EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1333
| 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. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On October 06 2014 01:14 farvacola wrote: Marriage and guns are different, particularly when it comes to probate issues. Nice false equivalency, Millitron. Not really. States against gay marriage do not agree with the validity of gay marriage licenses. States which are pro gun-control do not agree with the validity of carry licenses. Probate issues have nothing to do with it. In fact, pretty much all other licenses are reciprocal. On October 06 2014 01:23 Nyxisto wrote: When these federal law vs state things come up I'm always baffled. I mean you can basically buy pot in a completely legal store depending on what state you are in, and if you happen to cross the wrong border you almost get your head chopped off for it. I think federalization in some regards wouldn't be a bad idea, I think a unified country should have a stronger baseline. The Feds raid those "legal" stores pretty often. Pot being legal in some state just means that state's law enforcement won't bust you for it. The Feds still can and will. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23984 Posts
On October 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote: Not really. States against gay marriage do not agree with the validity of gay marriage licenses. States which are pro gun-control do not agree with the validity of carry licenses. Probate issues have nothing to do with it. In fact, pretty much all other licenses are reciprocal. Plenty of licenses have to be obtained state to state. Of course having a license from another state usually makes it easier to obtain in other states, that goes for guns too. The federal government doesn't change your status if you buy a gun. If you get married however, the federal government under the law treats you differently. So it wouldn't make sense for states to refuse to recognize the marriage since it would allow them to deny federally sponsored state money for benefits and the like. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On October 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote: Not really. States against gay marriage do not agree with the validity of gay marriage licenses. States which are pro gun-control do not agree with the validity of carry licenses. Probate issues have nothing to do with it. In fact, pretty much all other licenses are reciprocal. The Feds raid those "legal" stores pretty often. Pot being legal in some state just means that state's law enforcement won't bust you for it. The Feds still can and will. States aren't beings and can't be against something, don't be silly. And simply repeating the word license over and over again does not necessitate an equivalency; the issues surrounding the recognition of a marriage license are incredibly different than those surrounding gun licenses, and this fact is being put nicely on display throughout the country as states are grappling with, and generally acceding to, the marriage licensing practices of other states. Consequently, the mere fact that you personally believe that the two are to be subsumed by some general understanding of state license recognition does not an argument make. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On October 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote: Not really. States against gay marriage do not agree with the validity of gay marriage licenses. States which are pro gun-control do not agree with the validity of carry licenses. Probate issues have nothing to do with it. In fact, pretty much all other licenses are reciprocal. The Feds raid those "legal" stores pretty often. Pot being legal in some state just means that state's law enforcement won't bust you for it. The Feds still can and will. You're still making a false equivalency. States have to follow federal law. States do not have to follow the laws of other states. If they did there wouldn't be much of a point to having different state governments. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On October 06 2014 01:30 farvacola wrote: States aren't beings and can't be against something, don't be silly. And simply repeating the word license over and over again does not necessitate an equivalency; the issues surrounding the recognition of a marriage license are incredibly different than those surrounding gun licenses, and this fact is being put nicely on display throughout the country as states are grappling with, and generally acceding to, the marriage licensing practices of other states. Consequently, the mere fact that you personally believe that the two are to be subsumed by some general understanding of state license recognition does not an argument make. Simply repeating that this is a false equivalency doesn't mean its so. "States aren't beings and can't be against something" is kinda ridiculous. A state ban on gay marriage sure sounds like the state is against gay marriage. Go google the Full Faith and Credit Clause please. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On October 06 2014 01:48 Millitron wrote: Simply repeating that this is a false equivalency doesn't mean its so. "States aren't beings and can't be against something" is kinda ridiculous. A state ban on gay marriage sure sounds like the state is against gay marriage. Go google the Full Faith and Credit Clause please. For a third time, localized gun licenses have no root in federal law. Therefore they do not supersede laws in other states. Drivers licenses do, and therefore they can be used in other states. Marriage licenses are federal, and can be used in other states. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On October 06 2014 01:48 Millitron wrote: I don't even need to do your work for you in order to correctly state that the FF&C clause's application to marriage licenses is an unresolved judicial issue, with the latest precedent coming out of Ohio after a gay couple successfully sued to have the state recognize an out-of-state license granting them marriage rights. So, in favor of the notion that marriage licenses are to be treated differently than other licenses is the fact that not a single court in the United States has issued a marriage license-related judgment that cites to anything even remotely like the 2nd Amendment or its constituent legislation. Furthermore, there exists precedent flowing from the Federal Southern District of Ohio that further differentiates marriage and gun licenses. So, go ahead and make that argument that you've been eliciting in absentia, preferably with something more substantial than face-value equivocations and laziness this time. Simply repeating that this is a false equivalency doesn't mean its so. "States aren't beings and can't be against something" is kinda ridiculous. A state ban on gay marriage sure sounds like the state is against gay marriage. Go google the Full Faith and Credit Clause please. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 05 2014 16:52 WhiteDog wrote: This is all a piss poor vision of reality. + Show Spoiler + Starting with 100 000 $ doesn't mean much. What you need to consider is : the education (cultural capital), the network (social capital) and the economic capital. All those three are needed to succeed. There are plenty of people that could get their hands on 100 000 but who would not know the people that could help them find the right investment. This is why Fortune's article is a joke, because you cannot say that someone is "self made" if you don't take into consideration his scolarship (which is both financial capital, since you need to pay for it, but also social and cultural since it gives you access to those two things). A kid that made Harvard is not self made and that is a pretty obvious thing to say. Now maybe, maybe, if you take all that into consideration, you will find one or two people who actually came from the working mass and became millionnaire, or billionnaire - people that you can consider "self made" - and that is just pure luck and hasard, the kind of things that happens and exist in reality. For the rest in the list, it is just another way to acquire the benefit of your capitals, not only monetary, but also cultural and social. I'll give you an exemple. Mr Macron is the new minister of economy in France and is a millionnaire. He was just another public workers with a high degree (he came from a french school that product shit mass media politicians who run and ruin the country since 30 years) and gaining 4k € a month but, because he is a cock sucker, sucked the right person and got into a commission. In this commission he then met a guy (Jacque Attali, a shitbag economist who is still somehow interviwed because he has the social capital you know) who proposed him to get into a job at the rotschild bank. He agreed and continued his carreer of cocksucking, and got into the rotschild where he participated to a deal between nestlé and I dont know which company, a billion dollars deal where he got a certain amount to the point that he is now a millionnaire. Explain me, what's so amazing about this ? Where or when did he create any wealth ? That's how rich people are made today. We're not talking about entrepreneurship, for the most part, but just people that use the variety of their capitals (social, cultural and economical) to get in a position where they just have to stretch the hand to get filthy rich. And to me that's both a moral and an economic problem. That's entirely the problem. I'm trying to look at the situation objectively and people like you and GH want to impose your political view. You want to arbitrarily set definitions and twist the context so that your 'view', or 'side' appears correct. A quick rundown: Having someone to help you find a home for a $100,000 investment can be valuable, but not on the scale that we're talking about. You can't just 'know a guy' who can get you a 40,000X return. No, the Forbes article did take things like family background into consideration. The idea that if you are born above an arbitrary stating point your actions cease to carry meaning is absurd. It's amazing that I have to keep going back to the trough of pointing out obvious things, but we aren't talking about someone who went to Harvard and became a moderately successful middle manager. We're talking about someone who went to Harvard and rose far above his initial social status. Why don't you tell me what Mr. Macron did? It sounds like he worked absurd hours on complex investment banking projects. Not too abnormal to make a lot doing that. On its face it's a job that creates a lot of wealth and pays very well for the work done. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 06 2014 02:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote: That's entirely the problem. I'm trying to look at the situation objectively and people like you and GH want to impose your political view. You want to arbitrarily set definitions and twist the context so that your 'view', or 'side' appears correct. A quick rundown: Having someone to help you find a home for a $100,000 investment can be valuable, but not on the scale that we're talking about. You can't just 'know a guy' who can get you a 40,000X return. No, the Forbes article did take things like family background into consideration. The idea that if you are born above an arbitrary stating point your actions cease to carry meaning is absurd. It's amazing that I have to keep going back to the trough of pointing out obvious things, but we aren't talking about someone who went to Harvard and became a moderately successful middle manager. We're talking about someone who went to Harvard and rose far above his initial social status. Why don't you tell me what Mr. Macron did? It sounds like he worked absurd hours on complex investment banking projects. Not too abnormal to make a lot doing that. On its face it's a job that creates a lot of wealth and pays very well for the work done. You're not objective, and you never were in any of your previous posts. Maybe you don't know, but my point about cultural and social capital is documented : it's not my subjective point of view on the subject, but the result of empirical data on how to represent the social space and on how to explain academic result. When you consider someone such as Bill Gates to be "self made" it proves how the "study" or your so called "objectivity" is biased. He is the son of a lawyer and his mother was already at the direction of some kind of firm. That the return is 10x the initial investment or 40x is irrelevant to our discussion : he was already in the top 1%, and that situation made his investment possible. From a social status perspective, he didn't move an inch from his birth position. Does someone not from havard would have got the necessary credit to start his firm ? Would he have a big enough network to actually start a company and attract talent ? Sure if you simplify reality to a point where all that matter is the rate of growth of their capital assets, then well they are all genius ! It's not that their actions does not carry any meaning, it's that all your actions are possible because of the context you were born in, just like someone who is born in another context would have other kind of dispositions. Macron may have worked absurd hours, or not, that's not the point. The point is there are plenty of people that could do the same thing, but those people work for "normal" wages (while working as much) because they don't have the position and the social capital to do so. That's his only added value and that's the reason he gain a hundred times more than average. That's like those rich investors who justify their positions because they "took the risk" at the right time. Their core quality is often defined this way : they take more risk than others. In fact they just throw money at the right time and the right moment, and while that's something that is needed in an economy, it does not justify the reward, and certainly was not made by them but by a global context that made the investment available to them at the right moment. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 06 2014 04:07 WhiteDog wrote: You're not objective, and you never were in any of your previous posts. Maybe you don't know, but my point about cultural and social capital is documented : it's not my subjective point of view on the subject, but the result of empirical data on how to represent the social space and on how to explain academic result. Maybe you don't know, but that's not a point under dispute. As I already said, no one is disputing that being born with more is more advantageous than being born with less. When you consider someone such as Bill Gates to be "self made" it proves how the "study" or your so called "objectivity" is biased. He is the son of a lawyer and his mother was already at the direction of some kind of firm. That the return is 10x the initial investment or 40x is irrelevant to our discussion : he was already in the top 1%, and that situation made his investment possible. From a social status perspective, he didn't move an inch from his birth position. Does someone not from havard would have got the necessary credit to start his firm ? Would he have a big enough network to actually start a company and attract talent ? Sure if you simplify reality to a point where all that matter is the rate of growth of their capital assets, then well they are all genius ! It's not that their actions does not carry any meaning, it's that all your actions are possible because of the context you were born in, just like someone who is born in another context would have other kind of dispositions. Whether Gates started out in the top 1% is in dispute so you can't state it as a fact. You are also wrong to say that Gates didn't move an inch from his birth position, even if he started in the top 1%. There's zero reason to think that he started in the top 400 or that the top 3 million is equivalent to the top 400. Did going to Harvard confer advantages? Sure, but again, that's not something in dispute. The part where you're wrong is when you say 'your actions are possible because of the context you were born in' because Gates' context did not point to becoming a billionaire as a common outcome. On a relative scale, someone becoming a millionaire from the context of poverty is about as impressive. Macron may have worked absurd hours, or not, that's not the point. The point is there are plenty of people that could do the same thing, but those people work for "normal" wages (while working as much) because they don't have the position and the social capital to do so. That's his only added value and that's the reason he gain a hundred times more than average. That's a lame point. Macron worked his way into his position, but you don't like him so he 'sucked cock' to get there. That's like those rich investors who justify their positions because they "took the risk" at the right time. Their core quality is often defined this way : they take more risk than others. In fact they just throw money at the right time and the right moment, and while that's something that is needed in an economy, it does not justify the reward, and certainly was not made by them but by a global context that made the investment available to them at the right moment. You almost never get super-rich just from taking risk with capital. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On October 06 2014 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Did going to Harvard confer advantages? Sure, but again, that's not something in dispute. The part where you're wrong is when you say 'your actions are possible because of the context you were born in' because Gates' context did not point to becoming a billionaire as a common outcome. On a relative scale, someone becoming a millionaire from the context of poverty is about as impressive. Right, and his point is about the deck being stacked against people in poverty. The point is that American opportunity ought to mean people who are "self-made" from all kinds of backgrounds being able to rise to the upper echelons of wealth. Saying that the Hapsburgs deserved to rule Europe because they started out as counts and that's "impressive" is beside the point when the discussion is that Middle Ages/Renaissance Europe had terrible income inequality and social mobility. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 06 2014 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Maybe you don't know, but that's not a point under dispute. As I already said, no one is disputing that being born with more is more advantageous than being born with less. When you have an advantage, you're not self made. If not where does the advantage comes from ? Whether Gates started out in the top 1% is in dispute so you can't state it as a fact. You are also wrong to say that Gates didn't move an inch from his birth position, even if he started in the top 1%. There's zero reason to think that he started in the top 400 or that the top 3 million is equivalent to the top 400. So how do you evaluate the social status of someone at birth ? His capital assets only ? Personally I look at : job of the parents (bill gates is okay with lawyer and ceo) education (harvard can you do better ?) From that perspective he is already at the top of the world. The heritage is not enough to truly understand where someone comes from. In fact from a sociological standpoint, it very important to see the entire structure of the capitals of someone, and analyze the possibility of substitution from one capital to another : how a rich uneducated invest money into giving cultural capital to its children, and how the child of a teacher has cultural capital and will try to exchange it for economic capital (and again that's also Gates' situation). Did going to Harvard confer advantages? Sure, but again, that's not something in dispute. The part where you're wrong is when you say 'your actions are possible because of the context you were born in' because Gates' context did not point to becoming a billionaire as a common outcome. On a relative scale, someone becoming a millionaire from the context of poverty is about as impressive. The question is : would Gates have become a billionnaire if he was not born in the 1 % ? I believe the answer is obvious. And no, I find it way more impressive to become a millionnaire from poverty because that's the kind of thing that rarely happen at all. That's a lame point. Macron worked his way into his position, but you don't like him so he 'sucked cock' to get there. He didn't create any wealth tho, or maybe you consider sucking cock as a service that create non market value and thus could be evaluated in the GDP. It's a job that stimulate growth after all ! | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23984 Posts
Lakeside tuition for the 2014-15 school year is $29,800. Source There were fewer jobs and they paid less last year, except at the very top where, the number of people making more than $1 million increased by 20 percent over 2009. The median paycheck — half made more, half less — fell again in 2010, down 1.2 percent to $26,364. That works out to $507 a week, the lowest level, after adjusting for inflation, since 1999. Source So Gates used his first computer at a school that cost more per year than half of Americans make. It wasn't just a Harvard education (that his father payed in full, where he met Ballmer) that gave him advantages most Americans simply can't have. The idea that someone who goes to a private school that costs more than MOST other parents make in a whole year and goes on to make billions is 'about as impressive' as making billions from being an orphan/impoverished child conveys a complete lack of understanding of the issue. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Kansas independent Greg Orman continues to hold an edge in his quest to unseat Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), according to most recent surveys on the race. An NBC/Marist poll released Sunday finds Orman leading Roberts by 10 points, 48 percent to 38 percent, among likely voters. Five percent chose libertarian Randall Batson, and the remaining voters were undecided or opting for yet another candidate. Orman's lead speaks to the depth of the image problem faced by Roberts, who this year fended off an acrimonious tea party challenge, as well as criticism following the revelation that he didn't own a home in Kansas. According to the NBC/Marist poll, likely voters view Roberts unfavorably by a 10-point margin. In contrast, they view Orman favorably by a 20-point margin -- although one-quarter still don't have an opinion of him. More than half of those who support Orman said they do so mainly because they dislike Roberts. The survey also shows a more general sense of disaffection toward the GOP. While Democrats are about as unpopular as you might expect in Kansas -- 54 percent of registered voters disapprove of Barack Obama's record as president -- voters are also 6 points more likely to disapprove of Republicans in Congress than of Democrats in Congress. Most polling has found Orman ahead by several points since the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that Democrat Chad Taylor, who withdrew from the race, could remove his name from the ballot, but NBC/Marist results give him his largest advantage to date. Source | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 06 2014 05:21 WhiteDog wrote: When you have an advantage, you're not self made. If not where does the advantage comes from ? No and I've tried to explain this a few times. We are trying to differentiate between inherited wealth and self-made wealth. If you define 'self-made' as 'not born above X social status' it doesn't work. Being born poor and ending poor doesn't make you 'self-made'. That standard just isn't fit for purpose. So we have to take multiple variables into account - place of birth, the advantages conferred and what the person did with those advantages. Moreover, we can't classify everyone born into 'more money than I' as not self-made because than Gates gets lumped into the same category as Paris Hilton, which is clearly ridiculous. Again, we're trying to differentiate between inherited and self-made wealth so we have to take into account what people did with their advantages. Somewhat on a side note, we all have advantages. Even if you're born poor in the US you're still way better off, and have far more advantages than being born poor in Bangladesh. But that doesn't mean that what you do deserves no merit. So how do you evaluate the social status of someone at birth ? His capital assets only ? Personally I look at : job of the parents (bill gates is okay with lawyer and ceo) education (harvard can you do better ?) From that perspective he is already at the top of the world. The heritage is not enough to truly understand where someone comes from. In fact from a sociological standpoint, it very important to see the entire structure of the capitals of someone, and analyze the possibility of substitution from one capital to another : how a rich uneducated invest money into giving cultural capital to its children, and how the child of a teacher has cultural capital and will try to exchange it for economic capital (and again that's also Gates' situation). Lawyer with member of a board, not CEO. Status wise pretty comparable, but BoD pays a small fraction of what a CEO makes and isn't a full time job. As for Harvard, no one claims that Gates only got in because of birth. He was a smart guy too, and he dropped out, so not everything he knew came from Harvard. The question is : would Gates have become a billionnaire if he was not born in the 1 % ? I believe the answer is obvious. And no, I find it way more impressive to become a millionnaire from poverty because that's the kind of thing that rarely happen at all. It also rarely happens at all that someone from Gates' background becomes as wealthy as he did. He didn't create any wealth tho, or maybe you consider sucking cock as a service that create non market value and thus could be evaluated in the GDP. It's a job that stimulate growth after all ! I really don't know Macron. Can you source that he didn't do anything? Or is this 'he did finance stuff which is never real'? | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On October 06 2014 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: is it clearly ridiculous? Paris Hilton was born into wealth but that of her house, not personal wealth, but then she released a porn tape, which then catapulted to her self made wealth which she parlayed into a successful entertainment career on television and on the DJ circuit. So she is another successful self made millionaire, to you and Wolfstan anyway.Moreover, we can't classify everyone born into 'more money than I' as not self-made because than Gates gets lumped into the same category as Paris Hilton, which is clearly ridiculous. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 06 2014 08:10 Sub40APM wrote: is it clearly ridiculous? Paris Hilton was born into wealth but that of her house, not personal wealth, but then she released a porn tape, which then catapulted to her self made wealth which she parlayed into a successful entertainment career on television and on the DJ circuit. So she is another successful self made millionaire, to you and Wolfstan anyway. afaik Paris hasn't substantially increased her wealth on her own. And what she has done on her own is pretty light weight work (celeb endorsements, night club appearances, etc.) with a pretty clear link to her birth name (people only cared about her porn tape because of her name). | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On October 06 2014 09:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote: afaik Paris hasn't substantially increased her wealth on her own. And what she has done on her own is pretty light weight work (celeb endorsements, night club appearances, etc.) with a pretty clear link to her birth name (people only cared about her porn tape because of her name). She made tens of millions subsequent her porn tape. | ||
| ||
