|
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. |
United States44355 Posts
On June 10 2017 07:11 Buckyman wrote:
Not engaging in a regulatory culture war against his political detractors' lifestyle is even bigger than Gorush or Paris. I'll take inflammatory tweets over regulatory misconduct any day.
Someone commented upthread to the effect that every week of Trump is a shitshow worse than anything during the Obama or Clinton campaign. But there was a week near the end of Obama's tenure where he pushed through an absurd number of expensive regulations with an insufficient public comment period.
Can you name any of these regulations you're upset about? Because I think I remember that week. There was the overtime one where businesses were restricted from classifying employees whose job descriptions didn't merit salary rather than hourly from requiring them to work over forty hours a week without paying them for the work. That one seemed pretty good. And there was the fiduciary rule, that was definitely that week. The way that one works is if you pay someone to manage your money for you then they have to tell you if they're also getting paid by someone else who wants your investments to do badly. Which seems like the kind of rule you really shouldn't have to write down but it turns out you do have to because it's a colossal issue. If surgeons were getting commission whenever they provided organs to people in need of organ donations then that seems like the kind of thing you'd want to know before letting them operate on you, right?
Obama passed these as EOs because Congress wouldn't let him pass anything. But my recollection of lame duck Obama was that it was nothing but "wow, how was that not already a thing" regulations.
The fiduciary rule didn't even say that investment managers can't get kickbacks from third parties for making certain investments with your money on behalf of those third parties. It just said they have to tell you that they're not working in your best interest when they take your money. That's all. They don't have to be a fiduciary, they just have to let you know if they're not.
|
On June 10 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 06:49 Gorsameth wrote:On June 10 2017 06:36 Mohdoo wrote:
People need to ask themselves why they supported Clinton and realize a lot of people are in the same boat with Trump. Choosing the lesser of two evils doesn't mean you even somewhat like the candidate you chose. Clinton would have given me the court I wanted. The difference being that I think everyone in this thread would have dropped Clinton like a hot potato if she did half the shit Trump has done. Meaning they'd vote for Trump? I think Clinton could have publicly executed someone and she'd still have my vote. I don't recognize non-voting as a legitimate or respectable option. I'd sooner shoot myself than not participate in an election.
If the choice was Trump or 'murder Clinton'? Hell yeah I would vote third party. Tho immigration would eek out.
FPTP leads to a 2 party system, but there is no law that states those 2 have the Democrats and Republicans.
By saying "I would vote X no matter what" your no better then the other side and no one wins in a race to the bottom.
|
On June 10 2017 07:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On June 10 2017 06:49 Gorsameth wrote:On June 10 2017 06:36 Mohdoo wrote:
People need to ask themselves why they supported Clinton and realize a lot of people are in the same boat with Trump. Choosing the lesser of two evils doesn't mean you even somewhat like the candidate you chose. Clinton would have given me the court I wanted. The difference being that I think everyone in this thread would have dropped Clinton like a hot potato if she did half the shit Trump has done. Meaning they'd vote for Trump? I think Clinton could have publicly executed someone and she'd still have my vote. I don't recognize non-voting as a legitimate or respectable option. I'd sooner shoot myself than not participate in an election. If the choice was Trump or 'murder Clinton'? Hell yeah I would vote third party. Tho immigration would eek out. FPTP leads to a 2 party system, but there is no law that states those 2 have the Democrats and Republicans. By saying "I would vote X no matter what" your no better then the other side and no one wins in a race to the bottom.
Our difference in opinion is rooted in the difference between how we see 3rd party votes. I think a purely utilitarian perspective disagrees with 3rd party voting. Not to say utilitarian perspectives are always good, but they are what I lean towards when it comes to issues like societal structure and enormous things like that.
Also, this is all assuming Trump as the other guy. If Clinton was someone who would publicly execute someone every now and then, but was otherwise the same candidate, she would be notably better than Trump in my eyes. Let's assume 10 executions per year. Count the number of dead between repealing the ACA and a few executions. Still a huge net positive.
|
United States44355 Posts
On June 10 2017 07:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On June 10 2017 06:49 Gorsameth wrote:On June 10 2017 06:36 Mohdoo wrote:
People need to ask themselves why they supported Clinton and realize a lot of people are in the same boat with Trump. Choosing the lesser of two evils doesn't mean you even somewhat like the candidate you chose. Clinton would have given me the court I wanted. The difference being that I think everyone in this thread would have dropped Clinton like a hot potato if she did half the shit Trump has done. Meaning they'd vote for Trump? I think Clinton could have publicly executed someone and she'd still have my vote. I don't recognize non-voting as a legitimate or respectable option. I'd sooner shoot myself than not participate in an election. If the choice was Trump or 'murder Clinton'? Hell yeah I would vote third party. Tho immigration would eek out. FPTP leads to a 2 party system, but there is no law that states those 2 have the Democrats and Republicans. By saying "I would vote X no matter what" your no better then the other side and no one wins in a race to the bottom.
Voting third party is great in the future. The Democrats would lose in 2016 and go back and reflect on what led them to lose and maybe in 2020 they wouldn't field a murderer. Assuming you communicated sufficiently well why they lost your vote and what they could do to win it of course. And assuming they were rational actors. But that does absolutely nothing to help in the years 2017-2020. If one candidate pledges to kill 100 people and the other pledges to kill 1000 then voting third party is nothing more than virtue signalling, 900 people are still going to die. And let's be clear, more than 1000 Americans are going to die as a direct result of the Obamacare repeal.
|
what in tarnation is a regulatory culture war?
if clinton was hypothetically a murderer but otherwise had the same platform, it would kind of depend how i was feeling that day. i might vote third party, or i'd vote for her with my nose held. either way id' assume that the world would in 4 years produce a better candidate.
|
On June 10 2017 07:11 Buckyman wrote:
Not engaging in a regulatory culture war against his political detractors' lifestyle is even bigger than Gorush or Paris. I'll take inflammatory tweets over regulatory misconduct any day.
Someone commented upthread to the effect that every week of Trump is a shitshow worse than anything during the Obama or Clinton campaign. But there was a week near the end of Obama's tenure where he pushed through an absurd number of expensive regulations with an insufficient public comment period.
Which were pushed through due to the completely inactive and unless Congress. And the same party that controlled congress then is now pushing through a bill that will impact 1/6th of the economy without a public hearing. The bill will be voted on blind and without out a COB score. Full stop.
I'm not happy that Obama pushed through the regulations without Congress, but someone had to be the adult in the room and govern. Now there are no adults in the room.
On June 10 2017 07:27 ticklishmusic wrote:
what in tarnation is a regulatory culture war?
It is when a President used executive orders after 6 years of brinkmanship, useless votes to repeal the ACA and grandstanding. This goverment is supposed to make our lives better, not be a platform for the next congressional election.
|
Plus in the world with murder-Clinton her vote share would be so low it wouldn't really be utilitarian-efficient to vote for her if you don't want Trump anyway. You'd have been better off with Stein, Johnson, or McMullin and hoping for some sort of hung electoral college and massive polling error.
|
I don't like this Qatar stuff... the Arab boycott is very serious and Trump shouldn't be fooling around a powder keg of sectarian differences...Why the hell is he calling out Qatar like this all of a sudden. The Saudi Sword Dance must have really left a mark.
Running like a well oiled machine part 31234:
President Donald Trump directly contradicted Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on how to handle Qatar, speaking one after the other in the same afternoon.
In a joint press conference with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, Trump touted a recent blockade of Qatar by neighboring countries as a success in his recent foreign trip. "The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level," Trump said Friday. "Nations came together and spoke to me about confronting Qatar over its behavior. So we had a decision to make. Do we take the easy road, or do we finally take a hard but necessary action? We have to stop the funding of terrorism."
But earlier the same day, Tillerson said the opposite, urging an end to the blockade. "We call on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt to ease the blockade against Qatar," Tillerson said, just before he attended Trump's press conference. "There are humanitarian consequences to this blockade... The blockade is also impairing U.S. and other international business activities in the region and has created a hardship on the people of Qatar and the people whose livelihoods depend on commerce with Qatar. The blockade is hindering U.S. military actions in the region and the campaign against ISIS."
Both statements come less than a week after Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt cut diplomatic and transport ties with Qatar. The conflicting messages coming out of the White House and State Department show the Trump Administration may lack a cohesive strategy for the United States' complicated relationship with the Gulf nation.
source
|
United States44355 Posts
On June 10 2017 07:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Plus in the world with murder-Clinton her vote share would be so low it wouldn't really be utilitarian-efficient to vote for her if you don't want Trump anyway. You'd have been better off with Stein, Johnson, or McMullin.
Now you're getting into game theory. If everyone thinks that Stein can't win then nobody votes Stein and Clinton is still the best option. If everyone thinks Clinton can't win and Stein can then suddenly Stein can. It doesn't detract from the main point, voting in the US is a tactical game, not an idealistic game. You don't vote for the one you agree with most, you vote to try and get the best possible political outcome given what you know about everyone else's likely voting.
|
On June 10 2017 07:16 Mohdoo wrote:
A culture war is what you would call this? What culture? Coal culture? Please don't tell me that's a thing.
An example would be the National Forest Service's severe restrictions on the use of motor vehicles in western national forests. They effectively banned the popular ways rural residents of those states used the forest, with very little justification other than "us urbanites think you're using the place wrong, and this state isn't big enough for both of us."
An example in the other direction would be blanket transgender restroom regulations, which Trump hasn't attempted to use executive power to implement.
|
On June 10 2017 07:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 07:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Plus in the world with murder-Clinton her vote share would be so low it wouldn't really be utilitarian-efficient to vote for her if you don't want Trump anyway. You'd have been better off with Stein, Johnson, or McMullin. Now you're getting into game theory. If everyone thinks that Stein can't win then nobody votes Stein and Clinton is still the best option. If everyone thinks Clinton can't win and Stein can then suddenly Stein can. It doesn't detract from the main point, voting in the US is a tactical game, not an idealistic game. You don't vote for the one you agree with most, you vote to try and get the best possible political outcome given what you know about everyone else's likely voting.
Well, it's more nuanced than who can win overall, it's who can win your specific state. But yeah, if you view voting tactically hypotheticals are pointless unless you delineate everyone's vote share-and considering what the Comey announcement did to Clinton's vote share I can't imagine what murder-Clinton would have done to her vote share.
|
On June 10 2017 07:35 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 07:16 Mohdoo wrote:
A culture war is what you would call this? What culture? Coal culture? Please don't tell me that's a thing. An example would be the National Forest Service's severe restrictions on the use of motor vehicles in western national forests. They effectively banned the popular ways rural residents of those states used the forest, with very little justification other than "us urbanites think you're using the place wrong, and this state isn't big enough for both of us." An example in the other direction would be blanket transgender restroom regulations, which Trump hasn't attempted to use executive power to implement.
Do you think people living near a piece of land makes them better able to determine the proper use for it? Are you familiar with the bundies and the shit show in Oregon?
On June 10 2017 07:37 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 07:31 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 07:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Plus in the world with murder-Clinton her vote share would be so low it wouldn't really be utilitarian-efficient to vote for her if you don't want Trump anyway. You'd have been better off with Stein, Johnson, or McMullin. Now you're getting into game theory. If everyone thinks that Stein can't win then nobody votes Stein and Clinton is still the best option. If everyone thinks Clinton can't win and Stein can then suddenly Stein can. It doesn't detract from the main point, voting in the US is a tactical game, not an idealistic game. You don't vote for the one you agree with most, you vote to try and get the best possible political outcome given what you know about everyone else's likely voting. Well, it's more nuanced than who can win overall, it's who can win your specific state. But yeah, if you view voting tactically hypotheticals are pointless unless you delineate everyone's vote share-and considering what the Comey announcement did to Clinton's vote share I can't imagine what murder-Clinton would have done to her vote share.
I think we have stepped way outside the boundary conditions I was using for my execution hypothetical. I was using among the least ethical things someone can do, extinguish another person's consciousness, to show that morality is not a necessary component in governance in accordance with my values.
|
On June 10 2017 07:11 Buckyman wrote:
Not engaging in a regulatory culture war against his political detractors' lifestyle is even bigger than Gorush or Paris. I'll take inflammatory tweets over regulatory misconduct any day.
Someone commented upthread to the effect that every week of Trump is a shitshow worse than anything during the Obama or Clinton campaign. But there was a week near the end of Obama's tenure where he pushed through an absurd number of expensive regulations with an insufficient public comment period.
a) the first sentence isn't applicable. as it's a falsity.
b) trump also does a lot of regulatory misconduct; and borderline criminal stuff; and damaging the institutions of democracy. and damaging internationl relations for no gain.
so it's not really a relevant point of comparison since it's not the stiuation that applied here.
|
On June 10 2017 07:35 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 07:16 Mohdoo wrote:
A culture war is what you would call this? What culture? Coal culture? Please don't tell me that's a thing. An example would be the National Forest Service's severe restrictions on the use of motor vehicles in western national forests. They effectively banned the popular ways rural residents of those states used the forest, with very little justification other than "us urbanites think you're using the place wrong, and this state isn't big enough for both of us." An example in the other direction would be blanket transgender restroom regulations, which Trump hasn't attempted to use executive power to implement.
The restroom regulations were for schools. Transgender people are teh smallest demographic in the country, representing 0.3 of the population. They have the but have some of the highest suicide races in the country. The chances of them being assaulted or murdered by someone they know are higher than any other minority. And and it is like 16 times(my memory is foggy on this one) more likely that they will be assaulted by strangers. And these assaults disproportionately happen in bathrooms.
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/15/477954537/when-a-transgender-person-uses-a-public-bathroom-who-is-at-risk
So if protecting children in a place where they are required to go by law is what you consider a culture war, I have to say I am down for the fight. And these children are not asking for anything beyond being able to use the bathroom in peace. Of all the hills to die on, that has got to be one of the most repugnant.
|
On June 10 2017 07:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 07:35 Buckyman wrote:On June 10 2017 07:16 Mohdoo wrote:
A culture war is what you would call this? What culture? Coal culture? Please don't tell me that's a thing. An example would be the National Forest Service's severe restrictions on the use of motor vehicles in western national forests. They effectively banned the popular ways rural residents of those states used the forest, with very little justification other than "us urbanites think you're using the place wrong, and this state isn't big enough for both of us." An example in the other direction would be blanket transgender restroom regulations, which Trump hasn't attempted to use executive power to implement. The restroom regulations were for schools. Transgender people are teh smallest demographic in the country, representing 0.3 of the population. They have the but have some of the highest suicide races in the country. The chances of them being assaulted or murdered by someone they know are higher than any other minority. And and it is like 16 times(my memory is foggy on this one) more likely that they will be assaulted by strangers. And these assaults disproportionately happen in bathrooms. http://www.npr.org/2016/05/15/477954537/when-a-transgender-person-uses-a-public-bathroom-who-is-at-riskSo if protecting children in a place where they are required to go by law is what you consider a culture war, I have to say I am down for the fight. And these children are not asking for anything beyond being able to use the bathroom in peace. Of all the hills to die on, that has got to be one of the most repugnant.
Isn't bucky's statements that Trump didn't do anything on bathroom regs?
I'm just not sure we can read from bucky's statement that he would be in favor of the unjustified bathroom regs; so it feels like your diatribe is unwarranted.
of course it certainly wouldn't be an applicable tit for tat as the cases involved are vastly different, there's no real equivalency between them.
|
On June 10 2017 07:27 ticklishmusic wrote:
what in tarnation is a regulatory culture war?
if clinton was hypothetically a murderer but otherwise had the same platform, it would kind of depend how i was feeling that day. i might vote third party, or i'd vote for her with my nose held. either way id' assume that the world would in 4 years produce a better candidate.
regulatory culture war = made up term by people with a victim/persecution complex that's being fed to them to get them to vote a certain way.
|
United States4396 Posts
HELENA, Mont. — U.S. Rep.-elect Greg Gianforte of Montana will plead guilty to assaulting a reporter the day before being elected the state's only congressman last month, a prosecutor said Friday.
The Republican technology entrepreneur will enter his plea in court on Monday, when he is scheduled to be arraigned and sentenced on the misdemeanor charge, Gallatin County Attorney Marty Lambert told The Associated Press.
Gianforte requested the court hearing after reaching a civil settlement this week.
Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs over claims that Gianforte knocked Jacobs to the ground when the reporter asked him a question May 24.
As part of the settlement, Jacobs said he would not object to Gianforte entering a plea of no contest, or nolo contendere, meaning Gianforte would concede to the charge without admitting guilt.
But Lambert said Gianforte will plead guilty.
"He is not going to be entering a nolo contendere plea," Lambert said. "He's going to be pleading guilty."
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/09/greg-gianfort-guilty-plea-assault-ben-jacobs-montana-239369
|
On June 10 2017 07:30 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:I don't like this Qatar stuff... the Arab boycott is very serious and Trump shouldn't be fooling around a powder keg of sectarian differences...Why the hell is he calling out Qatar like this all of a sudden. The Saudi Sword Dance must have really left a mark. Running like a well oiled machine part 31234: Show nested quote +President Donald Trump directly contradicted Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on how to handle Qatar, speaking one after the other in the same afternoon.
In a joint press conference with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, Trump touted a recent blockade of Qatar by neighboring countries as a success in his recent foreign trip. "The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level," Trump said Friday. "Nations came together and spoke to me about confronting Qatar over its behavior. So we had a decision to make. Do we take the easy road, or do we finally take a hard but necessary action? We have to stop the funding of terrorism."
But earlier the same day, Tillerson said the opposite, urging an end to the blockade. "We call on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt to ease the blockade against Qatar," Tillerson said, just before he attended Trump's press conference. "There are humanitarian consequences to this blockade... The blockade is also impairing U.S. and other international business activities in the region and has created a hardship on the people of Qatar and the people whose livelihoods depend on commerce with Qatar. The blockade is hindering U.S. military actions in the region and the campaign against ISIS."
Both statements come less than a week after Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt cut diplomatic and transport ties with Qatar. The conflicting messages coming out of the White House and State Department show the Trump Administration may lack a cohesive strategy for the United States' complicated relationship with the Gulf nation.
source
Trump is most dangerous in foreign policy IMO; he has the most authority there, and he's a bumbling idiot.
|
On June 10 2017 07:48 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 07:44 Plansix wrote:On June 10 2017 07:35 Buckyman wrote:On June 10 2017 07:16 Mohdoo wrote:
A culture war is what you would call this? What culture? Coal culture? Please don't tell me that's a thing. An example would be the National Forest Service's severe restrictions on the use of motor vehicles in western national forests. They effectively banned the popular ways rural residents of those states used the forest, with very little justification other than "us urbanites think you're using the place wrong, and this state isn't big enough for both of us." An example in the other direction would be blanket transgender restroom regulations, which Trump hasn't attempted to use executive power to implement. The restroom regulations were for schools. Transgender people are teh smallest demographic in the country, representing 0.3 of the population. They have the but have some of the highest suicide races in the country. The chances of them being assaulted or murdered by someone they know are higher than any other minority. And and it is like 16 times(my memory is foggy on this one) more likely that they will be assaulted by strangers. And these assaults disproportionately happen in bathrooms. http://www.npr.org/2016/05/15/477954537/when-a-transgender-person-uses-a-public-bathroom-who-is-at-riskSo if protecting children in a place where they are required to go by law is what you consider a culture war, I have to say I am down for the fight. And these children are not asking for anything beyond being able to use the bathroom in peace. Of all the hills to die on, that has got to be one of the most repugnant. Isn't bucky's statements that Trump didn't do anything on bathroom regs? I'm just not sure we can read from bucky's statement that he would be in favor of the unjustified bathroom regs; so it feels like your diatribe is unwarranted. of course it certainly wouldn't be an applicable tit for tat as the cases involved are vastly different, there's no real equivalency between them.
The only regulation governing bathroom use was put into place by Obama. It was block by the courts. Trump had no used his office to add any protections and has moved to scale back federal oversight of civil rights violations in all federal agencies.
So I took to comment to mean Obamas EO on transgender bathroom use in schools was part of this "culture war". While Teump had not engaged in it. I would be happy to be corrected if Bucky didn't mean that.
|
On June 10 2017 07:54 Plansix wrote:
So I took to comment to mean Obamas EO on transgender bathroom use in schools was part of this "culture war". While Teump had not engaged in it. I would be happy to be corrected if Bucky didn't mean that.
Mostly there. I think Obama's EO was more significantly a different sort of bad thing (re-interpreting a statute more broadly than could possibly have been intended by Congress in order to score political points).
The state-level transgender bathroom restrictions are a more direct example of a "culture war" mentality. Republicans pass a bill to inconvenience a demographic that mostly supports their opponents. Trump could attempt to EO on the subject, but is restrained enough to stay out of the conversation.
------
More generally, Trump ran on a platform of not abusing executive authority as much as Obama did. So far, he's indeed doing so, with the most significant EOs being retractions of earlier EOs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
