US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3522

On April 02 2016 18:36 SK.Testie wrote:


If people are unloading a bullets from a car which can result in situations like this:
+ Show Spoiler +
I genuinely do not care if they catch a bullet firing back. Nor if society wishes to punish them for that instead of attempting to reform them.



I'd argue it's based in empathy for the victims and less towards the perpetrators. I love a feel good story about prisoners who interacted with their first dogs and dance lessons and became more human again, but violent offenders are especially reprehensible. Watch enough crazy shit on liveleak and you'll just want violent freaks out of your society any way possible.

On April 02 2016 18:51 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
Not that Tolkien is wrong. The stuff Testie is arguing is probably shortening the lifespan of our braincells, since it is fucked up and obviously wrong. Sometimes the best way to address stuff like this is simply to say it's stupid.

In 1995, the Alabama Department of Corrections reinstituted the chain gang in its prison system. State officials, riding a wave of “get tough” sentiment and presumably eager for media attention, began chaining inmates together in leg irons and having them crush limestone while being guarded by shotgun-toting officers. One might have thought that U.S. society had evolved to the point where such a practice would be inherently viewed as uncivilized, but apparently not.

In the weeks following the inception of the chain gang, I received numerous calls from reporters and producers. Many were just looking for the best “visuals” for the story, but a few of the more conscientious ones asked if I could aid them by providing research on the “effectiveness” of chain gangs. No such research exists—humiliation and control, not effectiveness, have always been the goal of such policies.

The confusion did not end there. Next came the producers for the network morning shows and talk shows to set up debates on the issue. Typically, they had no shortage of articulate spokespersons ready to castigate the prison officials, but they had tremendous difficulty finding an advocate for chain gangs. Could I help, they inquired, in finding such an individual? While I had little interest in being of assistance in this regard, it also seemed to me that they were missing a more fundamental issue.

The problem here was that there are not two sides to this issue, at least not in any responsible sense. Reasonable people may differ on the value of imprisonment or even the death penalty, but no reputable scholar or criminal justice official would even dignify the concept of chain gangs through such a “debate.” The producers understand this, of course, but they also understand that such theatrics make for good television.

Mauer, Marc (2006-04-28). Race to Incarcerate (Kindle Locations 2868-2882). The New Press. Kindle Edition.

That crack-addicted mother gave birth to these delinquents. And the city decided to pay them to not commit crime instead of giving them a well deserved bullet to the brain.

i dont even agree with him but seeing this dismissive superior attitude just pisses me off

On April 02 2016 12:18 Nyxisto wrote:

what biases?

On April 02 2016 18:07 SK.Testie wrote:


This sounds a little too commie to me. Especially the "your" money part.

Society granted you the opportunity to do what you did in that society. True. But you repaid that debt with a lifetime of hard work.

Society doesn't necessarily owe you anything, true. You are not entitled to recognition, also true. I can see why you're in France. Sacrificing liberty? Doesn't sound very American to me.

But after all your hard work, you should be able to pass on what you earned to whom you think deserves it.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/01/news/millionaires-fleeing-france/index.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax

On April 02 2016 22:08 OtherWorld wrote:

Yet even as an American you are sacrificing liberty by the sole fact of being American. You have to abide by laws you did not decide. You have to go to war if your government decide you should. You have to pay taxes to ensure law enforcement is properly funded. Etc. Despite that sickening belief that a society should never sacrifice personal liberty for security.

And yeah, even with all that "hard work" thing (which is a complete illusion, because it doesn't mean anything), you can't deny the fact that you can't earn money independently of society, thus you are 100% tributary of society for the money you earned. On the contrary, unless you make money by showing your children on the TV or some shit, your children have nothing to do with the money you earned.

On April 02 2016 23:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Here is the issue. If I gave my kids cash, no one bats an eye. But if I died and kids get my money, everyone suddenly wants a piece of it and freaks out--but only if its my money and not theirs because I apparently am part of a demographic whose only purpose is to support people who make worse decisions than me?

On April 02 2016 23:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Here is the issue. If I gave my kids cash, no one bats an eye. But if I died and kids get my money, everyone suddenly wants a piece of it and freaks out--but only if its my money and not theirs because I apparently am part of a demographic whose only purpose is to support people who make worse decisions than me?

On April 02 2016 23:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Can some eloquent conservative explain to me how people combine the beliefs that
a) inheritance tax is wrong
b) the self-made man is the ideal
c) society benefits from people being willing to take great risks and this should be encouraged through allowing people to keep a large majority of the profits they make through making smart and risky investments

I don't have a problem with the logical foundation of either one of these statements, but I don't understand how they combine into a cohesive political point of view. Like, I understand how one's family can be considered an extension of one's self. But that doesn't go well with idealizing the self-made man - because then you acknowledge that your own success or failure is largely derived from your family. I understand how the self-made man is the ideal - there is indeed something intrinsically empowering about believing that you have the power to make life better for yourself through hard work and smart efforts. (Although I also believe it's very depressing when your starting point was so bad that hard work and smart efforts do not pay off, which is also often true. ) I also understand how some great societal improvements have happened in part due to great-minded individuals who were willing to go against the established norms and ideas and who risked everything and only reaped the rewards of their efforts many years down the line.

But how does go along with opposition to any inheritance tax? So called 'old money' is notoriously risk-averse - they are so wealthy that they do not need to take risks to have the money to do everything they want to - they simply need to preserve what they have to secure the future of themselves and the next generations and install in the next generation a similar risk-aversion. It seems to me that if you want people to make risky, society-improving investments, and you idealize people becoming wealthy and successful through their own efforts, then inheritance tax is a method of somewhat leveling the playing field so that more people will have the opportunity to become self-made success stories?

And I'm obviously not talking about a 100% inheritance tax, because indeed, the desire to provide for ones children and grandchildren is sometimes a significant motivator for people attaining significant wealth. However, I would argue that if you are left with 100% of sum below $3.5 million and 35% of money above that (which is the most radical suggestion by any politician?), then any child of a multi-millionaire is still absolutely provided for and any parent should not feel disincentived..? How does any Trumpeteer justify supporting the complete removal of inheritance tax?

On April 02 2016 23:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Can some eloquent conservative explain to me how people combine the beliefs that
a) inheritance tax is wrong
b) the self-made man is the ideal
c) society benefits from people being willing to take great risks and this should be encouraged through allowing people to keep a large majority of the profits they make through making smart and risky investments

I don't have a problem with the logical foundation of either one of these statements, but I don't understand how they combine into a cohesive political point of view. Like, I understand how one's family can be considered an extension of one's self. But that doesn't go well with idealizing the self-made man - because then you acknowledge that your own success or failure is largely derived from your family. I understand how the self-made man is the ideal - there is indeed something intrinsically empowering about believing that you have the power to make life better for yourself through hard work and smart efforts. (Although I also believe it's very depressing when your starting point was so bad that hard work and smart efforts do not pay off, which is also often true. ) I also understand how some great societal improvements have happened in part due to great-minded individuals who were willing to go against the established norms and ideas and who risked everything and only reaped the rewards of their efforts many years down the line.

But how does go along with opposition to any inheritance tax? So called 'old money' is notoriously risk-averse - they are so wealthy that they do not need to take risks to have the money to do everything they want to - they simply need to preserve what they have to secure the future of themselves and the next generations and install in the next generation a similar risk-aversion. It seems to me that if you want people to make risky, society-improving investments, and you idealize people becoming wealthy and successful through their own efforts, then inheritance tax is a method of somewhat leveling the playing field so that more people will have the opportunity to become self-made success stories?

And I'm obviously not talking about a 100% inheritance tax, because indeed, the desire to provide for ones children and grandchildren is sometimes a significant motivator for people attaining significant wealth. However, I would argue that if you are left with 100% of sum below $3.5 million and 35% of money above that (which is the most radical suggestion by any politician?), then any child of a multi-millionaire is still absolutely provided for and any parent should not feel disincentived..? How does any Trumpeteer justify supporting the complete removal of inheritance tax?

On April 03 2016 00:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but if you are opposed to all taxation but say, you realize that government does actually require SOME amount of money (say if only for funding military and infrastructure), should you not still favor inheritance tax over income taxes?

Like I can get if you are just pragmatically opposed to inheritance taxes because you think they will always be added on top of income taxes, but what if in theory all additional inheritance taxes was offset by an equal decrease in income taxes. Would you not favor this?

The Pinocchio Test

The Sanders campaign is exaggerating the contributions that Clinton has received from the oil and gas industry. In the context of her overall campaign, the contributions are hardly significant. It’s especially misleading to count all of the funds raised by lobbyists with multiple clients as money “given” by the fossil-fuel industry.

Three pinocchios