|
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 |
United States42653 Posts
On August 25 2018 00:42 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 00:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 00:03 IyMoon wrote:
I dislike the college fund idea. It basically just becomes mandatory for everyone but the rich.
Just make it a straight mandatory like other countries. 2 years in the military or 2 years civil service at 18. No way out except for medical exemption
Have you considered that some people have a different path and that it would be hugely detrimental to them to have to give two years of their youth to your civil service? I am a professional classical musician. My late teens, early twenty were the most crucial years of my life, the ones you learn the fastest and acquire the skill to compete on an extraordinarily competitive, globalised market. I was practicing hours and hours a day, every single day. Had I been sent to do whatever where I couldn’t spend those precious years to study, I wouldn’t have succeeded the way I did. As someone who also has a music degree, it didn't stop anyone I studied with in Germany where they have civil service.
Surely you wouldn’t know the musicians who were stopped by the draft because they were stopped. The sample population is flawed.
|
On August 25 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 03:09 zlefin wrote:On August 25 2018 03:07 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 03:01 zlefin wrote:
Did anyone present an actual good case for this "mandatory civil service" proposal, that answers the questions about it? I know I asked earlier, and I don't think I've seen one. Farv and my arguments as to the merits of civil service were excellent, but I'm not sure if they answered your question. I haven't been reading farv's posts, is there a particular one/ones which you think address the issue well? (just approx, like a this page, or a few pages back is fine) I don't recall seeing anything in any of yours which would qualify as a good answer/case in favor of the proposal. That sounds like a you problem, my reasoning is staggeringly good.
Or you think it's good, and it's in fact a poor reason that you've failed to substantiate; and that fails to address the counterpoints.
|
On August 25 2018 01:44 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:We seem to be quickly approaching the end game here. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/24/longtime-trump-organization-cfo-weisselberg-granted-immunity-in-cohen-probe-dj-citing-sources.htmlLongtime Trump Organization CFO Weisselberg granted immunity in Cohen probeAllen Weisselberg, longtime chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, has been granted immunity by federal prosecutors as part of their investigation into President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, NBC News reported on Friday.
Weisselberg was subpoenaed by prosecutors earlier this year to testify before a grand jury as part of that probe.
News of Weisselberg's immunity deal follows a Thursday report that David Pecker, the chairman of publishing giant American Media, had also received federal immunity as part of the Cohen investigation. It will escalate pressure on the president, who was implicated in a number of crimes that Cohen pleaded guilty to on Tuesday in New York federal court.
Cohen admitted that he had facilitated unlawful payments to two women at Trump's direction in order to keep unfavorable information about the president, who at the time was still a candidate, from becoming public. Pecker shared information about the payments with prosecutors in exchange for immunity, including details about the president's knowledge of the payments.
Cohen seems to have been the forge that smelts the silver bullets. After Cohen's surrender, we are seeing people drop like flies. And it's not like before. Prior to Cohen, we would be able to see Mueller closing in on people, they resist, Mueller keeps pushing, eventually the person folds. After Cohen, we are seeing the grand prize folding without even a hint of resistance. It is interesting how the plan seems to be going after the Trump organization since there is a bit of uncertainty around the idea of indicting a president. If you just start out by ignoring the president, then go after the things he is extremely involved in, you can likely end up incidentally GG'ing the president. My expectation is that Weisselberg has information as damning as it gets. It is also very telling to see how Trump and his allies are taking the position of "nothing wrong" instead of "nothing illegal". I think their plan is to take the position that what they did was illegal, but not wrong. Their argument will be that it isn't a bad thing that Trump and his allies broke the law. These recent immunities are big news. If there was any financial wrong doing then these are the people who would know and have evidence. Looks like Mueller is going hard on the campaign finance violation angle. There may even be more financial crimes we dont know about (his charity maybe?). Seeming more and more likely that Mueller's report will state that he believes Trump obstructed justice and violated campaign laws as well as lied to the American public (a lot probably). As for the Russia collusion part we will have to wait and see what he has. As for how Republicans in Congress will respond to his report depends entirely on how the midterm goes, right or not.
If Trump himself is saying "if I was impeached the economy would tank" and Giuliani is saying "if he was impeached there would be a revolt " then you know impeachment is a real possibility.
|
On August 25 2018 03:18 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 03:09 zlefin wrote:On August 25 2018 03:07 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 03:01 zlefin wrote:
Did anyone present an actual good case for this "mandatory civil service" proposal, that answers the questions about it? I know I asked earlier, and I don't think I've seen one. Farv and my arguments as to the merits of civil service were excellent, but I'm not sure if they answered your question. I haven't been reading farv's posts, is there a particular one/ones which you think address the issue well? (just approx, like a this page, or a few pages back is fine) I don't recall seeing anything in any of yours which would qualify as a good answer/case in favor of the proposal. That sounds like a you problem, my reasoning is staggeringly good. Or you think it's good, and it's in fact a poor reason that you've failed to substantiate; and that fails to address the counterpoints.
Ah, we have now moved to the general understand that “a good argument” is a subjective metric, rather than this objective measurement of merit that can be demanded at will. Carry on then.
|
On August 25 2018 03:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 03:18 zlefin wrote:On August 25 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 03:09 zlefin wrote:On August 25 2018 03:07 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 03:01 zlefin wrote:
Did anyone present an actual good case for this "mandatory civil service" proposal, that answers the questions about it? I know I asked earlier, and I don't think I've seen one. Farv and my arguments as to the merits of civil service were excellent, but I'm not sure if they answered your question. I haven't been reading farv's posts, is there a particular one/ones which you think address the issue well? (just approx, like a this page, or a few pages back is fine) I don't recall seeing anything in any of yours which would qualify as a good answer/case in favor of the proposal. That sounds like a you problem, my reasoning is staggeringly good. Or you think it's good, and it's in fact a poor reason that you've failed to substantiate; and that fails to address the counterpoints. Ah, we have now moved to the general understand that “a good argument” is a subjective metric, rather than this objective measurement of merit that can be demanded at will. Carry on then.
ok, this is clearly going nowhere so I'm done with you; if anyone else wants to discuss the matter I'd be interested.
|
On August 25 2018 03:25 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 03:20 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 03:18 zlefin wrote:On August 25 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 03:09 zlefin wrote:On August 25 2018 03:07 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 03:01 zlefin wrote:
Did anyone present an actual good case for this "mandatory civil service" proposal, that answers the questions about it? I know I asked earlier, and I don't think I've seen one. Farv and my arguments as to the merits of civil service were excellent, but I'm not sure if they answered your question. I haven't been reading farv's posts, is there a particular one/ones which you think address the issue well? (just approx, like a this page, or a few pages back is fine) I don't recall seeing anything in any of yours which would qualify as a good answer/case in favor of the proposal. That sounds like a you problem, my reasoning is staggeringly good. Or you think it's good, and it's in fact a poor reason that you've failed to substantiate; and that fails to address the counterpoints. Ah, we have now moved to the general understand that “a good argument” is a subjective metric, rather than this objective measurement of merit that can be demanded at will. Carry on then. ok, this is clearly going nowhere so I'm done with you; if anyone else wants to discuss the matter I'd be interested.
why arent you reading farv's posts?
|
On August 25 2018 03:13 Broetchenholer wrote:
I would assume that in germany civil service was not as helpful to society, as we abolished it when we abolished the draft. Someone looked at it and said it's not worth keeping that. I personally know that now that it is gone, a lot of charity or unpaid work has been harder to do because the organisations cannot get as many social year applicants as civil year applicants before. Basically, if you are an uncommercial institution, having a pool of people that work for essentially free each year is a great boon. The medical service industry certainly cannot use civil year applicants anymore, i have no idea though how this has affected the business. For the young people themselves, there are a lot of valuable skills to be learned, but if that is enough of a reason to do it, i wouldn't want to say. I certainly grew as a person but i might have without it as well.
I think i might be the only person here who actually did some civil service 
With regards to why we abolished it, that is quite simple. We abolished the draft, and civil service was a substitute for the draft for those people who claimed that shooting people is not something that fits their ethics. Mandatory civil service is not compatible with our constitution, which only allows forced labor under very specific conditions, one possibility compatible with those being military service. So if you wanted to have civil service for all, you would need to change the constitution. Which is not as horrifically impossible here as in the US. I think that there is currently a discussion about implementing something like a general civil service, but mostly due to the fact that not a lot of other interesting politics stuff happens during the summer.
The main selling point of general civil service is that it strengthens the bonds of the nation. It gives young people a different perspective on live and instills a sense of community through helping others, as opposed of constantly and only looking out for yourself. It might also give them a completely different outlook on what life is for less fortunate people.
That being said, the military draft and civil service in germany in its later years was very flawed. Starting from the point that it was very much not general. In fact, out of my friendship group, i was the only person who served. Everyone else found some bullshit way to get around it due to the weird drafting process. If you stated that you were going to do civil service, you were far more likely to have to actually serve than if you waited for the last possible moment to do so. Because the military didn't actually need all of those recruits, it took only 20% or so of the compatible ones. But almost everyone who stated that they would be doing civil service was actually called to do said service. And it was apparently quite easy to find some doctors who certify some bullshit so that you are not qualified for service. A friend of mine found a way to turn "my thumb hurts" into not having to serve. My brother was to thin.
That meant that the only people who actually served were those who actively wanted to, or didn't care enought to figure out a way to dodge.
Another problem were the jobs that the civil service people had to do. There were obviously large differences there, but a lot of companies simply used them as incredibly cheap labor. My job was literally just existing. There had to be two people on a car that drives sick people from hospital to hospital. But of course actually trained people are expensive, so i was one of them. I wasn't allowed to actually drive the patients, as i wasn't qualified. So i just sat there while the other guy drove them around. Apparently people complained that i was sleeping while doing that, so eventually i got send to the archive to sit around there doing nothing.
I know that for a lot of people, civil service was very formative and intersting, but to me it was just utterly pointless, and it was very obvious that the only reason i was there was because i was cheap "labor" (To be honest, i would have been more satisfied if i actually did any labor).
With regards to the musical people and the draft, i am almost certain that there would be some way to do music within the military. I know that my father got into the sports corps to play chess during his military time because he was good enough at it.
|
On August 25 2018 03:00 farvacola wrote:The normative idea that people *should* be free to do whatever they please is obviously something far short of a maxim given the positive reality of the fact that there are a host of things forced on people because they need money to live, eat, fuck, and even die. This high fallutin take on a freedom that is necessarily circumscribed by the capitalist circumstance in which it dwells does no one but ideologues any good. Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On August 25 2018 02:36 farvacola wrote:On August 25 2018 02:30 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 02:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 01:59 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 01:38 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 25 2018 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 01:06 Broetchenholer wrote:
[quote]
You do realize that you ask for society not to have a mandatory year of civil service because musicians and pro gamers would be hindered in their chances for an international career. There are certainly other careers as well that would have that problem, but overall it's a fringe problem. And in SK or Israel pretending to have a mental issue so you can play a classical instrument is pretty entitled. A lot of people dodge the draft for mostly selfish reasons, but "i want to become a professional classical music player" is certainly the most entitled i have heard so far.
Well, I simply don’t think that such things should be compulsory unless it’s absolutely necessary. And it’s not. Now if you think you should fuck up every young person who has a plan and no time to lose so that other kids can find themselves, that’s fine, but I disagree. Also I don’t think you realize what level of comitment and what sacrifices we all make to become musicians. It’s my life since I’m 12. I was home schooled from age 15. If you think that it’s about luxury and entitlement good for you. I am a member of a major european orchestra, and I probably worked harder than most of the ones pretendendon it’s all superfluous and whatnot. I personally don’t think i have lessons to receive. I realize most people never had one thing they spent their whole life dedicated to. You won’t understand why it’s obvious that you want to dodge a civil service until you have been there. It’s the one thong that matters most for us since childhood. I’m all for civil service. On a voluntary basis. If people need to do stuff because they have not found themselves, good for them. But don’t fuck up a chance of a kid to win the olympic, or have an international career as a concert artist, or whatever needs complete dedication, for absolutely no reason. Look, i don't question your commitment and the hard labor you had to put in to reach the point you are at right now. I also don't question at all the value your job is giving back to society. I like listening to classical music and i can appreciate how hard it is having utterly failed at playing the trumpet as a child. It's just, in germany we have mandatory school until the age of 15 (i think) and no musician or athlete gets to skip that either. To say that because you have dedicated your life to something, you have earned the right to not do something society has agreed upon is mandatory is entitlement. I did not enjoy claening butts! I was 100% dedicated to enjoy my life but i had to disrupt that 5 days a week to do a job that was unpleasant and boring. It was still good for society that i did it, i provided cheap labor and took pressure from my coworkers. I was actually useful. I would argue that even if all musicians were worse as a consequence, civil service were a net benefit to society. And you should really not be throwing pro gamers under the bus here, you are both artists, you both need the exact same skills and you both live from people caring about your work being art. And when it is about being thankful for a profession, musicians are really not on the top of my list. If anything you should be thankful for other professions to enable you to live your passion. Good for you, personally I am thankful to myself for working my ass off, and the 4000 or so people who listen to me every week are thankful to me to move them, and make their life richer and more interesting. I don’t see why I have anyone to thank. I provide a service at an extremely hard level for a relatively mediocre pay, and if other people haven’t followed their dreams, it’s not really my business. As for pro gamers, they are athlete and not artists, if anything and I would rather have a society without pro league than a society without concerts. But that’s personal. We have to go to school because it’s essential for being a whole human being. You comparison is irrelevant. A good society is a society which allows each individual to access his full potential, to exploit his talent, to work as hard as he can to be the best version of himself, and to pursuit hapiness with as little obstacles as possible. I don’t see how your civil service helps with any if that, and I would argue, it would be on the way for many, many people. Mandatory civil service requires the haves and the have-nots to serve together doing the same work. It may interrupt some professions that exist at the global level, but the benefits could out weight the flaws. But this is pipe dream that would never get traction in the US. I don’t really get the goal of it. What’s exactly the benefit of it? If the idea is that the economy would gain from it, I personally don’t see how it’s that different from forced labour. I am thinking of the benefits to the people involved and the undercutting of capitalistic theory that everyone needs to be building towards increased production their entire lives. Plus the level of the playing field for rich working with the poor for the good of the general public. Don't forget that while many here are proud of it, the fact that a significant portion of Americans will never live more than 50 miles away from where they were born is a huge component of our nation's seemingly terminal sense of discord. Folks eager to chalk up the US' coming out of the Great Depression to WWII too easily forget how much cohesion began via implementation of New Deal federal jobs programs, many of which requires folks to move far away from home. the US is a big place and arguably more homogeneous than the EU. what are the US's stats on distance from place of birth/childhood vs the EU? i suppose the EU is also arguably more "discordant" I would wager that any concept of homogeneity as applied here would need to be complicated somewhat. I think it's fair to say that the US is more homogeneous than the EU in some ways, but less in others.
in what ways is the US more heterogeneous than the EU?
|
On August 25 2018 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 02:27 zlefin wrote:On August 25 2018 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On August 25 2018 01:44 On_Slaught wrote:On August 25 2018 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:We seem to be quickly approaching the end game here. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/24/longtime-trump-organization-cfo-weisselberg-granted-immunity-in-cohen-probe-dj-citing-sources.htmlLongtime Trump Organization CFO Weisselberg granted immunity in Cohen probeAllen Weisselberg, longtime chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, has been granted immunity by federal prosecutors as part of their investigation into President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, NBC News reported on Friday.
Weisselberg was subpoenaed by prosecutors earlier this year to testify before a grand jury as part of that probe.
News of Weisselberg's immunity deal follows a Thursday report that David Pecker, the chairman of publishing giant American Media, had also received federal immunity as part of the Cohen investigation. It will escalate pressure on the president, who was implicated in a number of crimes that Cohen pleaded guilty to on Tuesday in New York federal court.
Cohen admitted that he had facilitated unlawful payments to two women at Trump's direction in order to keep unfavorable information about the president, who at the time was still a candidate, from becoming public. Pecker shared information about the payments with prosecutors in exchange for immunity, including details about the president's knowledge of the payments.
Cohen seems to have been the forge that smelts the silver bullets. After Cohen's surrender, we are seeing people drop like flies. And it's not like before. Prior to Cohen, we would be able to see Mueller closing in on people, they resist, Mueller keeps pushing, eventually the person folds. After Cohen, we are seeing the grand prize folding without even a hint of resistance. It is interesting how the plan seems to be going after the Trump organization since there is a bit of uncertainty around the idea of indicting a president. If you just start out by ignoring the president, then go after the things he is extremely involved in, you can likely end up incidentally GG'ing the president. My expectation is that Weisselberg has information as damning as it gets. It is also very telling to see how Trump and his allies are taking the position of "nothing wrong" instead of "nothing illegal". I think their plan is to take the position that what they did was illegal, but not wrong. Their argument will be that it isn't a bad thing that Trump and his allies broke the law. These recent immunities are big news. If there was any financial wrong doing then these are the people who would know and have evidence. Looks like Mueller is going hard on the campaign finance violation angle. There may even be more financial crimes we dont know about (his charity maybe?). Seeming more and more likely that Mueller's report will state that he believes Trump obstructed justice and violated campaign laws as well as lied to the American public (a lot probably). As for the Russia collusion part we will have to wait and see what he has. As for how Republicans in Congress will respond to his report depends entirely on how the midterm goes, right or not. I think the big reason Guiliani is defending Manafort so strongly is that they know Trump is going to need all the same types of defending. They are trying to get people to accept the idea that white collar crime isn't a big deal and that it shouldn't be punished by defending Manafort. The big thing for me is the idea that it is looking like Mueller's report is going to be so conclusive that people (such as the crazy juror) will have no choice but to face the fact that Trump conclusively did a ton of illegal shit. I believe it will create a similar effect as what we saw with Clinton, but with a different group. The somewhat reasonable, mildly centrist republicans are going to feel really weird supporting someone with a long list of provable crimes to their name. It is going to generally depress enthusiasm and support for Trump because he will have such obvious blemishes. The dedicated will still vote for him, but I see this having a generally damping effect on his support. He will lose a lot of reluctant voters the way Clinton did. I'm not seeing the Clinton comparison you're trying to make. It feels like two very different sets of reasons. Can you elaborate/clarify your point? I think a lot of people wanted to like Clinton, but ultimately saw too much shady, elitist, establishment undertones. They definitely preferred her over Trump, but not enough to get out and vote for her. Similarly, a different group of people are lifelong conservatives and would clearly prefer to have a Jeb right now, but see Trump as the anti-Clinton. They voted for him because they felt like they had to and a lot of the legal stuff against Trump was pretty undeveloped. There have been more than a few people on this board who are still not COMPLETELY convinced Trump and his gang did a bunch of illegal shit. Many people are unwilling to negatively judge someone for shadiness, especially when it is someone on "your own team" until an actual figure of authority declares they have done illegal stuff. When Mueller finally comes out and lays out everything illegal about Trump's dealings/campaign, it will become a lot more difficult to deny the obvious.
I don't think this will affect the Republicans one iota. Faux News has painted the entire investigation as a bunch of Democratic plants gunning for Trump who will all but invent accusations in order to serve their agenda.
It could light a fire under Democrats though.
|
On August 25 2018 04:00 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 03:00 farvacola wrote:The normative idea that people *should* be free to do whatever they please is obviously something far short of a maxim given the positive reality of the fact that there are a host of things forced on people because they need money to live, eat, fuck, and even die. This high fallutin take on a freedom that is necessarily circumscribed by the capitalist circumstance in which it dwells does no one but ideologues any good. On August 25 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On August 25 2018 02:36 farvacola wrote:On August 25 2018 02:30 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 02:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 01:59 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 01:38 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 25 2018 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Well, I simply don’t think that such things should be compulsory unless it’s absolutely necessary. And it’s not. Now if you think you should fuck up every young person who has a plan and no time to lose so that other kids can find themselves, that’s fine, but I disagree.
Also I don’t think you realize what level of comitment and what sacrifices we all make to become musicians. It’s my life since I’m 12. I was home schooled from age 15. If you think that it’s about luxury and entitlement good for you. I am a member of a major european orchestra, and I probably worked harder than most of the ones pretendendon it’s all superfluous and whatnot. I personally don’t think i have lessons to receive.
I realize most people never had one thing they spent their whole life dedicated to. You won’t understand why it’s obvious that you want to dodge a civil service until you have been there. It’s the one thong that matters most for us since childhood.
I’m all for civil service. On a voluntary basis. If people need to do stuff because they have not found themselves, good for them. But don’t fuck up a chance of a kid to win the olympic, or have an international career as a concert artist, or whatever needs complete dedication, for absolutely no reason. Look, i don't question your commitment and the hard labor you had to put in to reach the point you are at right now. I also don't question at all the value your job is giving back to society. I like listening to classical music and i can appreciate how hard it is having utterly failed at playing the trumpet as a child. It's just, in germany we have mandatory school until the age of 15 (i think) and no musician or athlete gets to skip that either. To say that because you have dedicated your life to something, you have earned the right to not do something society has agreed upon is mandatory is entitlement. I did not enjoy claening butts! I was 100% dedicated to enjoy my life but i had to disrupt that 5 days a week to do a job that was unpleasant and boring. It was still good for society that i did it, i provided cheap labor and took pressure from my coworkers. I was actually useful. I would argue that even if all musicians were worse as a consequence, civil service were a net benefit to society. And you should really not be throwing pro gamers under the bus here, you are both artists, you both need the exact same skills and you both live from people caring about your work being art. And when it is about being thankful for a profession, musicians are really not on the top of my list. If anything you should be thankful for other professions to enable you to live your passion. Good for you, personally I am thankful to myself for working my ass off, and the 4000 or so people who listen to me every week are thankful to me to move them, and make their life richer and more interesting. I don’t see why I have anyone to thank. I provide a service at an extremely hard level for a relatively mediocre pay, and if other people haven’t followed their dreams, it’s not really my business. As for pro gamers, they are athlete and not artists, if anything and I would rather have a society without pro league than a society without concerts. But that’s personal. We have to go to school because it’s essential for being a whole human being. You comparison is irrelevant. A good society is a society which allows each individual to access his full potential, to exploit his talent, to work as hard as he can to be the best version of himself, and to pursuit hapiness with as little obstacles as possible. I don’t see how your civil service helps with any if that, and I would argue, it would be on the way for many, many people. Mandatory civil service requires the haves and the have-nots to serve together doing the same work. It may interrupt some professions that exist at the global level, but the benefits could out weight the flaws. But this is pipe dream that would never get traction in the US. I don’t really get the goal of it. What’s exactly the benefit of it? If the idea is that the economy would gain from it, I personally don’t see how it’s that different from forced labour. I am thinking of the benefits to the people involved and the undercutting of capitalistic theory that everyone needs to be building towards increased production their entire lives. Plus the level of the playing field for rich working with the poor for the good of the general public. Don't forget that while many here are proud of it, the fact that a significant portion of Americans will never live more than 50 miles away from where they were born is a huge component of our nation's seemingly terminal sense of discord. Folks eager to chalk up the US' coming out of the Great Depression to WWII too easily forget how much cohesion began via implementation of New Deal federal jobs programs, many of which requires folks to move far away from home. the US is a big place and arguably more homogeneous than the EU. what are the US's stats on distance from place of birth/childhood vs the EU? i suppose the EU is also arguably more "discordant" I would wager that any concept of homogeneity as applied here would need to be complicated somewhat. I think it's fair to say that the US is more homogeneous than the EU in some ways, but less in others. in what ways is the US more heterogeneous than the EU?
I'm not sure, but class/property ownership might be a good place to start. The problems with the language of difference and similarity make asserting these kinds of things really difficult aside from hand wavey stuff of the kind I've already offered 
|
On August 25 2018 01:53 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 01:49 Plansix wrote:
The immunity in the Cohen case has little to do with Mueller, which is an even bigger problem for Trump. The SDNY office of New York is handling the Cohen case and it is a separate criminal matter that was discovered mostly because Stormy Daniels said she got paid off. Trump could kill the Mueller probe tomorrow and this case would be uneffected. I'm talking about the immunities of Weisselberg (Trump Org), Pecker and Howard (American Media/National Enquirer). All of those have to do with possible financial crimes.
I'm going back a few pages but I just realized i misinterpreted Plansix's post. You're right that Mueller appears to be shoving the campaign finance stuff off to the USAO and the recent immunities technically are for the Cohen case. Doesn't mean Trump is in any less trouble but not necessarily from Mueller.
I'm curious what his endgame is with that. Perhaps he doesn't feel it is worth taking resources away from what he considers the more important issues, at least relative to his orders, like obstruction and collusion. Or maybe it's as simple as you said: he wants to protect part of the investigation in the event Trump goes all Saturday night massacre on him.
|
Trump is now calling for Sessions to investigate his political opponents.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/us/politics/jeff-sessions-donald-trump.html
WASHINGTON — Undeterred by his attorney general’s pledge to keep politics out of the Justice Department, President Trump again attacked Jeff Sessions on Friday, urging him to look into “corruption” on the “other side” and offering a list of highly partisan issues.
The fresh jabs launched at Mr. Sessions in early morning Twitter posts came after an evening of what appeared to be restraint. Mr. Trump wanted to rebut Mr. Sessions’s comments on Thursday on Twitter, but his advisers stopped him, according to people briefed on the matter.
“Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.” Jeff, this is GREAT, what everyone wants, so look into all of the corruption on the “other side” including deleted Emails, Comey lies & leaks, Mueller conflicts, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr......
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 24, 2018
....FISA abuse, Christopher Steele & his phony and corrupt Dossier, the Clinton Foundation, illegal surveillance of Trump Campaign, Russian collusion by Dems - and so much more. Open up the papers & documents without redaction? Come on Jeff, you can do it, the country is waiting!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 24, 2018
In the era of Trump it seems like the new normal, but I don’t think it should be over looked. This is the most overt call by Trump for law enforcement to “investigate” his critics. It is a form of attack and an escalation of Trumps rhetoric that the investigation merely a political tool, rather than independent oversight.
|
On August 25 2018 05:10 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 01:53 On_Slaught wrote:On August 25 2018 01:49 Plansix wrote:
The immunity in the Cohen case has little to do with Mueller, which is an even bigger problem for Trump. The SDNY office of New York is handling the Cohen case and it is a separate criminal matter that was discovered mostly because Stormy Daniels said she got paid off. Trump could kill the Mueller probe tomorrow and this case would be uneffected. I'm talking about the immunities of Weisselberg (Trump Org), Pecker and Howard (American Media/National Enquirer). All of those have to do with possible financial crimes. I'm going back a few pages but I just realized i misinterpreted Plansix's post. You're right that Mueller appears to be shoving the campaign finance stuff off to the USAO and the recent immunities technically are for the Cohen case. Doesn't mean Trump is in any less trouble but not necessarily from Mueller. I'm curious what his endgame is with that. Perhaps he doesn't feel it is worth taking resources away from what he considers the more important issues, at least relative to his orders, like obstruction and collusion. Or maybe it's as simple as you said: he wants to protect part of the investigation in the event Trump goes all Saturday night massacre on him.
The Cohen case does not fall under the mandate of the Russia investigation, so it was referred to the office that would normally handle it. It is just a separate criminal investigation into the President’s close associates. I’m sure it will be one of many separate investigations, since Trump’s org. has never been anything but shady.
|
On August 25 2018 04:06 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 04:00 IgnE wrote:On August 25 2018 03:00 farvacola wrote:The normative idea that people *should* be free to do whatever they please is obviously something far short of a maxim given the positive reality of the fact that there are a host of things forced on people because they need money to live, eat, fuck, and even die. This high fallutin take on a freedom that is necessarily circumscribed by the capitalist circumstance in which it dwells does no one but ideologues any good. On August 25 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On August 25 2018 02:36 farvacola wrote:On August 25 2018 02:30 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 02:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 01:59 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 25 2018 01:38 Broetchenholer wrote:
[quote]
Look, i don't question your commitment and the hard labor you had to put in to reach the point you are at right now. I also don't question at all the value your job is giving back to society. I like listening to classical music and i can appreciate how hard it is having utterly failed at playing the trumpet as a child. It's just, in germany we have mandatory school until the age of 15 (i think) and no musician or athlete gets to skip that either. To say that because you have dedicated your life to something, you have earned the right to not do something society has agreed upon is mandatory is entitlement. I did not enjoy claening butts! I was 100% dedicated to enjoy my life but i had to disrupt that 5 days a week to do a job that was unpleasant and boring.
It was still good for society that i did it, i provided cheap labor and took pressure from my coworkers. I was actually useful. I would argue that even if all musicians were worse as a consequence, civil service were a net benefit to society.
And you should really not be throwing pro gamers under the bus here, you are both artists, you both need the exact same skills and you both live from people caring about your work being art.
And when it is about being thankful for a profession, musicians are really not on the top of my list. If anything you should be thankful for other professions to enable you to live your passion.
Good for you, personally I am thankful to myself for working my ass off, and the 4000 or so people who listen to me every week are thankful to me to move them, and make their life richer and more interesting. I don’t see why I have anyone to thank. I provide a service at an extremely hard level for a relatively mediocre pay, and if other people haven’t followed their dreams, it’s not really my business. As for pro gamers, they are athlete and not artists, if anything and I would rather have a society without pro league than a society without concerts. But that’s personal. We have to go to school because it’s essential for being a whole human being. You comparison is irrelevant. A good society is a society which allows each individual to access his full potential, to exploit his talent, to work as hard as he can to be the best version of himself, and to pursuit hapiness with as little obstacles as possible. I don’t see how your civil service helps with any if that, and I would argue, it would be on the way for many, many people. Mandatory civil service requires the haves and the have-nots to serve together doing the same work. It may interrupt some professions that exist at the global level, but the benefits could out weight the flaws. But this is pipe dream that would never get traction in the US. I don’t really get the goal of it. What’s exactly the benefit of it? If the idea is that the economy would gain from it, I personally don’t see how it’s that different from forced labour. I am thinking of the benefits to the people involved and the undercutting of capitalistic theory that everyone needs to be building towards increased production their entire lives. Plus the level of the playing field for rich working with the poor for the good of the general public. Don't forget that while many here are proud of it, the fact that a significant portion of Americans will never live more than 50 miles away from where they were born is a huge component of our nation's seemingly terminal sense of discord. Folks eager to chalk up the US' coming out of the Great Depression to WWII too easily forget how much cohesion began via implementation of New Deal federal jobs programs, many of which requires folks to move far away from home. the US is a big place and arguably more homogeneous than the EU. what are the US's stats on distance from place of birth/childhood vs the EU? i suppose the EU is also arguably more "discordant" I would wager that any concept of homogeneity as applied here would need to be complicated somewhat. I think it's fair to say that the US is more homogeneous than the EU in some ways, but less in others. in what ways is the US more heterogeneous than the EU? I'm not sure, but class/property ownership might be a good place to start. The problems with the language of difference and similarity make asserting these kinds of things really difficult aside from hand wavey stuff of the kind I've already offered
What do you mean? As far as I am aware USA doesn't have class in the traditional sense, nor the traditional ways of distinguishing between people of different classes.
|
On August 25 2018 05:10 Plansix wrote:Trump is now calling for Sessions to investigate his political opponents. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/us/politics/jeff-sessions-donald-trump.htmlShow nested quote +WASHINGTON — Undeterred by his attorney general’s pledge to keep politics out of the Justice Department, President Trump again attacked Jeff Sessions on Friday, urging him to look into “corruption” on the “other side” and offering a list of highly partisan issues.
The fresh jabs launched at Mr. Sessions in early morning Twitter posts came after an evening of what appeared to be restraint. Mr. Trump wanted to rebut Mr. Sessions’s comments on Thursday on Twitter, but his advisers stopped him, according to people briefed on the matter.
“Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.” Jeff, this is GREAT, what everyone wants, so look into all of the corruption on the “other side” including deleted Emails, Comey lies & leaks, Mueller conflicts, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr......
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 24, 2018
....FISA abuse, Christopher Steele & his phony and corrupt Dossier, the Clinton Foundation, illegal surveillance of Trump Campaign, Russian collusion by Dems - and so much more. Open up the papers & documents without redaction? Come on Jeff, you can do it, the country is waiting!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 24, 2018 In the era of Trump it seems like the new normal, but I don’t think it should be over looked. This is the most overt call by Trump for law enforcement to “investigate” his critics. It is a form of attack and an escalation of Trumps rhetoric that the investigation merely a political tool, rather than independent oversight. Trump isn't talking to Sessions. He is talking to his followers and trying to distract them from what is going on.
If he wanted these things investigated he would simply call Sessions and order him to do so.
its baseless grand standing and Trump knows it.
Still of course utterly retarded for a President to act like this.
|
On August 25 2018 05:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 05:10 On_Slaught wrote:On August 25 2018 01:53 On_Slaught wrote:On August 25 2018 01:49 Plansix wrote:
The immunity in the Cohen case has little to do with Mueller, which is an even bigger problem for Trump. The SDNY office of New York is handling the Cohen case and it is a separate criminal matter that was discovered mostly because Stormy Daniels said she got paid off. Trump could kill the Mueller probe tomorrow and this case would be uneffected. I'm talking about the immunities of Weisselberg (Trump Org), Pecker and Howard (American Media/National Enquirer). All of those have to do with possible financial crimes. I'm going back a few pages but I just realized i misinterpreted Plansix's post. You're right that Mueller appears to be shoving the campaign finance stuff off to the USAO and the recent immunities technically are for the Cohen case. Doesn't mean Trump is in any less trouble but not necessarily from Mueller. I'm curious what his endgame is with that. Perhaps he doesn't feel it is worth taking resources away from what he considers the more important issues, at least relative to his orders, like obstruction and collusion. Or maybe it's as simple as you said: he wants to protect part of the investigation in the event Trump goes all Saturday night massacre on him. The Cohen case does not fall under the mandate of the Russia investigation, so it was referred to the office that would normally handle it. It is just a separate criminal investigation into the President’s close associates. I’m sure it will be one of many separate investigations, since Trump’s org. has never been anything but shady.
But he COULD have kept them as part of his investigation since his orders explicitly permit going after crimes he finds along the way, iirc. I think you're generally right tho and he probably just sees this as the simplest path forward. Might as well focus on what he considers the big stuff.
|
On August 25 2018 05:19 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 05:13 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 05:10 On_Slaught wrote:On August 25 2018 01:53 On_Slaught wrote:On August 25 2018 01:49 Plansix wrote:
The immunity in the Cohen case has little to do with Mueller, which is an even bigger problem for Trump. The SDNY office of New York is handling the Cohen case and it is a separate criminal matter that was discovered mostly because Stormy Daniels said she got paid off. Trump could kill the Mueller probe tomorrow and this case would be uneffected. I'm talking about the immunities of Weisselberg (Trump Org), Pecker and Howard (American Media/National Enquirer). All of those have to do with possible financial crimes. I'm going back a few pages but I just realized i misinterpreted Plansix's post. You're right that Mueller appears to be shoving the campaign finance stuff off to the USAO and the recent immunities technically are for the Cohen case. Doesn't mean Trump is in any less trouble but not necessarily from Mueller. I'm curious what his endgame is with that. Perhaps he doesn't feel it is worth taking resources away from what he considers the more important issues, at least relative to his orders, like obstruction and collusion. Or maybe it's as simple as you said: he wants to protect part of the investigation in the event Trump goes all Saturday night massacre on him. The Cohen case does not fall under the mandate of the Russia investigation, so it was referred to the office that would normally handle it. It is just a separate criminal investigation into the President’s close associates. I’m sure it will be one of many separate investigations, since Trump’s org. has never been anything but shady. But he COULD have kept them as part of his investigation since his orders explicitly permit going after crimes he finds along the way, iirc. I think you're generally right tho and he probably just sees this as the simplest path forward. Might as well focus on what he considers the big stuff.
In this specific case, the chain of events seems to be that Stormy Daniels made the claim that Cohen/Trump paid her the hush money. Based on that Mueller’s team referred some evidence it had to corroborate the claim to the SDNY’s office. After that, they sought a warrant for Cohen’s office after like everyone in the Justice department reviewed and approved it.
So I don’t think they found the crime along the way, but found had evidence that supported a claim that the SDNY might already have been looking into.
|
Since I started the civil service thing, allow me a few moments. I was reading everything and gathering opinions and ideas. And since typing on phone is the worst, bare with me.
First, this isn't mandatory and it is not unpaid. It is voluntary and while the pay may be low, basically necessities are provided and you get a stipend. The largest goal of having some of your education paid for is what I was advocating. Maybe it is a certificate or license that you need to pay for. Done. And if you're a musician and want to practice while away doing your completely voluntary civil service, okay. Find a place after your work hours and go practice. Who is stopping you?
Second, there is a place in this society for people of all skill sets. You may not like the job, but there is something for you to do. Everyone has a role to play and while some seem more relevant than others and hold a better benefit, it doesn't detract from their choice in life. The civil service is to expose kids to other options that maybe going straight to higher education doesn't show them. There are a myriad of ways you accomplish this, but my idea of having them start freshman year summer, would be perfect. Early to see what they might be interested in and if they want to do similar work, tailor their education to it.
Third, the net benefit to society is that everyone understands how difficult some jobs are, what it takes to do them, and if anything ever happens where they need to step in, they have the basic understanding of the demands. This isn't the peace corps and it isn't military service. We already have those. This is to enrich the domestic issues and communities through having a more well rounded populace. They may not get through higher ed, but they now have options they can pursue than fast food, cashier, warehouse, or whatever you all deem lead than desireable jobs.
How it is to be managed and how we try to get everyone supervised and paid, is another story. Obviously it is state by state requesting said number of workers and other states filling those needs. States would also pay and feds would find a way to give states more autonomy. Or vice versa. I don't know.
|
On August 25 2018 03:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 03:25 zlefin wrote:On August 25 2018 03:20 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 03:18 zlefin wrote:On August 25 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 03:09 zlefin wrote:On August 25 2018 03:07 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2018 03:01 zlefin wrote:
Did anyone present an actual good case for this "mandatory civil service" proposal, that answers the questions about it? I know I asked earlier, and I don't think I've seen one. Farv and my arguments as to the merits of civil service were excellent, but I'm not sure if they answered your question. I haven't been reading farv's posts, is there a particular one/ones which you think address the issue well? (just approx, like a this page, or a few pages back is fine) I don't recall seeing anything in any of yours which would qualify as a good answer/case in favor of the proposal. That sounds like a you problem, my reasoning is staggeringly good. Or you think it's good, and it's in fact a poor reason that you've failed to substantiate; and that fails to address the counterpoints. Ah, we have now moved to the general understand that “a good argument” is a subjective metric, rather than this objective measurement of merit that can be demanded at will. Carry on then. ok, this is clearly going nowhere so I'm done with you; if anyone else wants to discuss the matter I'd be interested. why arent you reading farv's posts?
Zeflin has half the thread on an ignore list so he doesn't have to read their posts. looks like Plansix is joining that list.
|
On August 25 2018 03:58 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2018 03:13 Broetchenholer wrote:
I would assume that in germany civil service was not as helpful to society, as we abolished it when we abolished the draft. Someone looked at it and said it's not worth keeping that. I personally know that now that it is gone, a lot of charity or unpaid work has been harder to do because the organisations cannot get as many social year applicants as civil year applicants before. Basically, if you are an uncommercial institution, having a pool of people that work for essentially free each year is a great boon. The medical service industry certainly cannot use civil year applicants anymore, i have no idea though how this has affected the business. For the young people themselves, there are a lot of valuable skills to be learned, but if that is enough of a reason to do it, i wouldn't want to say. I certainly grew as a person but i might have without it as well. I think i might be the only person here who actually did some civil service With regards to why we abolished it, that is quite simple. We abolished the draft, and civil service was a substitute for the draft for those people who claimed that shooting people is not something that fits their ethics. Mandatory civil service is not compatible with our constitution, which only allows forced labor under very specific conditions, one possibility compatible with those being military service. So if you wanted to have civil service for all, you would need to change the constitution. Which is not as horrifically impossible here as in the US. I think that there is currently a discussion about implementing something like a general civil service, but mostly due to the fact that not a lot of other interesting politics stuff happens during the summer. The main selling point of general civil service is that it strengthens the bonds of the nation. It gives young people a different perspective on live and instills a sense of community through helping others, as opposed of constantly and only looking out for yourself. It might also give them a completely different outlook on what life is for less fortunate people. That being said, the military draft and civil service in germany in its later years was very flawed. Starting from the point that it was very much not general. In fact, out of my friendship group, i was the only person who served. Everyone else found some bullshit way to get around it due to the weird drafting process. If you stated that you were going to do civil service, you were far more likely to have to actually serve than if you waited for the last possible moment to do so. Because the military didn't actually need all of those recruits, it took only 20% or so of the compatible ones. But almost everyone who stated that they would be doing civil service was actually called to do said service. And it was apparently quite easy to find some doctors who certify some bullshit so that you are not qualified for service. A friend of mine found a way to turn "my thumb hurts" into not having to serve. My brother was to thin. That meant that the only people who actually served were those who actively wanted to, or didn't care enought to figure out a way to dodge. Another problem were the jobs that the civil service people had to do. There were obviously large differences there, but a lot of companies simply used them as incredibly cheap labor. My job was literally just existing. There had to be two people on a car that drives sick people from hospital to hospital. But of course actually trained people are expensive, so i was one of them. I wasn't allowed to actually drive the patients, as i wasn't qualified. So i just sat there while the other guy drove them around. Apparently people complained that i was sleeping while doing that, so eventually i got send to the archive to sit around there doing nothing. I know that for a lot of people, civil service was very formative and intersting, but to me it was just utterly pointless, and it was very obvious that the only reason i was there was because i was cheap "labor" (To be honest, i would have been more satisfied if i actually did any labor). With regards to the musical people and the draft, i am almost certain that there would be some way to do music within the military. I know that my father got into the sports corps to play chess during his military time because he was good enough at it.
There are not really many soldiers needed in most western countries, so it tends to be pretty easy to circumvent military service all together. I also studied music, these are some soluions from my peers in Oslo, Norway:
-Ask for permission to postpone the service "for academic reasons" until they stop writing you.
-Do the civil service and practice reasonably well while getting some working experience doing easy office work or whatever.
-Doing the military service before going to college in the "Guard Band" along with other recruits. It had a reasonable musical level, but the emphasis on marching hurts a bit.
-Doing the military service in one of the professional military bands, pausing the education for a year. I am not sure if this is possible anywhere else, but it was a very nice service for the ones who got it! It only works for band instruments, though.
I don't recall anyone being forced to do a service guarding the border to Russia in the far north or anything else seriously hurting their ability as musicians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
