|
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. |
On May 24 2016 12:00 SK.Testie wrote:
Is... is that a good thing overall?
Well some of the current thinking is that certain, fast punishments deter crime more than uncertain large punishments. (Particularly for people on parole, 0.5% chance of 20 years is probably less of a deterent than 100% chance of a month)
A civil case will be easier to convict you than a criminal case, and the process Could be quicker.
Hopefully, a quicker, more certain, smaller punishment will still deter the problem (broken windows) without ruining someone's life enough that they turn to full time crime.
|
|
|
|
|
On May 24 2016 12:27 Krikkitone wrote:
Hopefully, a quicker, more certain, smaller punishment will still deter the problem (broken windows) without ruining someone's life enough that they turn to full time crime.
the US system manufactures hardened criminals.
|
On May 24 2016 12:27 Krikkitone wrote:Well some of the current thinking is that certain, fast punishments deter crime more than uncertain large punishments. (Particularly for people on parole, 0.5% chance of 20 years is probably less of a deterent than 100% chance of a month) A civil case will be easier to convict you than a criminal case, and the process Could be quicker. Hopefully, a quicker, more certain, smaller punishment will still deter the problem (broken windows) without ruining someone's life enough that they turn to full time crime.
This is what they teach us in lawschool.
The rate of crime is much much more dependant on how likely you are to get caught for doing a crime than it is to the severity of the punishment.
|
On May 24 2016 14:54 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 12:27 Krikkitone wrote:On May 24 2016 12:00 SK.Testie wrote:
Is... is that a good thing overall? Well some of the current thinking is that certain, fast punishments deter crime more than uncertain large punishments. (Particularly for people on parole, 0.5% chance of 20 years is probably less of a deterent than 100% chance of a month) A civil case will be easier to convict you than a criminal case, and the process Could be quicker. Hopefully, a quicker, more certain, smaller punishment will still deter the problem (broken windows) without ruining someone's life enough that they turn to full time crime. This is what they teach us in lawschool. The rate of crime is much much more dependant on how likely you are to get caught for doing a crime than it is to the severity of the punishment.
This is probably the best defense I've heard for why they drastically under-report unsolved murders/assaults.
Not sure how many more examples of corporate media spreading propaganda Hillary supporters are going to need...
|
In the first 5 minutes of this podcast + Show Spoiler + Gary Johnson says that one of the problems with US politics is that people are only presented with 2 options, republican or democrat. I've been reading most of this thread for the past 2 months or so and all I read here are 3 names for the presidential race; Sanders, Clinton, and Trump. It seems that the consensus in this thread is to reluctantly support Clinton. There must be other options.
I'd like to hear what the opinion of the people here is on voting third party, and if there are any third party candidates worth listening to.
|
On May 24 2016 15:44 Thaniri wrote:In the first 5 minutes of this podcast + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQIuHGbKckY Gary Johnson says that one of the problems with US politics is that people are only presented with 2 options, republican or democrat. I've been reading most of this thread for the past 2 months or so and all I read here are 3 names for the presidential race; Sanders, Clinton, and Trump. It seems that the consensus in this thread is to reluctantly support Clinton. There must be other options. I'd like to hear what the opinion of the people here is on voting third party, and if there are any third party candidates worth listening to.
The problem with voting 3rd party is that it doesn't have enough support to win, but then draws voters away from their 2nd choice. And because it "doesn't have enough support to win", people refuse to support it in large enough numbers and thus it never wins on a national stage.
I would consider voting 3rd party if I disliked the Republican and Democrat both equally. However, if my favorite party was the Green party, but I liked the Democrat candidate more than the Republican, I'd be foolish to vote Green. By doing so, I'd be helping elect my least favorite choice.
The way the system works really forces it down to two parties. If you don't like either party, your best bet is to reform one of them from within, not run 3rd party. That's what Sanders is trying to do, but to no-one's surprise, the party would like to remain what it is.
|
Basically, FPTP is a bad system, but the people who could change that are also the people who win at the bad system, and thus they have absolutely no interest in changing it.
Voting third party in the US is pointless or even detrimental to your interests unless you manage to get a majority in some area. So a very strong local movement might work as a third party, an average national movement can never work. And even the strong local movement would need to become that strong between one election and the next, else the people who vote for it the first time around notice that it is not strong enough win and since their votes were wasted, some insane republican/commie democrat got elected, so they don't vote for it again.
|
On May 24 2016 15:44 Thaniri wrote:In the first 5 minutes of this podcast + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQIuHGbKckY Gary Johnson says that one of the problems with US politics is that people are only presented with 2 options, republican or democrat. I've been reading most of this thread for the past 2 months or so and all I read here are 3 names for the presidential race; Sanders, Clinton, and Trump. It seems that the consensus in this thread is to reluctantly support Clinton. There must be other options. I'd like to hear what the opinion of the people here is on voting third party, and if there are any third party candidates worth listening to.
I voted 3rd party last election. I consider most of my values libertarian and voted for gary johnson. However, it felt like my vote didn't count and i don't think I'll go that route again unless I really despise both candidates. Last election, i didn't care for obama, and I hated Romney.
|
A third party would be fine for the US in both houses of congress, but would muck up the current system for the president. It could work, but we would need two rounds of voting to thin the field. I don’t think I would be comfortable with anyone in that office unless they won with only 40% of the vote.
|
Considering switching to approval voting, or some other voting scheme, is one of the many things we could really use a constitutional convention to ponder.
PS you can also vote 3rd party if your state is a lock for one side or the other.
|
On May 24 2016 22:21 Plansix wrote:
A third party would be fine for the US in both houses of congress, but would muck up the current system for the president. It could work, but we would need two rounds of voting to thin the field. I don’t think I would be comfortable with anyone in that office unless they won with only 40% of the vote.
It's very possible that neither leading nominee would get over 40% this election.
Only 40% of registered voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton while 51% have an
unfavorable view. These results have been fairly stable...
Monmouth also tested a potential three-way race involving Clinton, Trump, and former GOP
governor, now Libertarian, Gary Johnson. In this hypothetical contest, Clinton earns 42% of the vote
Poll from March
|
Not to get into the woods with methods of voting, but the goal of the election is to facilitate a clear transfer of power between terms. Any system that is weighted or works off of something other than a clear majority risks diminishing the popular mandate given through winning the election. The goal of the election is not only to transfer power through majority mandate, but also to maintain trust in that system. This is why Bush v Gore was instantly booted by the Supreme Court, because they knew the danger of being perceived as king maker.
But I think that form of voting system would be useful for public pooling on how systems should operate.
Edit: Almost every news site worth listening to has pointed out that pooling has been inaccurate at this stage of the game. People like options and express that through pools, but often do not express what they would accept as alternatives. Polling matters more later, when both nomination are locked in.
|
I think the attacks on Clinton's debate attendance ends up being a great example of the attacks against her. Did she say she'd do lots of debates? Absolutely. Does it make even the slightest bit of sense the democratic party to have a debate right now? Not in the slightest. The idea that voters deserve as much information as possible is a distraction because it ignores the fact that everyone has had plenty of information and people do not need to be spoken to in person. The election is decided. Clinton has been campaigning in general election states for over a month.
Bernie is still trying to put on a show so that he can make demands from the party. That is not the same thing as the primary being competitive. Asking the nominee to play along with with his silly performance is stupid. I'm glad she just straight up said no. Clinton being in a position where she can say no to Bernie frames such a grim picture and actually hurts his campaign. It makes it more abundantly clear that he's just straight up not competitive at this point. I think it will go on to reinforce what we already saw in Oregon: A large deflating in Sanders enthusiasm. The amount of people who are only interested in politics when they think their favorite guy has a chance is so huge. I think Clinton will finish with a nice clean 8% lead.
Also, anyone been keeping up with Bernie's finances? Broke as a joke.
For the first time this year, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton out-fundraised the Vermont senator. Sanders still brought in a healthy $25.8 million in April, his campaign said, but it's a steep drop from his record-smashing hauls in February and March, $43.5 million and $46 million, respectively.
The former secretary of state, meanwhile, collected $26.4 million in April, her campaign said. She also raised $9.5 million for Democratic candidates and for state parties through her joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-02/as-donations-fall-sanders-loses-april-fundraising-to-clinton
It's going to be amazing seeing how things go down for May. Anyone wanna make any predictions how much Bernie was able to raise? I predict less than $20 million.
Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
Monmouth also tested a potential three-way race involving Clinton, Trump, and former GOP
governor, now Libertarian, Gary Johnson. In this hypothetical contest, Clinton earns 42% of the vote Poll from March
This is pre-Obama, pre-Sanders and pre-Warren. All 3 will be campaigning for Clinton.
|
On May 24 2016 08:22 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 07:44 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 24 2016 07:13 cLutZ wrote:On May 24 2016 07:03 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 24 2016 06:52 WhiteDog wrote:Modern agent-based modelling, for instance (which has the potential to tackle one of the common criticisms of the economic "rational actor" and of social sciences in general), was born out of game theory and computational sociology, and, with further refinement, has major implications for social science and fields like biology/ecology. What's the definite use of agent based modelling ? Agent modelling is mainly used in microeconomy, it has some use in regards to various micro problems like insurance. It's very weak to understand anything relevant from a macroeconomic standpoint. Just saying, but let's take an exemple : principal agent models all conclude that social insurance system are inefficient due to information asymetry, while we know that the opposite is true. You're deluding yourself into thinking such models are solid enough that they can change social sciences. In fact, in social sciences, models cannot be fully proven, but cannot be discarded either : social sciences are not popperian, you can't "refute" what is historical. There is no objective way to discard a model. So the new goal post is that if can't discard a model its not science? Looking at LT's applications of "feminist modes and frames of analysis" As noted, I have not seriously studied in the field, but I have examined, for instance, Latin American history through a feminist/gendered lens to understand societal constructs of the time. It was quite useful as a added mode of analysis in that history/humanities course. I have no comments on it's value as a social science. No, I was just saying the two activities behave so differently, require such different skillsets, and have such different procedures that calling them one thing (in this case science) is not good application of language. Its like grouping Horses and Cuttlefish in the same taxonomic group. You can do it by being incredibly broad, but that category confers very little information then about what it describes. It seems to me that one category, social studies, wants to (and I feel silly using this word because its so overused) appropriate the legitimacy the public has ascribed the the word "science" to their own works.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you've ever done research in social science. You do not know what you are talking about.
In other news:
U.S. Strike on Taliban Leader Is Seen as a Message to Pakistan
Early on Saturday, a middle-aged Pashtun man used forged documents to cross from Iran into Pakistan. A few hours later, on a lonely stretch of highway, he was incinerated by an American drone.
It is not exactly clear how the Americans tracked Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, leader of the Afghan Taliban, to a white sedan rattling across the arid expanse of Baluchistan Province. The United States picked up a mix of phone intercepts and tips from sources, American and European officials said, and there were reports that Pakistan also provided intelligence. President Obama described Mullah Mansour’s death on Monday as an “important milestone” — but the strike was also an illustration of the tangled relationship between Washington and Islamabad.
Not since Mr. Obama ordered Navy SEALs to hunt down Osama bin Laden in May 2011 has he authorized a military incursion in Pakistan as audacious as this one. The White House did not inform the Pakistanis in advance of the operation, which occurred outside the frontier region near Afghanistan, the one place where Pakistan has tolerated American drone strikes in the past.
By using the military’s Joint Special Operations Command rather than the C.I.A. to carry out the attack, the United States denied Pakistan the fig leaf of a covert operation, which in the past has given the Pakistanis the ability to claim they had been consulted beforehand.
The fact that the top official of Afghanistan’s Taliban was able to travel freely through Pakistan, and even into Iran, contradicted years of denials by Pakistani officials that they were harboring Taliban leaders. Mr. Obama offered no apology for the decision to strike Mullah Mansour in Pakistani territory, saying it was a simple case of self-defense. [...]
To many outside experts, it sent an equally powerful message to Pakistan. On Monday, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry summoned the American ambassador, David Hale, to lodge a protest for what it said was a “violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty.” [...]
Source
|
On May 24 2016 23:30 Mohdoo wrote:I think the attacks on Clinton's debate attendance ends up being a great example of the attacks against her. Did she say she'd do lots of debates? Absolutely. Does it make even the slightest bit of sense the democratic party to have a debate right now? Not in the slightest. The idea that voters deserve as much information as possible is a distraction because it ignores the fact that everyone has had plenty of information and people do not need to be spoken to in person. The election is decided. Clinton has been campaigning in general election states for over a month. Bernie is still trying to put on a show so that he can make demands from the party. That is not the same thing as the primary being competitive. Asking the nominee to play along with with his silly performance is stupid. I'm glad she just straight up said no. Clinton being in a position where she can say no to Bernie frames such a grim picture and actually hurts his campaign. It makes it more abundantly clear that he's just straight up not competitive at this point. I think it will go on to reinforce what we already saw in Oregon: A large deflating in Sanders enthusiasm. The amount of people who are only interested in politics when they think their favorite guy has a chance is so huge. I think Clinton will finish with a nice clean 8% lead. Also, anyone been keeping up with Bernie's finances? Broke as a joke. Show nested quote +
For the first time this year, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton out-fundraised the Vermont senator. Sanders still brought in a healthy $25.8 million in April, his campaign said, but it's a steep drop from his record-smashing hauls in February and March, $43.5 million and $46 million, respectively.
The former secretary of state, meanwhile, collected $26.4 million in April, her campaign said. She also raised $9.5 million for Democratic candidates and for state parties through her joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-02/as-donations-fall-sanders-loses-april-fundraising-to-clintonIt's going to be amazing seeing how things go down for May. Anyone wanna make any predictions how much Bernie was able to raise? I predict less than $20 million. Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
Monmouth also tested a potential three-way race involving Clinton, Trump, and former GOP
governor, now Libertarian, Gary Johnson. In this hypothetical contest, Clinton earns 42% of the vote Poll from March This is pre-Obama, pre-Sanders and pre-Warren. All 3 will be campaigning for Clinton.
Clinton specifically agreed to 4 debates and has had 3. She also said candidates should be willing to debate if they are in her position. Like virtually every position of Hillary's, when it benefits her politically, she'll abandon any promise, and undermine any previous statement.
As for fundraising, the guy had virtually 0 name recognition and is raising basically the same campaign cash as the most established politician of the day. He's raised an unprecedented amount of money the way he has and has outraised Hillary this year by 10's of millions of dollars, but yeah let's celebrate him raising only nearly as much as Hillary did for her campaign in a particular month as "broke as a joke"
I'll take the $9 mill her campaign says they raised for down ticket with a huge pile of salt, considering the first time it turned out virtually none of it was actually theirs to spend, (it just got funneled back to Hillary)
Bernie raised $250k for DWS's replacement with a single email and he's going to get to spend that all on his campaign, not have to send it back to Bernie like Hillary does when she "helps" down ticket candidates.
|
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted.
|
This election will be who votes for the 3rd party more that's why I said, and still predict, that Angela Grimes will be walking back her comments during the Kentucky Primary and criss crossing the country trying to drum up Sander supporters. As for DWS. if she's smart, she'll disappear and keep her mouth shut and stop giving interviews to the press.
The two candidates likely to square off in November's general election are both disliked or even hated by roughly six in 10 Americans, according to the results of the latest weekly NBC News/SurveyMonkey tracking poll out Tuesday.
Asked their feelings about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, just 17 percent said they admired the former secretary of state, while 10 percent said the same of the reality TV star-turned-presumptive Republican nominee. About one in four said they like Clinton or Trump but do not admire them. Another 37 percent and 39 percent said they dislike but do not hate Clinton and Trump, respectively, while 21 percent said they hate Clinton and 24 percent said they hate Trump.
The poll released Tuesday would not appear to be an outlier in that respect. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey released earlier this week found that both candidates are the least popular in the history of the poll. Clinton's favorability rating in that poll is a net -20 points (34 percent to 54 percent), while Trump's is even lower, at -29 points (29 percent to 58 percent). Those figures are actually improvements of four and 12 points, respectively, for both Clinton and Trump.
And in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll released Sunday, 57 percent each said they had an unfavorable opinion of Clinton and Trump. Of the 57 percent, 46 percent said they had a strongly unfavorable opinion of Clinton and 45 percent said the same of Trump.
Source
|
On May 23 2016 09:53 Jaaaaasper wrote:
I mean if Pakistan wasn't so thoroughly in bed with the Taliban this stuff wouldn't happen.
I think you are somewhat misinformed. There are like 10 kinds of Taliban now, TTp, Afghant Talib, Haqqani Talibs etc etc. Mostly geographically split. And we actually have little control over them. Not for lack of trying, so you can blame that one on us for a while though.
Also the Govt has little say in that sort of policy. National security and FP are dictated by the army, who leverage the threat of Coups over corrupt politicians to ensure that they maintain control over the aforementioned 2 things + Show Spoiler +(India is our enemy, we need to be safe etc etc
Still, early last year the intelligence agencies pretty much gave up and our army has been hammering them pretty hard.
They didnt just go and attack a bunch of school kids completely unprovoked you know.
Regardless whenever people say shit like this above post the hypocrisy should slap them in the face when the idea comes to their brain let alone typing it out.
As it is now India provides more support to the Taliban and Baloch separatists than we do,, cuz you know shadow warfare. + Show Spoiler +In fairness we probably do the same thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
