EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1299
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
KwarK
United States43643 Posts
| ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
On September 19 2014 05:25 KwarK wrote: Voting for a Democrat isn't a mistake when you consider the Republican party, it's just a terrible let down when you hope for a genuinely left wing government and what you get is erosion of due process, foreign adventurism and exceptionalism, more crony capitalism and no Federal level progress on civil rights. Obama has basically been a continuation of Bush. The only reason the right have to be disappointed by him are those who had a twisted desire to see him turn out to be the Anti-Christ heralding in the end times. Or those on the Libertarian fringe I guess. Edit: When I think left wing I think of the British Left in recent years who have been strongly against foreign adventurism in violation of international law (basically no Iraq invasion), strongly in favour of individual liberties and equality (against discrimination, for gay marriage etc), for individual rights (against sweeping anti-Terror laws that allow people to be held without charge etc), for state funded social mobility mechanisms to be strengthened (increasing funding to housing, healthcare and education programs that help people who, through no fault of their own, lack opportunity without trying to make everyone equal), pro international co-operation (pro EU in our case), for drug decriminalisation varying from drug to drug etc etc. When I think of the Left I think of a group that protects the rights of the individual (the right to property exempted from taxation being notably excluded here) and proactively attempts to give opportunities to better yourself within a capitalist society to those who, through no fault of their own, are denied it. Obviously every party makes political compromises in order to get elected but by that definition nothing Obama has done could be classified as on the Left. I do agree with this and it indicative of a problem with the 2 party system. I probably would have voted for Obama's Democrats had I been an American citizen. I think he does display poor leadership, but it's not partisan, for example I have a deep respect for Jerry Brown and the leadership he is showing in making the tough decisions that needed to be done. The Republicans have no leadership to speak of. Sometimes I just facepalm when watching Republican members debate and fail to articulate their views. They are so divided and the 2 party system so ingrained that I could imagine an parallel universe where the libertarian movement was integrated in the Democratic Party on social issues and divided the Dems internally on economic issues. Good ideas, policies and leadership are not the domain of a single party, so the electorate is done a huge disservice by the partisan clownshow. Divisions and political movement integration have broken the debate from ideas to whether you have an R or a D in front of your name. This uncompromising partisanship can only lead to more independents or more parties within a generation IMO. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The House of Representatives will adjourn until after the midterm election once legislative business is completed on Thursday. Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's (R-CA) office announced the schedule change on Thursday, canceling a work day on Friday as well as the entire week of Sept. 29. That means the House won't return to session until Nov. 12, the week after Election Day. McCarthy's announcement suggested that the House could return to session if the Senate failed to pass the House-approved bill to keep the government open beyond Sept. 30. Source | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
On September 19 2014 11:00 KwarK wrote: Do you think the poor choose to stay poor because it's so comfortable or is it generally the risk averse thing? For the vast majority, yes I do, it's all they know. Others are unfortunately part of a crab bucket where being exceptional is ridiculed and discouraged. Reluctance to take risks in the face of almost certain poverty is incredibly irrational, they are in an environment that values security and what little comfort they have, they are afraid of coming out with less. So they adopt a defeatist attitude blaming some faceless rich/white/male a thousand miles away as the cause of(and solution to) the majority of their problems. "They have so much while others have so little" "they have the means and motivation to better themselves, not everyone does" "they are selfish and don't want to pay for others" That and poor is incredibly relative and hard to define, there will always be a bottom 20%, and even those in the top 20% could feel poor when reading an article on the mega-rich. I know it's kind of a cop out, but even the poor have a comfortable lifestyle by historical and global standards. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
I think poor people are desperate to escape poverty but don't have the ability, patience, knowledge, or motivation to do so. I think they often take enormous and foolhardy risks, whether it is playing the lottery, falling for get rich quick schemes like penny stocks, or taking out subprime loans. To a certain degree, huge risks are worth the effort because they have nothing to lose. But it becomes very volatile when you mix and manipulate this foolhardy risk taking with poor decisions, misrepresentations and deceptions, and abuse and exploitation of their inability or unwillingness to know their rights and protect themselves. We can't control people and shield them entirely from their own folly, but we can criticize institutions like education or banks when they abuse the poor and profit from it. There is a disgraceful amount of that in the system, which is mostly why inequality is such a big problem. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23672 Posts
On September 19 2014 11:44 Wolfstan wrote: For the vast majority, yes I do, it's all they know. Others are unfortunately part of a crab bucket where being exceptional is ridiculed and discouraged. Reluctance to take risks in the face of almost certain poverty is incredibly irrational, they are in an environment that values security and what little comfort they have, they are afraid of coming out with less. So they adopt a defeatist attitude blaming some faceless rich/white/male a thousand miles away as the cause of(and solution to) the majority of their problems. "They have so much while others have so little" "they have the means and motivation to better themselves, not everyone does" "they are selfish and don't want to pay for others" That and poor is incredibly relative and hard to define, there will always be a bottom 20%, and even those in the top 20% could feel poor when reading an article on the mega-rich. I know it's kind of a cop out, but even the poor have a comfortable lifestyle by historical and global standards. Well I couldn't have telegraphed that much better. I do appreciate the blunt honesty of it though. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 19 2014 10:59 nunez wrote: yes, it does jonny. + Show Spoiler + let N denote the countably infinite set of values that denote the easiness of a problem: N ≔ { 1, 2, ... } let p denote the monotonically decreasing function identifying the easiness of a problem with the binary property of being possible to solve: p: N -> {0, 1} where 0 denotes it is not possible, and 1 denotes it is possible. thus: if E∈e₀ and p(e₀) = 1, then ∀E∈e such that e <= e₀: p(e) = 1. if E∈e₁ and p(e₁) = 0, then ∀E∈e such that e >= e₁: p(e) = 0. let eₐ denote the easiness of the problem: screamingpalm moving. we know from your post that p(eₐ) = 1. we also know that ∃E∈e₁ such that p(e₁) = 0. then ∀∃E∈e₁ such that p(e₁)=0, and ∀E∈e such that e>=e₁: eₐ<e. Q.E.D. Hrmm, not really. + Show Spoiler + What we're concerned with is where within the distribution of possible difficulty values the true difficulty falls. Knowing that the task is possible doesn't give us an answer about the difficulty. A possible task could be easy or hard to accomplish. Difficulty: the fact or condition of being difficult. Difficult: 1) not easily or readily done; requiring much labor, skill, or planning to be performed successfully; hard: 2)hard to understand or solve: Possible: that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc. Impossible: not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc. In other words, possible / impossible are not difficulty values. All difficulty values are possible and none are impossible.  | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 19 2014 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote: If I were you I'd move. Not every community is like that. jonny please. this is one of the more silly posts you've made. everyone wants to move to better neighborhoods, ones with better funded schools. a large part of why some areas are more expensive than others. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
post mathematically. in defense you constructed a fort from strategically censored dictionary definitions! not a bad move. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 19 2014 13:04 oneofthem wrote: jonny please. this is one of the more silly posts you've made. everyone wants to move to better neighborhoods, ones with better funded schools. a large part of why some areas are more expensive than others. *gasp* what monsters! Better force them back where they belong! Kidding aside, could you explain your post? I wasn't suggesting a national policy of "just fucking move already". It was an opinion on a specific situation; what sounded like a particularly bad school and a parent who didn't like it. Surely you aren't suggesting that moving to a better neighborhood is never a good idea. So what, in this specific case, makes moving a 'silly' idea? To nunez: censored, the definitions were not. Consider correct computations on incorrectly defined terms. Though the maths may be correct, the answers are not. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On September 19 2014 11:44 Wolfstan wrote: For the vast majority, yes I do, it's all they know. Others are unfortunately part of a crab bucket where being exceptional is ridiculed and discouraged. Reluctance to take risks in the face of almost certain poverty is incredibly irrational, they are in an environment that values security and what little comfort they have, they are afraid of coming out with less. So they adopt a defeatist attitude blaming some faceless rich/white/male a thousand miles away as the cause of(and solution to) the majority of their problems. "They have so much while others have so little" "they have the means and motivation to better themselves, not everyone does" "they are selfish and don't want to pay for others" That and poor is incredibly relative and hard to define, there will always be a bottom 20%, and even those in the top 20% could feel poor when reading an article on the mega-rich. I know it's kind of a cop out, but even the poor have a comfortable lifestyle by historical and global standards. I can only speak for myself, but none of this relates to me at all. I do live a very modest lifestyle, but grew up in an upper middle class suburb of DC (so it's not "all I know" and have seen both sides of the coin I guess). Although I think that generally speaking: "people are selfish and don't want to pay for others"- I don't blame some faceless rich guy or whatever. Re: defeatist attitude: I'm stuck with a disability and constantly denied health care or benefits due to arbitrary rules surrounding it, but that's life, and am happy enough and have no need to be envious of others. Basically leaves me at the mercy of public policy and opinion. Unless you know of some miracle cure for what ails me.  Just simply pointing out what I perceive as some very concerning issues with social mobility and the public school system along with effects of budget cuts and assessment testing for kindergarten kids. Maybe no one cares, as is usually the case with things that don't directly affect them. I think Johnny was probably being sincere and meant well, but even if I could afford the mobility, I probably wouldn't need to think about a different school for my kids anyway. :D | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 19 2014 05:25 KwarK wrote: I applaud the clarity and articulation of your vision; it helps me to understand your mindset. We differ on what does and does not constitute a right, indeed even delineating the difference between rights and desireable outcomes, and duties both explicit and implicit. If I could ever see and talk to more leftists of your stripe, with very little active intellectual deceit, I think we could have a vibrant conversation of the rights of the individual, how best to protect them, and constitute threats to those rights.Voting for a Democrat isn't a mistake when you consider the Republican party, it's just a terrible let down when you hope for a genuinely left wing government and what you get is erosion of due process, foreign adventurism and exceptionalism, more crony capitalism and no Federal level progress on civil rights. Obama has basically been a continuation of Bush. The only reason the right have to be disappointed by him are those who had a twisted desire to see him turn out to be the Anti-Christ heralding in the end times. Or those on the Libertarian fringe I guess. Edit: When I think left wing I think of the British Left in recent years who have been strongly against foreign adventurism in violation of international law (basically no Iraq invasion), strongly in favour of individual liberties and equality (against discrimination, for gay marriage etc), for individual rights (against sweeping anti-Terror laws that allow people to be held without charge etc), for state funded social mobility mechanisms to be strengthened (increasing funding to housing, healthcare and education programs that help people who, through no fault of their own, lack opportunity without trying to make everyone equal), pro international co-operation (pro EU in our case), for drug decriminalisation varying from drug to drug etc etc. When I think of the Left I think of a group that protects the rights of the individual (the right to property exempted from taxation being notably excluded here) and proactively attempts to give opportunities to better yourself within a capitalist society to those who, through no fault of their own, are denied it. Obviously every party makes political compromises in order to get elected but by that definition nothing Obama has done could be classified as on the Left. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43643 Posts
On September 19 2014 15:19 Danglars wrote: I applaud the clarity and articulation of your vision; it helps me to understand your mindset. We differ on what does and does not constitute a right, indeed even delineating the difference between rights and desireable outcomes, and duties both explicit and implicit. If I could ever see and talk to more leftists of your stripe, with very little active intellectual deceit, I think we could have a vibrant conversation of the rights of the individual, how best to protect them, and constitute threats to those rights. I was attempting to define the degree to which I believe in property rights regarding uneven taxation and concluded that while private property exists this is a perversion of the idea of Natural Law giving a man the sweat of his brow. That not all property is rightfully owned by the person the system deems the owner. I'm a capitalist because I believe that it's the best way we've found to create efficient markets with motivated participants. However I also believe it's a rigged game, not hugely different from the feudalism that proceeded it in that regard, the landowner gets his share simply by virtue of owning the soil, something with no value before the serfs labour in it. The question then becomes how to make it most palatable, both for moral reasons and to stave off the peasant revolt that the shortsighted landlords inevitably drive their serfs to. I don't wish to end it because I have nothing better to replace it with, but nor do I think that the landlord's claim to his share is especially more virtuous than that of five centuries previously. The last few centuries of democracy and humanism have amounted to one big game of how little can you give away to keep the game being played, how much can you rig it before someone flips the board over. It's in the interests of everyone to keep the game being played, but some have more at stake than others, and I have no huge qualms by asking that those who rig it and who benefit from it being rigged chip in to keep it being played. Those who defend capitalism and inequality have always struck me as short sighted, as if their ideas of property rights and their Atlas Shrugged quotes will save them against a mob. What keeps the mob at bay is getting them to buy into the system, historically with belief in the infinite riches of heaven just around the corner, now with votes and belief in the infinite material riches just around the corner. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On September 19 2014 15:54 KwarK wrote: Those who defend capitalism and inequality have always struck me as short sighted, as if their ideas of property rights and their Atlas Shrugged quotes will save them against a mob. What keeps the mob at bay is getting them to buy into the system, historically with belief in the infinite riches of heaven just around the corner, now with votes and belief in the infinite material riches just around the corner. Put your money where your mouth is. Go to the owner of your employer and demand RAISE OR RIOT. This logic of "equality or mob anarchy" seems incredibly more short-sighted than what you're criticizing. What keeps "the mob" at bay is the win-win nature of modern political economy - don't cause instability and in return you get ever better goods at lower cost. The benefits of technology have been borne almost entirely by the poor. The rich could always afford to personally consume the finest things in life. The internet and mp3s have brought information, art, and music to the common person at absurdly low cost (all the resources of an elite education can easily be found for free). Industrial meat and bread allow people to eat so well that obesity is now our primary problem, not hunger. Toppling "the rich" and destroying the system doesn't improve things for very long and certainly doesn't raise qualify of life in society, so it's dumb to even go there as a hypothetical. This has been proven both logically and empirically. EDIT: In no way should this imply that inequality isn't a problem or that the system is perfect as it is. I just don't think starting with the perspective "the rich owe me for not killing them" is a terrible and illogical place to approach the problem. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43643 Posts
On September 19 2014 16:11 coverpunch wrote: Put your money where your mouth is. Go to the owner of your employer and demand RAISE OR RIOT. This logic of "equality or mob anarchy" seems incredibly more short-sighted than what you're criticizing. What keeps "the mob" at bay is the win-win nature of modern political economy - don't cause instability and in return you get ever better goods at lower cost. The benefits of technology have been borne almost entirely by the poor. The rich could always afford to personally consume the finest things in life. The internet and mp3s have brought information, art, and music to the common person at absurdly low cost (all the resources of an elite education can easily be found for free). Industrial meat and bread allow people to eat so well that obesity is now our primary problem, not hunger. Toppling "the rich" and destroying the system doesn't improve things for very long and certainly doesn't raise qualify of life in society, so it's dumb to even go there as a hypothetical. This has been proven both logically and empirically. Did the quality of life improve in 1905 Russia? Or in 1917? The revolution doesn't help, capitalism is what works, but it happens anyway. Throughout my post I argued that the despite it being a rigged game it's better than the alternative, I just also argued that there is only so much you can cheat, and so obvious you can be about doing it, before the losers get so mad they flip the board anyway. I don't want the system destroyed, my point about the mob was that those who want to enact policies that act like the game isn't rigged at all (flat taxes, no inheritance taxes etc) are short sighted because that will only end one way. In response to your edit, you're right, it does come down to "you owe me for not killing you". Or to put it slightly less bluntly, "I play this rigged game with you because it's the only game we've got that puts food on both our tables, but don't think I haven't noticed that you're cheating, nor that I'm not aware that you need me to keep playing as much as I need you to keep playing." | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On September 19 2014 16:17 KwarK wrote: Did the quality of life improve in 1905 Russia? Or in 1917? The revolution doesn't help, capitalism is what works, but it happens anyway. Throughout my post I argued that the despite it being a rigged game it's better than the alternative, I just also argued that there is only so much you can cheat, and so obvious you can be about doing it, before the losers get so mad they flip the board anyway. I don't want the system destroyed, my point about the mob was that those who want to enact policies that act like the game isn't rigged at all (flat taxes, no inheritance taxes etc) are short sighted because that will only end one way. But being angry about lack of enforcement of existing regulations or an inability to stop "rigging" is a separate issue from saying the regulations are too onerous and shouldn't exist at all. It's one of the weirder parts of this forum. You want to be so angry at small government conservatives that you even blame them when legitimate and real abuses go unpunished. Where's your fury with the president and his DOJ for essentially refusing to prosecute these abuses? Republicans can't stop him from pursuing investigations and bringing prosecutions. Actually, you should read Toms River by Dan Fagin for a great story about this issue. A chemicals company in New Jersey spent decades dumping toxic dye into nearby rivers, polluting them to the point that they were getting into the water supply. When confronted, the company's lead scientist infamously insisted that they were throwing away "99% water and 1% salts". The prevailing emotion at the end of the long drawn-out battle to establish fault and compensation is exhaustion and nobody, not regulators or bureaucrats or politicians or environmental activists or managers or even the townspeople, wants to keep talking about it and work out a way to stop future abuses. Everyone wants to just pretend the whole thing never happened. It's a great but depressing narrative, and to be honest, environmental damage is one of the great under-appreciated frontiers of political economy and economic history. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10854 Posts
| ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On September 19 2014 17:37 Velr wrote: Maybe liberals aren't (especially) angry with Obama about that becaus Repubs wouldn't be any better. Six years to go from "hope and change" to "the Republicans are even dumber than I am". Can't wait to see where Obama ends up in December 2016 when he turns over to the next president. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On September 19 2014 16:17 KwarK wrote: Did the quality of life improve in 1905 Russia? Or in 1917? The revolution doesn't help, capitalism is what works, but it happens anyway. Throughout my post I argued that the despite it being a rigged game it's better than the alternative, I just also argued that there is only so much you can cheat, and so obvious you can be about doing it, before the losers get so mad they flip the board anyway. I don't want the system destroyed, my point about the mob was that those who want to enact policies that act like the game isn't rigged at all (flat taxes, no inheritance taxes etc) are short sighted because that will only end one way. In response to your edit, you're right, it does come down to "you owe me for not killing you". Or to put it slightly less bluntly, "I play this rigged game with you because it's the only game we've got that puts food on both our tables, but don't think I haven't noticed that you're cheating, nor that I'm not aware that you need me to keep playing as much as I need you to keep playing." I'd say the quality of life definitly improved in 1917, until half of the occidental world (17 countries) decided to attack Russia (themselves or via proxy) because it was trying something new, forcing it into a war like state for half a century. If you put aside everything that happened, sure capitalism is "what works". Capitalism doesn't even mean much. On September 19 2014 18:05 coverpunch wrote: Six years to go from "hope and change" to "the Republicans are even dumber than I am". Can't wait to see where Obama ends up in December 2016 when he turns over to the next president. Yeah but you got to agree that the "hope and change" part is more demagogic than anything. The US has this quality to still believe in its politics, but in France a guy was elected president with the same moto (change) and was called flamby (a yogurt) by half of the people that elected him. The problem is not Obama nor the republican, it's the representative democracy game that is a complete failure, voting for people that then can do whatever they please. It only works in countries where everybody agree on everything, or where most of the country is too disciplined to say anything. The constitution in most countries is now a legal act that protect the political class from the people, and not the opposite : "you can give your point of view in five years". | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 19 2014 14:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote: *gasp* what monsters! Better force them back where they belong! Kidding aside, could you explain your post? I wasn't suggesting a national policy of "just fucking move already". It was an opinion on a specific situation; what sounded like a particularly bad school and a parent who didn't like it. Surely you aren't suggesting that moving to a better neighborhood is never a good idea. So what, in this specific case, makes moving a 'silly' idea? To nunez: censored, the definitions were not. Consider correct computations on incorrectly defined terms. Though the maths may be correct, the answers are not. moving is not the silly idea. it's the idea of thinking it's reasonable to expect the guy to move. there may be constraints. basic supply and demand would have it that a generally good idea (moving) will also be a costly idea. i mean by saying the present neighborhood sucks the desire to move is already implied. why did he not move yet? that seems to be the problem and your post skips over that in a rather haughty way. | ||
| ||
