|
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. |
Our government functions quite well, just not for most of us.
It's a sad joke at this point
On the eve of a pivotal vote that would deregulate the broadband industry, a fresh survey from the University of Maryland shows that large majorities of Americans — including 3 out of 4 Republicans — oppose the government's plan to repeal its net neutrality
The survey by the university's Program for Public Consultation and Voice of the People, a nonpartisan polling organization, concluded that 83 percent of Americans do not approve of the FCC proposal. Just 16 percent said they approved.
+ Show Spoiler +
Source
3 out of 4 Republican voters oppose it, 3 out of 3 Republican representatives on the FCC support it, no one bats an eye.
|
On December 16 2017 04:04 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2017 03:58 Nevuk wrote:
I don't think this position will prove popular with anyone, even though Mrco Rubio is basically a hollow suit with no convictions. It is a valid point, but really also just makes you seem like a dick
Not really that valid either. A society has a vested interest in children existing, and thus a society, and by extension the state, have a reason to encourage that people produce children. Another big point being that singles also profit from children existing, as the next generation will enable them to actually do stuff once they are old and retired. Even if you don't have a societal system where the current generation pays for the last generations retirement, no retiree would enjoy a world where there are only retired people, as nothing would work.
Thus, supporting people who reproduce is pretty fair. Having children is already usually not a good monetary decision, slightly distributing that cost to make it more attractive to have children is a good thing for a society to do.
I gotta say that the "singles are sad" argument kinda sounds incredibly depressed, too.
This is just a general argument, i have no idea what Rubio wants to do specifically, or whether that is a good idea.
|
On December 16 2017 04:12 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2017 04:04 IyMoon wrote:It is a valid point, but really also just makes you seem like a dick Not really that valid either. A society has a vested interest in children existing, and thus a society, and by extension the state, have a reason to encourage that people produce children. Another big point being that singles also profit from children existing, as the next generation will enable them to actually do stuff once they are old and retired. Even if you don't have a societal system where the current generation pays for the last generations retirement, no retiree would enjoy a world where there are only retired people, as nothing would work. Thus, supporting people who reproduce is pretty fair. Having children is already usually not a good monetary decision, slightly distributing that cost to make it more attractive to have children is a good thing for a society to do. I gotta say that the "singles are sad" argument kinda sounds incredibly depressed, too. This is just a general argument, i have no idea what Rubio wants to do specifically, or whether that is a good idea.
Alright, I see your point and it is pretty good. I still see how people who are all about them will find her point valid though.
People are always going to have children despite monetary help
|
The party of Freedom and Small Government.
Unless its the bedroom. Then their all over that shit.
|
Update on the white dude running for Portland City Council:
Former Oregon Public Broadcasting newscaster Spencer Raymond ended his run for City Council as awkwardly as he began it.
Raymond, who was running against three women of color and was attacked for doing so, has pulled away from the controversy, citing identity politics.
"Unfortunately, this election has been overshadowed by the issue of identity," says Raymond in a statement emailed by his campaign.
Raymond's run was notable for his slim resume and and a backlash against challenging three women who have some experience in public service. No woman of color has ever served on City Council, and advocates have argued it's time.
Also notable for a journalist running for office: Raymond, who also co-owns a westside bar, never sought to speak to the press.
Yet he today cited a lack of an ability to convey his ideas to the larger city as a reason not to run.
"I am disappointed that I was not able to communicate my ideas for this city in the current media and political environment," he says in the statement.
"I want to make it clear that I did not enter this election to run against specific individuals or groups. I entered in an earnest attempt to make Portland a better place for everyone. I am a small business owner, an outdoor enthusiast, an engaged citizen, and a Portlander who wants to make a difference."
He concluded:
"Having consulted my family, friends, as well as advisers across the city, I believe this is not the right time for me to run for office. I can't thank my supporters enough for their efforts and hard work.
"I intend to engage with various civic groups in the coming months and years and hope to become actively involved in shaping the city's future. I want Portland to prosper and reach its full potential as a city that welcomes all and leaves no one behind."
http://www.wweek.com/news/city/2017/12/14/former-opb-newscaster-spencer-raymond-will-not-run-for-city-council/
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Any Turks around here by any chance? I just came upon this: Link
From the summary I read apparently Erdogan is framing the Jerusalem decision as the start of a holy war and that now the other holy cities are going to be next. But that provides minimal context.
|
On December 16 2017 04:24 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2017 04:12 Simberto wrote:On December 16 2017 04:04 IyMoon wrote:It is a valid point, but really also just makes you seem like a dick Not really that valid either. A society has a vested interest in children existing, and thus a society, and by extension the state, have a reason to encourage that people produce children. Another big point being that singles also profit from children existing, as the next generation will enable them to actually do stuff once they are old and retired. Even if you don't have a societal system where the current generation pays for the last generations retirement, no retiree would enjoy a world where there are only retired people, as nothing would work. Thus, supporting people who reproduce is pretty fair. Having children is already usually not a good monetary decision, slightly distributing that cost to make it more attractive to have children is a good thing for a society to do. I gotta say that the "singles are sad" argument kinda sounds incredibly depressed, too. This is just a general argument, i have no idea what Rubio wants to do specifically, or whether that is a good idea. People are always going to have children despite monetary help
That's not really the way to think about these things though because the effects of such policies have continuous effects. If you increase the income of those with kids by, say, $2000/year, of course it won't significantly affect the decision-making process for most couples. But it'll affect those at the margin, and maybe increase fertility rates by 5% (made-up number) or so. The question is whether the the 5% is worth the cost of the tax credit.
I support a child tax credit for the reasons Simberto mentioned, but the above thinking is an extremely common error in how people analyze policy (not saying you even made it here, but just making a general point).
On taxes for example, a common pro- progressive tax argument is "People/corporations don't stop working/leave the US because of high taxes therefore high tax rates don't affect growth." That's a red herring though because the theory behind low top marginal tax rates and growth is one based on the relationship between capital, incentives, risk, and productivity. Capital isn't "motivated to work or not work." It simply finds the highest return given one's risk appetite, and that analysis is certainly heavily influenced by high top marginal tax rates (the quick answer is higher taxes skew the decisions towards lower growth).
There's certainly fair counterarguments to be made on taxes, but the mistake of treating the effects of policy changes as binary rather than continuous is one that is made all too often.
|
Rubio just wants a little publicity. The slim Republican Senate majority gives him some bargaining power, and he wants a tiny trophy to take to conservative talking points. He didn't take a stand on large across-the-board individual rate cuts, entitlement reform, or some of the stranger elimination of deductions.
|
On December 16 2017 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:Update on the white dude running for Portland City Council: Show nested quote +Former Oregon Public Broadcasting newscaster Spencer Raymond ended his run for City Council as awkwardly as he began it.
Raymond, who was running against three women of color and was attacked for doing so, has pulled away from the controversy, citing identity politics.
"Unfortunately, this election has been overshadowed by the issue of identity," says Raymond in a statement emailed by his campaign.
Raymond's run was notable for his slim resume and and a backlash against challenging three women who have some experience in public service. No woman of color has ever served on City Council, and advocates have argued it's time.
Also notable for a journalist running for office: Raymond, who also co-owns a westside bar, never sought to speak to the press.
Yet he today cited a lack of an ability to convey his ideas to the larger city as a reason not to run.
"I am disappointed that I was not able to communicate my ideas for this city in the current media and political environment," he says in the statement.
"I want to make it clear that I did not enter this election to run against specific individuals or groups. I entered in an earnest attempt to make Portland a better place for everyone. I am a small business owner, an outdoor enthusiast, an engaged citizen, and a Portlander who wants to make a difference."
He concluded:
"Having consulted my family, friends, as well as advisers across the city, I believe this is not the right time for me to run for office. I can't thank my supporters enough for their efforts and hard work.
"I intend to engage with various civic groups in the coming months and years and hope to become actively involved in shaping the city's future. I want Portland to prosper and reach its full potential as a city that welcomes all and leaves no one behind." http://www.wweek.com/news/city/2017/12/14/former-opb-newscaster-spencer-raymond-will-not-run-for-city-council/
lol.
He seems even sillier than I remember when this story first came up.
|
"I'm running for office and can't express my point of view because I won't talk the press. People can't figure out why I'm running or my qualifications beyond owning half a business. This is all way to mean."
This is like a Parks and Rec episode.
|
Not really shocked, but I'm surprised they think they can get away with it.
Also, these people are staggering in their shameless incompetence.
|
On December 16 2017 05:32 Plansix wrote:
"I'm running for office and can't express my point of view because I won't talk the press. People can't figure out why I'm running or my qualifications beyond owning half a business. This is all way to mean."
This is like a Parks and Rec episode.
Not gonna lie I thought your "Parks and Rex" thing was an intentional joke about Rex Tillerson and I was in awe.
(Sorry to out you on that edit  )
|
I would be no more surprised if the GOP was prematurely shutting down a politically inconvenient investigation than I would if Democrats were pushing to prolong a dead investigation for political gain. Why I'm supposed to trust Adam Schiff on this I have no idea.
|
On December 16 2017 05:55 mozoku wrote:
I would be no more surprised if the GOP was prematurely shutting down a politically inconvenient investigation than I would if Democrats are pushing to prolong a dead investigation for political gain. Why I'm supposed to trust Adam Schiff on this I have no idea.
I haven't seen you this blatant before.
It's refreshing.
|
Pushing to shut down an investigation publicly rather than pretending to investigate for a year sounds like the brainchild of master wonk Paul Ryan
|
On December 16 2017 05:55 mozoku wrote:
I would be no more surprised if the GOP was prematurely shutting down a politically inconvenient investigation than I would if Democrats are pushing to prolong a dead investigation for political gain. Why I'm supposed to trust Adam Schiff on this I have no idea.
You can't trust anyone but Reddit and 4chan. People are only honest when they are completely anonymous.
On December 16 2017 06:04 Nevuk wrote:
Pushing to shut down an investigation publicly rather than pretending to investigate for a year sounds like the brainchild of master wonk Paul Ryan
He seems to believe a bunch of short term plans all at once is a long term plan.
|
On December 16 2017 06:02 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2017 05:55 mozoku wrote:
I would be no more surprised if the GOP was prematurely shutting down a politically inconvenient investigation than I would if Democrats are pushing to prolong a dead investigation for political gain. Why I'm supposed to trust Adam Schiff on this I have no idea. I haven't seen you this blatant before. It's refreshing.
Not sure how this is a departure from my posting history. Both parties are primarily political opportunists and well-established liars. Without knowing anything about the state of the House Intelligence Committee investigation, there's no way to figure out whether Adam Schiff is raising a valid concern or merely doing some political positioning.
|
On December 16 2017 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2017 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:Update on the white dude running for Portland City Council: Former Oregon Public Broadcasting newscaster Spencer Raymond ended his run for City Council as awkwardly as he began it.
Raymond, who was running against three women of color and was attacked for doing so, has pulled away from the controversy, citing identity politics.
"Unfortunately, this election has been overshadowed by the issue of identity," says Raymond in a statement emailed by his campaign.
Raymond's run was notable for his slim resume and and a backlash against challenging three women who have some experience in public service. No woman of color has ever served on City Council, and advocates have argued it's time.
Also notable for a journalist running for office: Raymond, who also co-owns a westside bar, never sought to speak to the press.
Yet he today cited a lack of an ability to convey his ideas to the larger city as a reason not to run.
"I am disappointed that I was not able to communicate my ideas for this city in the current media and political environment," he says in the statement.
"I want to make it clear that I did not enter this election to run against specific individuals or groups. I entered in an earnest attempt to make Portland a better place for everyone. I am a small business owner, an outdoor enthusiast, an engaged citizen, and a Portlander who wants to make a difference."
He concluded:
"Having consulted my family, friends, as well as advisers across the city, I believe this is not the right time for me to run for office. I can't thank my supporters enough for their efforts and hard work.
"I intend to engage with various civic groups in the coming months and years and hope to become actively involved in shaping the city's future. I want Portland to prosper and reach its full potential as a city that welcomes all and leaves no one behind." http://www.wweek.com/news/city/2017/12/14/former-opb-newscaster-spencer-raymond-will-not-run-for-city-council/ lol. He seems even sillier than I remember when this story first came up.
Yeah, his whiny little concession is awful.
|
On December 16 2017 05:55 mozoku wrote:
I would be no more surprised if the GOP was prematurely shutting down a politically inconvenient investigation than I would if Democrats were pushing to prolong a dead investigation for political gain. Why I'm supposed to trust Adam Schiff on this I have no idea.
Well lets see, the criminal investigation is already yielding charges and does not appear to be wrapping up soon so there is clearly something there so I am more willing to believe that if it ends on the congressional front its because they want to bury it rather than there being nothing there because actual prosecutors are finding things there.
I would accept the explanation if they shut down that they are turning over all evidence to the special counsel and leaving the investigation in his hands which would make sense.
|
On December 16 2017 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Our government functions quite well, just not for most of us. It's a sad joke at this point Show nested quote +On the eve of a pivotal vote that would deregulate the broadband industry, a fresh survey from the University of Maryland shows that large majorities of Americans — including 3 out of 4 Republicans — oppose the government's plan to repeal its net neutrality
The survey by the university's Program for Public Consultation and Voice of the People, a nonpartisan polling organization, concluded that 83 percent of Americans do not approve of the FCC proposal. Just 16 percent said they approved. + Show Spoiler +Source3 out of 4 Republican voters oppose it, 3 out of 3 Republican representatives on the FCC support it, no one bats an eye.
I suspect this is one of those issues that they do not expect will get there voters to vote against them and I am not sure if that is true or not. On one hand there voters are all old, but on the other hand EVERYONE has been screwed with by an ISP so explaining that your congressmen supports allowing ISPs to screw you harder is an easy thing to explain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/lNwD6I5.jpg)
