you are for the things I listed, not against.
Sure, I’ve observed that people who argue the points that you’ve argued here tend to also argue against the freedoms I outlined above. However, I express zero opinion on whether you are among that group or not. A correlation doesn’t tell me about one individual data point.
I’m disheartened that you would consider I may have offered an insincere holiday wish. It’s a sad commentary on society these days. I know we’ve never met in person, but I assure you that is not my style. I also don’t take personal offense to debates conducted in good faith.
@canonizer @dirtdoctor @klezman
Eloquent, and well stated, sir.
It appears that my perception, and assessment, were a bit off, and it reinforces my faith in the nature of human beings, that your holiday wishes were as stated; mine were as well.
With that said, please enjoy the season to the fullest extent prudently possible now, and I hope that all here, do so as well.
c
Columbus, Ohio, (I am going to speak on behalf of the city.) sincerely apologizes for Gym Jordan.
Gym is because he was complicit in rape while at OSU. He has not learned a damn thing, and acts like a fucking lunatic when he gets a microphone. As a sane city, and citizen, we apologize.
@KNmeh7 I enjoyed my visit there a year and a bit ago! Nice place!
@klezman @KNmeh7
Columbus is pretty nice. We staycation there once or twice a year on weekends. Glad you made it up to Akron, it was great to spend some time with you.
The restaurant we ate at is struggling to stay afloat right now as you might imagine. Here’s hoping the Covid numbers start going down in a hurry now that they are starting to vaccinate!
@chipgreen @KNmeh7 it’s a great hope, but ultimately we need at least 6 months before we’ll make a big dent. The prevalence nationwide is still only around 5%, maybe up to 15% if the not detected rate is really high. That means there’s a ton of susceptible people out there. We need about 500 million doses to get 2/3 of the country vaccinated and there’s no line of sight to that for quite a while.
Not trying to be a downer. Just analysing the data.
@klezman @KNmeh7
Yeah, I know it will take awhile but … we’re about to be trending in the right direction?
@chipgreen @klezman
Yeah it will still take some time, but I certainly hope we’re nearing the light at the end of the tunnel.
@chipgreen @KNmeh7
Sort of. We’ve already locked in astronomical death and hospitalization rates over the next couple months. Those lag several weeks behind the infection rates. The infection rates continue to climb and break records at the national level. Unless transmission has already declined and we start seeing it in the numbers over the next few days, we’re in a really bad spot right now.
For my own sanity, I am treating it as the end of June when there will be a light at the end of the tunnel. I’ll happily be surprised if we beat that by a substantial margin.
But is there the beginning of a light at the end of the tunnel? Yes. It’s just a damn long tunnel (with Indiana Jones style booby traps).
I’m just happy that frontline healthcare workers will finally have some measure of protection against this thing.
@chipgreen @klezman @KNmeh7 I agree, Christmas/New Years is going to be like Thanksgiving. Too many people celebrating…even I am not as careful as I should be, and I’m pretty liberal, and science-minded. We’ll have an acceleration of the 2nd wave that will not subside until at least mid-February, at which point our health care system will be inundated. It’s not going to be pretty.
@FritzCat @klezman @KNmeh7
Small sample size perhaps, but Ohio is not seeing the post-Thanksgiving spike that we expected. Daily case numbers (and % of positive tests) have been coming in below the 3 week average.
@chipgreen @klezman @KNmeh7 Ohio data looks strange, and certainly not good. Take a look. https://www.google.com/search?q=ohio+covid+cases&rlz=1CAHKDC_enUS818US821&oq=ohio+covid+cases&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i433j0j0i433j0i3l3j0.12267j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Dec. 8th, about 1 incubation period past Thanksgiving looks ominous.
@FritzCat @klezman @KNmeh7
The December 8th numbers were misleadingly inflated due to backlogged antigen tests.
You can see the detailed trends for the state of Ohio HERE which show that the daily number of cases has been trending downward.
Hospitalization and death numbers, as we know, trail those of infections. Hospitalizations are just now starting to come down while deaths appear to be peaking.
@chipgreen @FritzCat @KNmeh7 Yeah, there are a lot of lumpy data things with this. Testing over the weekend lags, for example, while Wed/Thu numbers usually overperform. That’s why all the models and such look at smoothed averages, usually 7 days for infection rate and a 3 or 5 day average for hospitalizations and deaths.
@chipgreen @FritzCat @klezman @KNmeh7 also living in Ohio, and the number I’ve been watching is hospital capacity. I’m thankful we’ve plenty of headroom and as such am not really worried (being young enough and healthy enough helps too.). Hearing about all the people travelling for Thanksgiving I was a little surprised there wasn’t a turkey spike. Now that front line health workers are getting vaccinated they’re not going to spread it, I wonder if we’re observing the peak right now. Public health and well-being aside, one of the lessons of this thing is how bad it is to have data without context widely distributed.
@chipgreen @FritzCat @KitMarlot @KNmeh7
We actually don’t know if that’s true. The early phase 3 results upon which the EUAs have been based were not powerful enough to actually give us answers to this particular question. At least not yet. It’s a super important question, too. That’s why getting a vaccination isn’t going to change masking protocols and such.
@FritzCat @KitMarlot @klezman @KNmeh7
Heh… didn’t someone make the point awhile ago that most people don’t bother looking at others’ links? I accidentally posted the link to the backlogged antigen story twice, when the second link was supposed to be to the current Covid-19 trends in Ohio. I guess nobody noticed.
Corrected, for posterity.
This one could use a reboot as well
Poli"ticks" MMXXI