|
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 February 13 2018 04:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 04:07 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:56 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:30 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work?
Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long. I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise. [W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns. SourceTheir problem was they were looking for the wrong people. I asked this before, and got mocked, but to my knowledge never got an answer. What reforms do you propose? If you're gonna mock anyone who objects to violations of the existing ethical guidelines, you really ought to put forward an alternative The first step is to say that the status quo is unacceptable. As long as it's acceptable people won't be interested in tough solutions. For context it shouldn't take (official) ethical guidelines for Democrats to shut down the idea of a billionaire, who tried to buy a seat, from running for governor. That should be a non-starter among people who call themselves Democrats or collect money for them. Can you be more specific, though? The point of reforms and guidelines is to provide structure to the decision making process of what is and is not acceptable. I could, if we're in agreement so far. Reforms to money in politics would be a good. What are your specific proposals? That doesn't sound like we're in agreement with the aforementioned starting point.so I don't think it would be fruitful to continue for the reason mentioned at the start. I am in complete agreement that the status quo is unacceptable. I am interested in hearing discussing solutions to this problem in detail, can you detail how you feel the problem be addressed?
Stop supporting unacceptable politicians, parties (local, state, and federal), political groups, etc...
Start supporting acceptable alternatives.
What's that look like as a detailed plan that should be constructed with contributions from millions of people. Hashed and rehashed through several rounds of discussions, revisions, clarifications, and improvements over time? Surely that's not what you're asking.
What are some of my ideas on how we can do that?
Get everyone that calls themselves a Democrat to agree that they are going to stop this nonsense like having billionaires, who got caught by the FBI trying to literally buy a political seat, running for office, or stop calling themselves Democrats.
We'll start the discussion there.
|
On February 13 2018 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 04:19 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 04:07 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:56 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:30 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:02 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long. I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise. [W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns. SourceTheir problem was they were looking for the wrong people. I asked this before, and got mocked, but to my knowledge never got an answer. What reforms do you propose? If you're gonna mock anyone who objects to violations of the existing ethical guidelines, you really ought to put forward an alternative The first step is to say that the status quo is unacceptable. As long as it's acceptable people won't be interested in tough solutions. For context it shouldn't take (official) ethical guidelines for Democrats to shut down the idea of a billionaire, who tried to buy a seat, from running for governor. That should be a non-starter among people who call themselves Democrats or collect money for them. Can you be more specific, though? The point of reforms and guidelines is to provide structure to the decision making process of what is and is not acceptable. I could, if we're in agreement so far. Reforms to money in politics would be a good. What are your specific proposals? That doesn't sound like we're in agreement with the aforementioned starting point.so I don't think it would be fruitful to continue for the reason mentioned at the start. I am in complete agreement that the status quo is unacceptable. I am interested in hearing discussing solutions to this problem in detail, can you detail how you feel the problem be addressed? Stop supporting unacceptable politicians, parties (local, state, and federal), political groups, etc... Start supporting acceptable alternatives. What's that look like as a detailed plan that should be constructed with contributions from millions of people. Hashed and rehashed through several rounds of discussions, revisions, clarifications, and improvements over time? Surely that's not what you're asking. What are some of my ideas on how we can do that? Get everyone that calls themselves a Democrat to agree that they are going to stop this nonsense like having billionaires, who got caught by the FBI trying to literally buy political seats, running for office, or stop calling themselves Democrats. We'll start the discussion there.
So lets dig into the topic you seem focused on, Democrats controlling who runs under their banner and where they should attack this issue:
Do you want reforms to the primary process that provides state officials the power to disqualify someone from being on the ticket?
Or do you want agreed upon guidelines in the democratic party about who they will support?
|
For those of you who don’t know what GH is referencing, it’s the IL race for Governor where J.B. Pritzker is the front runner for the Dems and the leading Republican is running a series of damning ads with excerpts from FBI recordings of conversations between J.B. and former governor, now inmate, Rod Blagojevich. J.B. was a big donor to Rod and Rod was trying to hit him up for more money and offered an Attorney General for IL spot. I believe J.B. called back later and asked about a different position, but not quite directly enough to go to jail.
It was shady as fuck and I won’t vote for J.B. anymore. However, all the big name IL Democrats including both Senators, who I like, are still endorsing him, probably because he’s a big donor to them.
The problem is that his democratic rivals are a Kennedy, yay for more political dynasties or a guy who is not well known named Biss. I’ll probably go Biss in the primary, but we’ll see what sort of dirt gets dug up on him.
Unfortunately our governor currently is a Republican who has continued to tank IL economically while enriching himself. So he’s not acceptable either. What is your suggestion GH for an IL resident if J.B. wins the primary?
|
On February 13 2018 04:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 04:19 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 04:07 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:56 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:30 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise. [quote] SourceTheir problem was they were looking for the wrong people. I asked this before, and got mocked, but to my knowledge never got an answer. What reforms do you propose? If you're gonna mock anyone who objects to violations of the existing ethical guidelines, you really ought to put forward an alternative The first step is to say that the status quo is unacceptable. As long as it's acceptable people won't be interested in tough solutions. For context it shouldn't take (official) ethical guidelines for Democrats to shut down the idea of a billionaire, who tried to buy a seat, from running for governor. That should be a non-starter among people who call themselves Democrats or collect money for them. Can you be more specific, though? The point of reforms and guidelines is to provide structure to the decision making process of what is and is not acceptable. I could, if we're in agreement so far. Reforms to money in politics would be a good. What are your specific proposals? That doesn't sound like we're in agreement with the aforementioned starting point.so I don't think it would be fruitful to continue for the reason mentioned at the start. I am in complete agreement that the status quo is unacceptable. I am interested in hearing discussing solutions to this problem in detail, can you detail how you feel the problem be addressed? Stop supporting unacceptable politicians, parties (local, state, and federal), political groups, etc... Start supporting acceptable alternatives. What's that look like as a detailed plan that should be constructed with contributions from millions of people. Hashed and rehashed through several rounds of discussions, revisions, clarifications, and improvements over time? Surely that's not what you're asking. What are some of my ideas on how we can do that? Get everyone that calls themselves a Democrat to agree that they are going to stop this nonsense like having billionaires, who got caught by the FBI trying to literally buy political seats, running for office, or stop calling themselves Democrats. We'll start the discussion there. So lets dig into the topic you seem focused on, Democrats controlling who runs under their banner and where they should attack this issue: Do you want reforms to the primary process that provides state officials the power to disqualify someone from being on the ticket? Or do you want agreed upon guidelines in the democratic party about who they will support?
I want people that think it's remotely acceptable to run him (or people like him) shamed away from even wanting to put a D next to their name or if the party (at the relevant levels) doesn't want to vociferously root them out of the party, the people that want them gone should leave the party.
Seeing as how they seem hellbent on this stuff like supporting the corrupt Dem Billionaire running for governor
A group of the state’s Democratic county chairmen voted Saturday to back J.B. Pritzker for governor, adding to a list of endorsements for the billionaire entrepreneur and investor.
Doug House, president of the Illinois Democratic Chairmen’s Association, said Pritzker gained the backing of nearly 70 percent of the 102 party county leaders during its fall meeting in Springfield.
The Pritzker endorsement had been expected after House, who also is the Rock Island Democratic chairman, last month urged his fellow county chairs to support the businessmen over a host of rivals in the March primary election.
I think we're at leave them behind.
On February 13 2018 04:47 RenSC2 wrote:
For those of you who don’t know what GH is referencing, it’s the IL race for Governor where J.B. Pritzker is the front runner for the Dems and the leading Republican is running a series of damning ads with excerpts from FBI recordings of conversations between J.B. and former governor, now inmate, Rod Blagojevich. J.B. was a big donor to Rod and Rod was trying to hit him up for more money and offered an Attorney General for IL spot. I believe J.B. called back later and asked about a different position, but not quite directly enough to go to jail.
It was shady as fuck and I won’t vote for J.B. anymore. However, all the big name IL Democrats including both Senators, who I like, are still endorsing him, probably because he’s a big donor to them.
The problem is that his democratic rivals are a Kennedy, yay for more political dynasties or a guy who is not well known named Biss. I’ll probably go Biss in the primary, but we’ll see what sort of dirt gets dug up on him.
Unfortunately our governor currently is a Republican who has continued to tank IL economically while enriching himself. So he’s not acceptable either. What is your suggestion GH for an IL resident if J.B. wins the primary?
Without dwelling on past mistakes, I'd say it's not going to be pretty. No matter how you move forward it's going to suck. I'd say abandon a party that has abandoned you and don't give your vote for speculation at bigger crumbs. But if your personal situation is dire and the alternative could mean devastation (we're not talking about someone's personal/spare investment property value going from 5.5 million to 4.5 million on paper) then people gotta do what they gotta do. But with the recognition this guy isn't going to be redeemable, the minute after the last vote is cast they should be promoting the candidate that will replace him or the R.
|
Yeah, that sounds like a problem that would exist in the state with Chicago in it. Rhode Island is also shady as hell top to bottom too.
Edit: I would point out that is the Illinois Democratic Committee. The DNC at large has pretty limited power over them, especially when they seem to be self funded by corruption.
|
|
|
On February 13 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, that sounds like a problem that would exist in the state with Chicago in it. Rhode Island is also shady as hell top to bottom too.
Edit: I would point out that is the Illinois Democratic Committee. The DNC at large has pretty limited power over them, especially when they seem to be self funded by corruption.
They don't need control, they need to have the spine to say "that's despicably dumb" and "They can put the D next to their name but they aren't a part of this party acting like that".
Basically all the extra hostile shit that was going at Bernie supporters all primary and still going on should be pointed at "those" "Democrats".
|
On February 13 2018 05:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, that sounds like a problem that would exist in the state with Chicago in it. Rhode Island is also shady as hell top to bottom too.
Edit: I would point out that is the Illinois Democratic Committee. The DNC at large has pretty limited power over them, especially when they seem to be self funded by corruption. They don't need control, they need to have the spine to say "that's despicably dumb" and "They can put the D next to their name but they aren't a part of this party acting like that". Basically all the extra hostile shit that was going at Bernie supporters all primary and still going on should be pointed at "those" "Democrats".
Lets assume the entire democratic party agrees and does that. Then what? That state is still going to exist and send the same number of congress members to congress. They still vote and have all the same powers an entire state has.
|
On February 13 2018 05:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 05:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, that sounds like a problem that would exist in the state with Chicago in it. Rhode Island is also shady as hell top to bottom too.
Edit: I would point out that is the Illinois Democratic Committee. The DNC at large has pretty limited power over them, especially when they seem to be self funded by corruption. They don't need control, they need to have the spine to say "that's despicably dumb" and "They can put the D next to their name but they aren't a part of this party acting like that". Basically all the extra hostile shit that was going at Bernie supporters all primary and still going on should be pointed at "those" "Democrats". Lets assume the entire democratic party agrees and does that. Then what? That state is still going to exist and send the same number of congress members to congress. They still vote and have all the same powers an entire state has.
I'm not sure I understand your question/point?
I think it's important to note that needing a "then what" isn't going to be an option. You have to reject something so egregiously absurd on it's face even if the alternative is going to suck. Instead that should be motivation to never again end up letting someone like that get so far in the first place.
|
President Donald Trump's new fiscal year 2019 budget includes a radical proposed change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, typically referred to as food stamps, that would see part of the program turn into a meal delivery service.
As part of the budget, the Department of Agriculture — which runs the SNAP program — would send basic food items to households receiving more than $90 a month in SNAP assistance in boxes.
"Under the proposal, households receiving $90 or more per month in SNAP benefits will receive a portion of their benefits in the form of a USDA Foods package, which would include items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish," the budget reads. www.businessinsider.com
In the Republican vision for America, not only is the best health plan for the poor "don't get sick," poor people should also put forth their best effort to not have food allergies or special dietary requirements, because SNAP may just send them food they can't eat.
Also, isn't telling people what food they're going to eat exactly the sort of government telling people what they can and can't do that people on the right generally like to complain about?
|
The sad thing about that Tariq tweet is that there actually are imbeciles out there who are going to think that Sessions' comments about the office of sheriff are white supremacist and not merely a recitation of historical fact.
|
On February 13 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:The sad thing about that Tariq tweet is that there actually are imbeciles out there who are going to think that Sessions' comments about the office of sheriff are white supremacist and not merely a recitation of historical fact.
Better than the imbecilic idea that they are mutually exclusive.
|
On February 13 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:The sad thing about that Tariq tweet is that there actually are imbeciles out there who are going to think that Sessions' comments about the office of sheriff are white supremacist and not merely a recitation of historical fact.
And what about the part where he says this "critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement" must be protected? Are there not ways to preserve the office of sheriff without reciting dogwhistles historical fact? And coming from a man we already know is a rampant racist. Surely you're joking.
|
How the hell did Melania get her hands on that letter in the first place? I thought the Secret Service screened EVERYTHING for the President and people under their protection?
On February 13 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:The sad thing about that Tariq tweet is that there actually are imbeciles out there who are going to think that Sessions' comments about the office of sheriff are white supremacist and not merely a recitation of historical fact.
Well they're pretty blatantly racist, but not white supremacist.
Maybe the sadder thing is that people defend such unnecessarily, obviously inflammatory comments?
|
It was Trump Jr's wife, Vanessa, not Melanie. Still, someone prolly done goofed.
|
On February 13 2018 05:26 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +President Donald Trump's new fiscal year 2019 budget includes a radical proposed change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, typically referred to as food stamps, that would see part of the program turn into a meal delivery service.
As part of the budget, the Department of Agriculture — which runs the SNAP program — would send basic food items to households receiving more than $90 a month in SNAP assistance in boxes.
"Under the proposal, households receiving $90 or more per month in SNAP benefits will receive a portion of their benefits in the form of a USDA Foods package, which would include items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish," the budget reads. www.businessinsider.comIn the Republican vision for America, not only is the best health plan for the poor "don't get sick," poor people should also put forth their best effort to not have food allergies or special dietary requirements, because SNAP may just send them food they can't eat. Also, isn't telling people what food they're going to eat exactly the sort of government telling people what they can and can't do that people on the right generally like to complain about?
If they have a system to make it so people can express allergies or preferences, I see this as a great thing. The number of times I've seen poor people just fill a shopping cart with totinos pizzas and soda..x_x there's a lot of nutritional education missing from poor America.if the USDA can also include recipes, educational information and other stuff in these packages, food stamps could be even better.
|
On February 13 2018 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:The sad thing about that Tariq tweet is that there actually are imbeciles out there who are going to think that Sessions' comments about the office of sheriff are white supremacist and not merely a recitation of historical fact. Better than the imbecilic idea that they are mutually exclusive.
You beat me to it. If we are going by the historical traditions of law enforcement, that traditions are supporting the systems of the most racist aspects of America.
|
On February 13 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 05:26 Kyadytim wrote:President Donald Trump's new fiscal year 2019 budget includes a radical proposed change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, typically referred to as food stamps, that would see part of the program turn into a meal delivery service.
As part of the budget, the Department of Agriculture — which runs the SNAP program — would send basic food items to households receiving more than $90 a month in SNAP assistance in boxes.
"Under the proposal, households receiving $90 or more per month in SNAP benefits will receive a portion of their benefits in the form of a USDA Foods package, which would include items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish," the budget reads. www.businessinsider.comIn the Republican vision for America, not only is the best health plan for the poor "don't get sick," poor people should also put forth their best effort to not have food allergies or special dietary requirements, because SNAP may just send them food they can't eat. Also, isn't telling people what food they're going to eat exactly the sort of government telling people what they can and can't do that people on the right generally like to complain about? If they have a system to make it so people can express allergies or preferences, I see this as a great thing. The number of times I've seen poor people just fill a shopping cart with totinos pizzas and soda..x_x there's a lot of nutritional education missing from poor America.if the USDA can also include recipes, educational information and other stuff in these packages, food stamps could be even better.
Did you ever stop to think that your personal experience in no way countenances against the notion that for every one person you see making poor choices with their food stamps, there are orders of magnitude more making good choices that you just don't see?
|
And even if they do use some of the money to buy junk food, sending them food they might not need in bulk isn’t the solution. Though it will make whoever is providing that food to the government a pretty penny.
|
On February 13 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 05:26 Kyadytim wrote:President Donald Trump's new fiscal year 2019 budget includes a radical proposed change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, typically referred to as food stamps, that would see part of the program turn into a meal delivery service.
As part of the budget, the Department of Agriculture — which runs the SNAP program — would send basic food items to households receiving more than $90 a month in SNAP assistance in boxes.
"Under the proposal, households receiving $90 or more per month in SNAP benefits will receive a portion of their benefits in the form of a USDA Foods package, which would include items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish," the budget reads. www.businessinsider.comIn the Republican vision for America, not only is the best health plan for the poor "don't get sick," poor people should also put forth their best effort to not have food allergies or special dietary requirements, because SNAP may just send them food they can't eat. Also, isn't telling people what food they're going to eat exactly the sort of government telling people what they can and can't do that people on the right generally like to complain about? If they have a system to make it so people can express allergies or preferences, I see this as a great thing. The number of times I've seen poor people just fill a shopping cart with totinos pizzas and soda..x_x there's a lot of nutritional education missing from poor America.if the USDA can also include recipes, educational information and other stuff in these packages, food stamps could be even better.
... The USDA... really?
I think policing what poor people eat is a jerky move, but I'm not opposed to making it easier to get better food and incentivising people to eat healthier (not making microwave pizza a black market good).
+ Show Spoiler +This did inspire a great visual of some convenience store owner with a stack of receipts for fresh fruit with nothing but one of those gas station fruit racks with scattered pieces of rotten fruit and an industrial freezer full of frozen pizzas and a security guard in front of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
