|
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 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.
People have already found the multiple times Obama used the phrase, lol. The knee-jerk stuff is sad but it also makes me laugh.
|
On February 13 2018 07:25 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 07:19 zlefin wrote:
A reasonable point. Though from what I hear finding the time and energy to cook is a problem for some people who're already working 60+ hours/week. Maybe next time these people should elect Sanders instead of Trump. 
While I don't think you're wrong, there's also just a huge culture issue around work in the US where salaried employees who actually just leave after putting in eight hours a day are hurting their careers. There are people that brag about how long it's been since they've taken a vacation. This isn't just workaholics. It's just how growing a career is done. Donating time to the company demonstrates loyalty and devotion and keeps your coworkers from getting mad at you for not donating your time.
If we had a Democratic President and Congress, they might have done something about the EAP exemptions for overtime, which would be a top down fix that might eventually cause the culture to change.
|
On February 13 2018 07:40 Introvert 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. People have already found the multiple times Obama used the phrase, lol. The knee-jerk stuff is sad but it also makes me laugh.
Its almost like when different people say things in different setting they mean different things. Not really the phrase the guy leading the push for deportations should be using.
|
On February 13 2018 07:40 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 07:25 sc-darkness wrote:On February 13 2018 07:19 zlefin wrote:
A reasonable point. Though from what I hear finding the time and energy to cook is a problem for some people who're already working 60+ hours/week. Maybe next time these people should elect Sanders instead of Trump. While I don't think you're wrong, there's also just a huge culture issue around work in the US where salaried employees who actually just leave after putting in eight hours a day are hurting their careers. There are people that brag about how long it's been since they've taken a vacation. This isn't just workaholics. It's just how growing a career is done. Donating time to the company demonstrates loyalty and devotion and keeps your coworkers from getting mad at you for not donating your time. If we had a Democratic President and Congress, they might have done something about the EAP exemptions for overtime, which would be a top down fix that might eventually cause the culture to change.
The dramatic decline of organized labor in the US is a strong support for this point of view.
The post you are quoting is... questionable... anyways since it was the middle class people who broke for Trump more so than anyone else I think?
|
On February 13 2018 07:49 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 07:40 Kyadytim wrote:On February 13 2018 07:25 sc-darkness wrote:On February 13 2018 07:19 zlefin wrote:
A reasonable point. Though from what I hear finding the time and energy to cook is a problem for some people who're already working 60+ hours/week. Maybe next time these people should elect Sanders instead of Trump. While I don't think you're wrong, there's also just a huge culture issue around work in the US where salaried employees who actually just leave after putting in eight hours a day are hurting their careers. There are people that brag about how long it's been since they've taken a vacation. This isn't just workaholics. It's just how growing a career is done. Donating time to the company demonstrates loyalty and devotion and keeps your coworkers from getting mad at you for not donating your time. If we had a Democratic President and Congress, they might have done something about the EAP exemptions for overtime, which would be a top down fix that might eventually cause the culture to change. The dramatic decline of organized labor in the US is a strong support for this point of view. The post you are quoting is... questionable... anyways since it was the middle class people who broke for Trump more so than anyone else I think?
Well, that's not unheard of. There are poor people in Europe who still vote for candidates who favour the rich. What's their hope? I guess more jobs but who knows. You have to ask them. Regardless, as an outside viewer, it seems to me that some people in the US overwork. It doesn't matter if they work 50 hours or 60+ hours. There's only that much effective work you can do as a human being. That, and failed healthcare in the US which leaves 28 or so million people at risk.
|
On February 13 2018 07:49 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 07:40 Kyadytim wrote:On February 13 2018 07:25 sc-darkness wrote:On February 13 2018 07:19 zlefin wrote:
A reasonable point. Though from what I hear finding the time and energy to cook is a problem for some people who're already working 60+ hours/week. Maybe next time these people should elect Sanders instead of Trump. While I don't think you're wrong, there's also just a huge culture issue around work in the US where salaried employees who actually just leave after putting in eight hours a day are hurting their careers. There are people that brag about how long it's been since they've taken a vacation. This isn't just workaholics. It's just how growing a career is done. Donating time to the company demonstrates loyalty and devotion and keeps your coworkers from getting mad at you for not donating your time. If we had a Democratic President and Congress, they might have done something about the EAP exemptions for overtime, which would be a top down fix that might eventually cause the culture to change. The dramatic decline of organized labor in the US is a strong support for this point of view. The post you are quoting is... questionable... anyways since it was the middle class people who broke for Trump more so than anyone else I think?
I only quoted it because it was the last post in the quote chain on the subject when I started writing.
On February 13 2018 07:59 sc-darkness wrote:Well, that's not unheard of. There are poor people in Europe who still vote for candidates who favour the rich. What's their hope? I guess more jobs but who knows. You have to ask them. Regardless, as an outside viewer, it seems to me that some people in the US overwork. It doesn't matter if they work 50 hours or 60+ hours. There's only that much effective work you can do as a human being. That, and failed healthcare in the US which leaves 28 or so million people at risk.
I can't speak for Europe, but in the US, the right wing has done a pretty good job of building up particular topics which will cause people to vote Republican regardless of everything else the parties stand for. Gay marriage and abortion are the easy examples here. So you get people who are not rich who are voting for pro-rich candidates because that candidate is also anti-abortion.
Also, Americans are apparently really, really bad at assessing their likelihood of actually being rich. Far too many Americans think that they're going to be one of the really wealthy soon, and therefore pro-rich policies are okay right now. I can't remember anything about the study or polling or whatever that showed this, and I don't have time to go searching for it at the moment.
|
On February 13 2018 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 06:00 ChristianS 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:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically.
What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that? The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector. Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts. Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. 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. What does "unacceptable" mean exactly? A lot of times people use it idiomatically to mean "really bad," in which case sure, I'm on board. But as I mentioned, I suspect that for many of these abuses it is difficult to establish clear guidelines to prevent them, in which case we might not have a lot of choice but to accept them. In general, expecting voters to identify the ethical problems and vote against candidates with ethical issues feels like a pretty bad defense. These sorts of ethics considerations are arcane and unintuitive, and it's pretty easy to either gloss over a real problem or invent a fake one and convince voters accordingly. Not knowing anything else about this Illinois billionaire, I'm inclined to agree that people shouldn't vote for him, but in general I think court of public opinion is a bad way to handle this. There is no hope for a party who can't unify around not running a corrupt billionaire. In that way it's clear both parties are hopeless (with current leadership/entrenched special interests).
Mmkay, so your answer to "how do you want to improve ethics in Washington" is "burn down the two-party system"? Until that happens, do you have anything in the meantime?
|
On February 13 2018 08:45 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 06:00 ChristianS 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:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector.
Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts.
Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. 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. What does "unacceptable" mean exactly? A lot of times people use it idiomatically to mean "really bad," in which case sure, I'm on board. But as I mentioned, I suspect that for many of these abuses it is difficult to establish clear guidelines to prevent them, in which case we might not have a lot of choice but to accept them. In general, expecting voters to identify the ethical problems and vote against candidates with ethical issues feels like a pretty bad defense. These sorts of ethics considerations are arcane and unintuitive, and it's pretty easy to either gloss over a real problem or invent a fake one and convince voters accordingly. Not knowing anything else about this Illinois billionaire, I'm inclined to agree that people shouldn't vote for him, but in general I think court of public opinion is a bad way to handle this. There is no hope for a party who can't unify around not running a corrupt billionaire. In that way it's clear both parties are hopeless (with current leadership/entrenched special interests). Mmkay, so your answer to "how do you want to improve ethics in Washington" is "burn down the two-party system"? Until that happens, do you have anything in the meantime?
honestly this criticism of GH seems wholly unfounded. either voting matters or it doesnt. like do you, christians, think voting matters? does it matter how people think about this stuff, putting aside whether they have a comprehensive unaffiliated reform plan?
it seems pretty clear to me that GH is simply trying to change the conversation and hoping that intersubjective network effects do their thing.
"hey GH do you have a solution for us? no? then shut the fuck up. we were talking about trump."
|
“Wholly unfounded” is a little strong, IMO. It is difficult to get GH to talk about his ideas for reform beyond public condemnation of “unacceptable” behavior. I share in the frustration from time to time.
|
You simply need to stir up more widespread discontent to get change. Depending on the direction, shape and intensity of said discontent, change will follow.
|
On February 13 2018 08:45 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 06:00 ChristianS 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:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector.
Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts.
Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. 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. What does "unacceptable" mean exactly? A lot of times people use it idiomatically to mean "really bad," in which case sure, I'm on board. But as I mentioned, I suspect that for many of these abuses it is difficult to establish clear guidelines to prevent them, in which case we might not have a lot of choice but to accept them. In general, expecting voters to identify the ethical problems and vote against candidates with ethical issues feels like a pretty bad defense. These sorts of ethics considerations are arcane and unintuitive, and it's pretty easy to either gloss over a real problem or invent a fake one and convince voters accordingly. Not knowing anything else about this Illinois billionaire, I'm inclined to agree that people shouldn't vote for him, but in general I think court of public opinion is a bad way to handle this. There is no hope for a party who can't unify around not running a corrupt billionaire. In that way it's clear both parties are hopeless (with current leadership/entrenched special interests). Mmkay, so your answer to "how do you want to improve ethics in Washington" is "burn down the two-party system"? Until that happens, do you have anything in the meantime?
It explains pretty well why he's so angry about the system we live in. He's been waiting for someone else to burn it down for years now and there doesn't seem to be a plan B. The road ahead must look very dark from this perspective.
|
Trump could get the funding for PBS and NPR by simply going golfing only once a month...
But that's not possible of course.
|
On February 13 2018 09:30 a_flayer wrote:
You simply need to stir up more widespread discontent to get change. Depending on the direction, shape and intensity of said discontent, change will follow.
No, I for one am really tired of the extremely broad, holier-than-thou, burn-it-all-down mentality. These are people who fail at politics, and often don't understand the issues enough to actually have nuanced differences with the party. It's always very broad, philosophical. It actually doesn't represent people like Bernie Sanders who've spent decades working with the Democrats to get things done.
Widespread discontent is not going to inherently bring out positive change. Widespread discontent over what? Politics in general? All that suggests is a mass-confusion and ignorance, with which you'll end up with any kind of leader imaginable.
GH has spent a lot time telling everyone "why we got Trump", like his mentality or vote has no bearing on it. And yet... it obviously did and does. The hidden subtext to everything GH is saying is still "Hillary would've just been as bad". I think it's a bit delusional.
And contrary to opinion, Trump isn't going to usher in a new-wave of socialism as a reaction to his horribleness.
Quite the opposite. The reaction to Trump are people are yearning, more than ever, for the good ol' status-fucking-quo. No one really cares that Obama was "too centrist" anymore. Obama's centrism now looks more like a beacon of hope than ever before. The Dems are looking to elect a Kennedy, the most familiar of names. The reaction to "widespread discontent" was Trump, and the reaction to Trump is going to be a hard-line dash back to contentment and familiarity.
|
Over two weeks in federal court, four former members of the once-lauded unit who earlier pleaded guilty took the stand in their new prison uniforms and admitted to crimes denied for years during internal investigations and lawsuits. The officers stole hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, drugs, guns and luxury accessories while pretending to be seizing the goods for legitimate enforcement objectives. They concocted reasons to chase and search suspects or enter houses without warrants to sift through goods they wanted. They covered up their involvement in car crashes when rogue pursuits went bad.
One officer gave his girlfriend a stolen Chanel purse, according to his testimony. Other officers provided security for a high-level drug deal at a strip club.
They doubled their salaries by lying to claim extravagant overtime when they were actually at bars or, in another instance, out of the country on vacation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/former-baltimore-detectives-convicted-in-corruption-trial-with-shocking-details/2018/02/12/961995a6-0a98-11e8-8890-372e2047c935_story.html?utm_term=.3144d2795e9e
Much more in the article too. Meanwhile, donnie dipshit wants to cut funding for PBS and NPR, I guess they said some mean things about him and he's too much of a snowflake to handle it.
|
On February 13 2018 08:45 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 06:00 ChristianS 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:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector.
Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts.
Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. 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. What does "unacceptable" mean exactly? A lot of times people use it idiomatically to mean "really bad," in which case sure, I'm on board. But as I mentioned, I suspect that for many of these abuses it is difficult to establish clear guidelines to prevent them, in which case we might not have a lot of choice but to accept them. In general, expecting voters to identify the ethical problems and vote against candidates with ethical issues feels like a pretty bad defense. These sorts of ethics considerations are arcane and unintuitive, and it's pretty easy to either gloss over a real problem or invent a fake one and convince voters accordingly. Not knowing anything else about this Illinois billionaire, I'm inclined to agree that people shouldn't vote for him, but in general I think court of public opinion is a bad way to handle this. There is no hope for a party who can't unify around not running a corrupt billionaire. In that way it's clear both parties are hopeless (with current leadership/entrenched special interests). Mmkay, so your answer to "how do you want to improve ethics in Washington" is "burn down the two-party system"? Until that happens, do you have anything in the meantime?
No, not burn it down, but I've lost respect for people who want to belong to one of those parties. They are clearly corrupt parties, and can't even stop (dems didn't even try) openly corrupt billionaires from running for office with their support. Yet people are sadly determined that leaving the parties is impossible.
I don't understand how we're looking at the same parties and people think the "stand by your abusive man" crowd is the reasonable side of this argument.
On February 13 2018 10:44 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 09:30 a_flayer wrote:
You simply need to stir up more widespread discontent to get change. Depending on the direction, shape and intensity of said discontent, change will follow. No, I for one am really tired of the extremely broad, holier-than-thou, burn-it-all-down mentality. These are people who fail at politics, and often don't understand the issues enough to actually have nuanced differences with the party. It's always very broad, philosophical. It actually doesn't represent people like Bernie Sanders who've spent decades working with the Democrats to get things done. Widespread discontent is not going to inherently bring out positive change. Widespread discontent over what? Politics in general? All that suggests is a mass-confusion and ignorance, with which you'll end up with any kind of leader imaginable. GH has spent a lot time telling everyone "why we got Trump", like his mentality or vote has no bearing on it. And yet... it obviously did and does. The hidden subtext to everything GH is saying is still "Hillary would've just been as bad". I think it's a bit delusional. And contrary to opinion, Trump isn't going to usher in a new-wave of socialism as a reaction to his horribleness. Quite the opposite. The reaction to Trump are people are yearning, more than ever, for the good ol' status-fucking-quo. No one really cares that Obama was "too centrist" anymore. Obama's centrism now looks more like a beacon of hope than ever before. The Dems are looking to elect a Kennedy, the most familiar of names. The reaction to "widespread discontent" was Trump, and the reaction to Trump is going to be a hard-line dash back to contentment and familiarity.
You could just stop supporting a corrupt party that can't even stand up to their own corrupt billionaire. Or you know, just keep calling the people telling you to not support a party that can't stop a corrupt billionaire (it's own or the other sides) the foolish ones. One more thing you'd have in common with Republicans.
"I can't stop supporting this corruption because the other corruption is worse and it's absurd to think we just stop supporting openly corrupt people"
Y'all are a trip.
|
I’m sure that NPR and PBS will do just fine on their own without government funding.
|
On February 13 2018 10:44 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 09:30 a_flayer wrote:
You simply need to stir up more widespread discontent to get change. Depending on the direction, shape and intensity of said discontent, change will follow. No, I for one am really tired of the extremely broad, holier-than-thou, burn-it-all-down mentality. These are people who fail at politics, and often don't understand the issues enough to actually have nuanced differences with the party. It's always very broad, philosophical. It actually doesn't represent people like Bernie Sanders who've spent decades working with the Democrats to get things done. Widespread discontent is not going to inherently bring out positive change. Widespread discontent over what? Politics in general? All that suggests is a mass-confusion and ignorance, with which you'll end up with any kind of leader imaginable. GH has spent a lot time telling everyone "why we got Trump", like his mentality or vote has no bearing on it. And yet... it obviously did and does. The hidden subtext to everything GH is saying is still "Hillary would've just been as bad". I think it's a bit delusional. And contrary to opinion, Trump isn't going to usher in a new-wave of socialism as a reaction to his horribleness. Quite the opposite. The reaction to Trump are people are yearning, more than ever, for the good ol' status-fucking-quo. No one really cares that Obama was "too centrist" anymore. Obama's centrism now looks more like a beacon of hope than ever before. The Dems are looking to elect a Kennedy, the most familiar of names. The reaction to "widespread discontent" was Trump, and the reaction to Trump is going to be a hard-line dash back to contentment and familiarity.
is "people are yearning for the status quo" just code for "i am yearning for the status quo?" (ie "shut the fuck up we were talking about trump")
|
On February 13 2018 11:31 xDaunt wrote:
I’m sure that NPR and PBS will do just fine on their own without government funding.
There's probably plenty of donors in the major cities and they'll be fine, but for rural areas that rely on local public radio for weather and emergency or traffic reports, it's quite a blow. But most commentators I'm reading say public media cuts tend to fail, so it might not even be an issue.
|
You need a real plan of action when you say "don't support the corruption". The lack of specifics in GH's argument is what's causing people to interpret it as a burn-it-all-down kind of statement, because it's a vague soapbox that doesn't mean anything. What form does not supporting the corruption take? Does it come in the form of not voting? Or does it come in the form of creating and fostering an environment where people who are openly corrupt get shut down on the spot? The latter seems reasonable, the former is completely ineffective. Not voting, or choosing to vote for a Jill Stein that has no chance of winning, doesn't change anything, and it doesn't make a statement.
What about trying to change the playing field so that we don't tolerate corrupt politicians in general? Now we're getting somewhere. But again, how do you do this? How do we get from where we are now to a place where people are held accountable for such impropriety? You still need to have a realistic plan, and you also need to be aware that the US is in a pretty fucked up place right now, and so a solution to the problem isn't going to happen overnight. The most realistic plan is for new people to join our existing political system, and change it from within. Someone like Bernie, for example, exists in stark relief to the very traditionally-Democrat Hillary, and would've been such a change. And we missed the mark in 2016 when they forced Hillary through over Bernie.
But regardless what happened in '16, it's still a complex problem with a long-form solution that's required. Simply telling people to stop supporting The Man isn't useful, and it's especially not useful when people ask you for specifics and you just say it again.
|
On February 13 2018 12:24 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 11:31 xDaunt wrote:
I’m sure that NPR and PBS will do just fine on their own without government funding. There's probably plenty of donors in the major cities and they'll be fine, but for rural areas that rely on local public radio for weather and emergency or traffic reports, it's quite a blow. But most commentators I'm reading say public media cuts tend to fail, so it might not even be an issue.
NPR does not need federal funding any more and has not for a long time. They got smart when it became clear that Republicans were going to try and defund them at every turn. They work the state level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
