|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 01 2018 06:25 Djabanete wrote:
I read the transcript. The only joke that came close to crossing a line was the joke about Conway. The ones about Huckabee Sanders and Ivanka Trump were fine, unless lying, nepotism, and job performance are things we can't talk about anymore. The whole point of the correspondents' dinner is to roast people. What did they expect? Doesn't this happen every year?
The joke about Conway was that she should get stuck under a fallen tree so that she can't run around spouting out her lies to the public, right?
|
You can't be mad about an offensive clown if you elected one. It's pretty simple. Who are the "snowflakes" now? Sigh.
|
On May 01 2018 08:13 mierin wrote:I frequent another site, and one of the posters brought up this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/04/30/american-airlines-passenger-the-cops-were-called-on-me-for-flying-while-fat-black/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1a11d7e54439There were the standard people saying "oh she's just playing the black card" and then the counter "you're a racist" etc. I guess I'm honestly fishing for a GH response, but here's my take on this. I'd like some honest discussion. + Show Spoiler +The problem here is, when the system is stacked against you you get trained to take any advantage you can to get by.
Here's a "white person" take on why this is the case. I used to be the brightest-eyed, most helpful/skillful IT employee with nothing but the best intentions, but quickly learned that going above and beyond only created an expectation that I would be excellent, but that didn't come with a pay raise or anything like that, so it basically turned into "get overtime for overachieving."
Years later, I still get paid my overtime even though I don't actually work it. If my employer thinks I'm busy and providing a service that's needed, they'll pay me for my time. Once upon a time I was really working 12-15 hrs a day and doing my best to help people. Now, because I have a reputation for basically working miracles, my company doesn't say anything when I claim OT even though I haven't recently done a darn thing to deserve it.
Is this gaming the system? Of course it is! But the system (in my opinion) was gaming me all along, so it "deserves" it in some right.
So this black woman plays "the black card" to get attention and/or money for her issue. For me I totally understand where she's coming from--if there's anything at all you can do to get ahead in life, why not do it? If you feel that the cards are stacked against you, yet you can "count cards" and come up with a winning solution, why not go for it?. Does it maybe undermine a cause for everyone while doing it? Sure, now people have become desensitized to racism and feel that whenever someone points it out, it's "pulling the race card" and immediately discounts it. But personally this woman and other people benefit.
How is what I do any different? I guess I could be adversely affecting perception of IT people everywhere. "They laze around and claim OT for things they don't actually do." But if they aren't paid enough / recognized for doing that in the first place, what's the problem here? The IT person, or the system?
It's a really complicated issue, and I know that's not the same as institutionalized racism but this is me as a white person thinking I understand a little bit why people are prone to pulling "the race card" even though it isn't necessarily logically "warranted". When you feel like you can't win no matter what cards you play, "cheating" becomes a much more palatable option.
AA should have given her an extra seat if there was capacity for it. Regional jets are tiny.
|
On May 01 2018 06:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2018 06:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So trump is pushing for congressional term limits. I can get behind that. I'm sure we can all agree that should have been implemented long ago. Absolutely not, legislative term limits are a terrible idea and their effect in states that have implemented them, namely that they guarantee that the only entities with a perpetual seat at the dealmaking tables are lobbyists, bears this out in real time as we speak.
Not that I necessarily disagree, but how is this different than what we have now? Everyone is bought and paid for. At least with terms we can get new blood and remove evil fucks like Hatch and the like rather than being stuck with them for decades.
Maybe then we'd have people who understand Facebook asking questions about it, for example.
|
On May 01 2018 08:26 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2018 06:30 farvacola wrote:On May 01 2018 06:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So trump is pushing for congressional term limits. I can get behind that. I'm sure we can all agree that should have been implemented long ago. Absolutely not, legislative term limits are a terrible idea and their effect in states that have implemented them, namely that they guarantee that the only entities with a perpetual seat at the dealmaking tables are lobbyists, bears this out in real time as we speak. Not that I necessarily disagree, but how is this different than what we have now? Everyone is bought and paid for. At least with terms we can get new blood and remove evil fucks like Hatch and the like rather than being stuck with them for decades. Maybe then we'd have people who understand Facebook asking questions about it, for example.
You also lose all your experience. Would you get rid of a doctor who knows what they are doing just because they have been doing it for 20 years?
It is up to the voting block to get rid of shitty representatives. If votes wont do it then that is on them
|
On May 01 2018 08:26 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2018 06:30 farvacola wrote:On May 01 2018 06:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So trump is pushing for congressional term limits. I can get behind that. I'm sure we can all agree that should have been implemented long ago. Absolutely not, legislative term limits are a terrible idea and their effect in states that have implemented them, namely that they guarantee that the only entities with a perpetual seat at the dealmaking tables are lobbyists, bears this out in real time as we speak. Not that I necessarily disagree, but how is this different than what we have now? Everyone is bought and paid for. At least with terms we can get new blood and remove evil fucks like Hatch and the like rather than being stuck with them for decades. Maybe then we'd have people who understand Facebook asking questions about it, for example.
People in the House of Representatives did. The Senate did not, because that group historically leans older. Term limits doesn't solve any specific problem, its just trades the current problems for new problems. Term limits makes sense for the executive branch, but not for a deliberative body. It takes years of experience to even become proficient in crafting legislature and building up a skilled staff. Gutting that every 2-4 terms will just put power in the hands of people who can outlast our elected representatives.
|
On May 01 2018 08:26 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2018 06:30 farvacola wrote:On May 01 2018 06:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So trump is pushing for congressional term limits. I can get behind that. I'm sure we can all agree that should have been implemented long ago. Absolutely not, legislative term limits are a terrible idea and their effect in states that have implemented them, namely that they guarantee that the only entities with a perpetual seat at the dealmaking tables are lobbyists, bears this out in real time as we speak. Not that I necessarily disagree, but how is this different than what we have now? Everyone is bought and paid for. At least with terms we can get new blood and remove evil fucks like Hatch and the like rather than being stuck with them for decades. Maybe then we'd have people who understand Facebook asking questions about it, for example.
"How does Facebook make money if it's free?"
Oh god that was so cringeworthy, and even made Robot Zuckerberg crack a smile. "We run ads?"
|
On May 01 2018 08:33 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2018 08:26 On_Slaught wrote:On May 01 2018 06:30 farvacola wrote:On May 01 2018 06:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So trump is pushing for congressional term limits. I can get behind that. I'm sure we can all agree that should have been implemented long ago. Absolutely not, legislative term limits are a terrible idea and their effect in states that have implemented them, namely that they guarantee that the only entities with a perpetual seat at the dealmaking tables are lobbyists, bears this out in real time as we speak. Not that I necessarily disagree, but how is this different than what we have now? Everyone is bought and paid for. At least with terms we can get new blood and remove evil fucks like Hatch and the like rather than being stuck with them for decades. Maybe then we'd have people who understand Facebook asking questions about it, for example. You also lose all your experience. Would you get rid of a doctor who knows what they are doing just because they have been doing it for 20 years? It is up to the voting block to get rid of shitty representatives. If votes wont do it then that is on them
That "losing experience" thing goes both ways though. You're making an argument against a two-term president. There's not much in terms of "experience" other than "playing the system". Most politicians look out for themselves, not for what they're supposed to represent.
Sidenote, i know what you were trying to say with your example, but factually, i don't really want to go bloodletting or have myself covered in leeches nowadays. It's not just "experience", it's "20 year old opinions and ways of handling". A lot changed in 20 years, and clearly, a lot of your politicians have zero idea how the current world works. As was proven very much in the Zuckerbot-hearing.
|
On May 01 2018 08:26 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2018 06:30 farvacola wrote:On May 01 2018 06:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So trump is pushing for congressional term limits. I can get behind that. I'm sure we can all agree that should have been implemented long ago. Absolutely not, legislative term limits are a terrible idea and their effect in states that have implemented them, namely that they guarantee that the only entities with a perpetual seat at the dealmaking tables are lobbyists, bears this out in real time as we speak. Not that I necessarily disagree, but how is this different than what we have now? Everyone is bought and paid for. At least with terms we can get new blood and remove evil fucks like Hatch and the like rather than being stuck with them for decades. Maybe then we'd have people who understand Facebook asking questions about it, for example.
On one hand, it's a tall order to defend some of the things said in Congress when it comes to things like Facebook and video game violence. On the other, Zuckerberg himself displayed a great deal of ignorance as to the policy implications of Facebook and it'd be a mistake to exaggerate the extent to which institutions anywhere, Congress notwithstanding, are able to make intelligent, contemporaneous policy changes in response to relatively rapid technological influence on social norms and political channels.
More to the point I was making, it's also a mistake to underestimate just how low the floor can get in terms of legislative bullshit; a good case can be made for the past 10-15 years being some of the worst as a reflection of Congress competently discharging its duties in US history (with at least a handful of periods comparing pretty well, i.e. the follow up to the Civil War (1850-61)), but behind most "good" legislative acts throughout US history, there have been numerous senators and representatives with lengthy careers that played a figurative role at the table of putting stuff like FDR's social programs or the CRA together for passage (or, less easy to observe, stalling or fucking with legislative actions that are bad). With terms limits in action, that kind of institutional knowledge gets discarded and the only entity with the wherewithal to gather and implement long-term policy goals ends up being the influence term limits were intended to fight in the first place, like special interest groups with long term lobbying firm contracts that go on for decades uninterrupted.
It's also worth acknowledging that other potential solutions present far less of a downside in terms of losses to legislative institutional knowledge, like formalizing stricter gerrymandering rules or cutting down on election spending. I think those places are worthy of more focus.
|
Meh, I don't buy that we're losing some key legislative experience. While I dont have first hand knowledge, there is no way these highly technical laws are being written by these Senators; They are being written by staffers and lobbyist.
Even if it was a problem, it is a implementation one, not a values one. Nobody benefits from these dinosaurs being in office so long.
I dont think it's a crisis, but I wouldn't be against looking into it. Maybe creating special neutral roles to help with crafting legislation to help new people
|
On May 01 2018 08:59 On_Slaught wrote:
Meh, I don't buy that we're losing some key legislative experience. While I dont have first hand knowledge, there is no way these highly technical laws are being written by these Senators; They are being written by staffers and lobbyist.
Even if it was a problem, it is a implementation one, not a values one. Nobody benefits from these dinosaurs being in office so long.
I dont think it's a crisis, but I wouldn't be against looking into it. Maybe creating special neutral roles to help with crafting legislation to help new people
do you have any evidence to support the highlighted claim?
|
On May 01 2018 08:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2018 08:26 On_Slaught wrote:On May 01 2018 06:30 farvacola wrote:On May 01 2018 06:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So trump is pushing for congressional term limits. I can get behind that. I'm sure we can all agree that should have been implemented long ago. Absolutely not, legislative term limits are a terrible idea and their effect in states that have implemented them, namely that they guarantee that the only entities with a perpetual seat at the dealmaking tables are lobbyists, bears this out in real time as we speak. Not that I necessarily disagree, but how is this different than what we have now? Everyone is bought and paid for. At least with terms we can get new blood and remove evil fucks like Hatch and the like rather than being stuck with them for decades. Maybe then we'd have people who understand Facebook asking questions about it, for example. On one hand, it's a tall order to defend some of the things said in Congress when it comes to things like Facebook and video game violence. On the other, Zuckerberg himself displayed a great deal of ignorance as to the policy implications of Facebook and it'd be a mistake to exaggerate the extent to which institutions anywhere, Congress notwithstanding, are able to make intelligent, contemporaneous policy changes in response to relatively rapid technological influence on social norms and political channels. More to the point I was making, it's also a mistake to underestimate just how low the floor can get in terms of legislative bullshit; a good case can be made for the past 10-15 years being some of the worst as a reflection of Congress competently discharging its duties in US history (with at least a handful of periods comparing pretty well, i.e. the follow up to the Civil War (1850-61)), but behind most "good" legislative acts throughout US history, there have been numerous senators and representatives with lengthy careers that played a figurative role at the table of putting stuff like FDR's social programs or the CRA together for passage (or, less easy to observe, stalling or fucking with legislative actions that are bad). With terms limits in action, that kind of institutional knowledge gets discarded and the only entity with the wherewithal to gather and implement long-term policy goals ends up being the influence term limits were intended to fight in the first place, like special interest groups with long term lobbying firm contracts that go on for decades uninterrupted. It's also worth acknowledging that other potential solutions present far less of a downside in terms of losses to legislative institutional knowledge, like formalizing stricter gerrymandering rules or cutting down on election spending. I think those places are worthy of more focus.
I absolutely agree things like gerrymandering are much more pressing. And I dont disagree with anything you said. However it comes down to weighing the harms of term limits against what we have now. I think there is an argument that the status quo is worse.
For example, a revolving door would help fight this party over country bullshit. When ur trying to be a senator for life, you have to stick with your party while in office. However, as we are seeing now, Senators who are retiring are much more reasonable and willing to work with the other side. They don't have to swear fealty to the President or speaker because it's a temporary gig. I think we'd be better off if people saw Congress as a temporary thing you did for your country rather than a life time job where you spend most of your time just trying to stay in power and keep your donors happy.
|
On May 01 2018 09:16 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2018 08:59 On_Slaught wrote:
Meh, I don't buy that we're losing some key legislative experience. While I dont have first hand knowledge, there is no way these highly technical laws are being written by these Senators; They are being written by staffers and lobbyist.
Even if it was a problem, it is a implementation one, not a values one. Nobody benefits from these dinosaurs being in office so long.
I dont think it's a crisis, but I wouldn't be against looking into it. Maybe creating special neutral roles to help with crafting legislation to help new people do you have any evidence to support the highlighted claim?
That line was poorly worded. I don't think an 80 year old senator adds much of anything in value that a 35 year old senator couldn't. The type of unique knowledge they have is either old fashioned/not necessarily useful or something that can be gotten from aids/more senior legislators on the job.
|
Personally term limits may help, but I don't think it solves the problem. What I feel can solve the problem is if we have an even representation of age groups. One old, one young if we're talking about state senators or maybe add a couple more to represent more age groups, and in terms of reps, break it out evenly based on how many you have.
I think a huge problem is the lack of experience from all age groups. Older people don't tend to adapt as quickly as younger people can, while younger people don't have all the necessary life experiences one usually has. I feel like this would get younger people more involved as well, voting for some one who they feel actually represents them.
The problem in all honesty is how gerrymandered this country has gotten. Until we solve that, we can't even talk about term limits, or other rule sets that can be implemented.
|
On May 01 2018 09:21 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2018 09:16 zlefin wrote:On May 01 2018 08:59 On_Slaught wrote:
Meh, I don't buy that we're losing some key legislative experience. While I dont have first hand knowledge, there is no way these highly technical laws are being written by these Senators; They are being written by staffers and lobbyist.
Even if it was a problem, it is a implementation one, not a values one. Nobody benefits from these dinosaurs being in office so long.
I dont think it's a crisis, but I wouldn't be against looking into it. Maybe creating special neutral roles to help with crafting legislation to help new people do you have any evidence to support the highlighted claim? That line was poorly worded. I don't think an 80 year old senator adds much of anything of value that a 35 year old senator couldn't. The type of unique knowledge they have is either old fashioned/not necessarily useful or something that can be gotten from aids/more senior legislators.
ok;
does a 35 year old senator add much of value that an 80 year old couldn't?
|
On May 01 2018 09:26 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2018 09:21 On_Slaught wrote:On May 01 2018 09:16 zlefin wrote:On May 01 2018 08:59 On_Slaught wrote:
Meh, I don't buy that we're losing some key legislative experience. While I dont have first hand knowledge, there is no way these highly technical laws are being written by these Senators; They are being written by staffers and lobbyist.
Even if it was a problem, it is a implementation one, not a values one. Nobody benefits from these dinosaurs being in office so long.
I dont think it's a crisis, but I wouldn't be against looking into it. Maybe creating special neutral roles to help with crafting legislation to help new people do you have any evidence to support the highlighted claim? That line was poorly worded. I don't think an 80 year old senator adds much of anything of value that a 35 year old senator couldn't. The type of unique knowledge they have is either old fashioned/not necessarily useful or something that can be gotten from aids/more senior legislators. ok; does a 35 year old senator add much of value that an 80 year old couldn't?
1. Recent hearings show the answer is clearly yes, at least so far as things like technology matter.
2. The argument is for term limits. Theoretically this could remove 35 year olds and put 80 year olds in. The ultimate goal is to lower the impact of lobbying and party before country mentalities (which this may or may not do ofc, that's the debate). The benefits of younger members is a side benefit to me.
|
On May 01 2018 09:30 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2018 09:26 zlefin wrote:On May 01 2018 09:21 On_Slaught wrote:On May 01 2018 09:16 zlefin wrote:On May 01 2018 08:59 On_Slaught wrote:
Meh, I don't buy that we're losing some key legislative experience. While I dont have first hand knowledge, there is no way these highly technical laws are being written by these Senators; They are being written by staffers and lobbyist.
Even if it was a problem, it is a implementation one, not a values one. Nobody benefits from these dinosaurs being in office so long.
I dont think it's a crisis, but I wouldn't be against looking into it. Maybe creating special neutral roles to help with crafting legislation to help new people do you have any evidence to support the highlighted claim? That line was poorly worded. I don't think an 80 year old senator adds much of anything of value that a 35 year old senator couldn't. The type of unique knowledge they have is either old fashioned/not necessarily useful or something that can be gotten from aids/more senior legislators. ok; does a 35 year old senator add much of value that an 80 year old couldn't? 1. Recent hearings show the answer is clearly yes, at least so far as things like technology matter. 2. The argument is for term limits. Theoretically this could remove 35 year olds and put 80 year olds in. The ultimate goal is to lower the impact of lobbying and party before country mentalities (which this may or may not do ofc, that's the debate). The benefits of younger members is a side benefit to me.
1. and how come the modified form: "something that can be gotten from aids/more junior legislators." does not apply?
2. do you have any evidence for it lowering the impact of lobbying?
|
A quick google search shows why it can be more harmful than good.
I think this explanation does fairly well in Quora:
If term limits could eliminate “corporate lobbyists and special interest pandering,” I suppose that’d be worth considering. Though keep in mind that one man’s “special interest pandering” is another man’s righteous advocacy organization standing up for what’s important!
The bigger problem is that term limits actually make special interests more powerful. If you’re an elected official, and you won’t be in office for more than 6 years, for example, you’re going to be thinking about your next moves from day 1. Why take a chance on tough votes that could upset anyone when you’ll be looking for a job in a few years? Better to build relationships and get out of office with a plan, right?
Yes, yes: this is certainly a problem even without term limits. But term limits make it worse! One theory in political science argues that elected officials are “single-minded seekers of re-election,” but if we take away that motivation in the long term, we can end up with a legislature far more responsive to interests that’ll be around in a few years than to legislators that won’t.
And you can't outright ban lobbying because then you writing a letter to your rep would be considered illegal.
|
This isn't a science. It can limit lobbying by removing entrenched individuals who have excessive influence (see any number of senior senators), which in turn lessens the influence of the lobbyists who control them. It can lower the power of lobbying by infusing the hill with people who aren't, or can't, get reelected and hence dont kowtow to lobbyist. It can hurt lobbyist by making it more financially difficult to own many congressmen since there will be more competitive, and hence more expensive, races because you dont have people who have owned seats for decades and are auto wins. Or maybe it makes everything worse, who knows. But I dont think its and open and shut case that things will be worse lobbying wise.
I still think there is merit to, and present examples concerning, the idea that when Senators are not running for reelection they become more reasonable. While it may not stop the influence of lobbying on them specifically, it definitely seems to diminish this party before country mindset.
@zlefin, I think context matters. Having young aids clearly didn't help the senators with Zuckerburg. Telling your aids you want X in a bill and asking them to write something up is different. This is definitely a more nuanced issue and I agree switching to term limits solely to get younger people probably isn't reason enough to justify it. Dunno, I'm mostly just playing devils advocate here. Gerrymandering is the real issue that concerns me deeply.
|
On May 01 2018 08:13 mierin wrote:I frequent another site, and one of the posters brought up this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/04/30/american-airlines-passenger-the-cops-were-called-on-me-for-flying-while-fat-black/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1a11d7e54439There were the standard people saying "oh she's just playing the black card" and then the counter "you're a racist" etc. I guess I'm honestly fishing for a GH response, but here's my take on this. I'd like some honest discussion. + Show Spoiler +The problem here is, when the system is stacked against you you get trained to take any advantage you can to get by.
Here's a "white person" take on why this is the case. I used to be the brightest-eyed, most helpful/skillful IT employee with nothing but the best intentions, but quickly learned that going above and beyond only created an expectation that I would be excellent, but that didn't come with a pay raise or anything like that, so it basically turned into "get overtime for overachieving."
Years later, I still get paid my overtime even though I don't actually work it. If my employer thinks I'm busy and providing a service that's needed, they'll pay me for my time. Once upon a time I was really working 12-15 hrs a day and doing my best to help people. Now, because I have a reputation for basically working miracles, my company doesn't say anything when I claim OT even though I haven't recently done a darn thing to deserve it.
Is this gaming the system? Of course it is! But the system (in my opinion) was gaming me all along, so it "deserves" it in some right.
So this black woman plays "the black card" to get attention and/or money for her issue. For me I totally understand where she's coming from--if there's anything at all you can do to get ahead in life, why not do it? If you feel that the cards are stacked against you, yet you can "count cards" and come up with a winning solution, why not go for it?. Does it maybe undermine a cause for everyone while doing it? Sure, now people have become desensitized to racism and feel that whenever someone points it out, it's "pulling the race card" and immediately discounts it. But personally this woman and other people benefit.
How is what I do any different? I guess I could be adversely affecting perception of IT people everywhere. "They laze around and claim OT for things they don't actually do." But if they aren't paid enough / recognized for doing that in the first place, what's the problem here? The IT person, or the system?
It's a really complicated issue, and I know that's not the same as institutionalized racism but this is me as a white person thinking I understand a little bit why people are prone to pulling "the race card" even though it isn't necessarily logically "warranted". When you feel like you can't win no matter what cards you play, "cheating" becomes a much more palatable option.
Can't say much to the specific story besides US airlines typically suck and treat their customers terribly, especially if they aren't white business class+ passengers. (edit: oh and the other woman had the aisle, that's the last person who gets to complain about personal space on a plane.)
This part though I think might be the most important.
“White people literally need to stop calling the cops on black people who make them uncomfortable,” she said. “They’re calling the cops like they need to speak to the manager or something. You’re not allowed to call the cops for things that aren’t true.”
People are using the police against Black people like teenagers are swatting people to settle online bullshit. It's costing people their lives, freedom, dignity and so on. If white people aren't going to take to the streets en mass to get these reforms they talk about, then at least stop calling the cops on 'suspicious' Black people, unless they are so suspicious you don't mind living with their death (even if they are totally innocent) because you called the cops that you won't fix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
