The Obama Presidency

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

I should be more clear. I'm talking about the 537 people who create laws, not the amorphous government. Those people largely care about two things: financial gain, e.g. Timber's example, and political gain.

---

I'm no expert, but I think the second part they care about might be the same as the first part they care about with a slightly later release date.

I'm not even sure we are that different in how effective we think the government is. I just personally think you dramatically overestimate the market system actually working for the people at this juncture. It's like you see the government as some horrible rotting piece of meat, but then happily bite into a sandwich covered in mold. At least the government is ostentatiously beholden to the people.


I'm beginning to think that our system is dated and can't hold up in the current economic realities of our time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthony

I'm no expert, but I think the second part they care about might be the same as the first part they care about with a slightly later release date.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

I'm not even sure we are that different in how effective we think the government is. I just personally think you dramatically overestimate the market system actually working for the people at this juncture. It's like you see the government as some horrible rotting piece of meat, but then happily bite into a sandwich covered in mold. At least the government is ostentatiously beholden to the people.

---

I actually think it's easier in most cases to hold companies responsible than the government. I say most cases with telecommunications in mind.

Quote:

---

I'm beginning to think that our system is dated and can't hold up in the current economic realities of our time.

---

If you mean a global economy, then you may be right. I don't know how you would design a sovereign government to handle the complexity of a global economy well honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Don't get hung up on "cure for cancer." That was just intended to be an obvious example for general discussion. You could insert MS, autism, or whatever else for it.

---

We will never see a cure if all research is profit driven. There is no money in a cure. There is money in long term treatment of symptoms.

Pills and therapy....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

It won't be done anywhere unless there is a way to monetize it.

---

Maybe it's because I am not wealthy, but if I had attained enough wealth that I could have anything I wanted, what I would want most is legacy.
I don't think it far-fetched to believe that a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates would be willing to sink everything they had into finding a cure for (X). In 100 years, will Microsoft be Microsoft or will it be Standard Oil? A mostly forgotten relic of the past? The person who cures cancer, his name will live for (almost) ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name

Maybe it's because I am not wealthy, but if I had attained enough wealth that I could have anything I wanted, what I would want most is legacy.
I don't think it far-fetched to believe that a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates would be willing to sink everything they had into finding a cure for (X). In 100 years, will Microsoft be Microsoft or will it be Standard Oil? A mostly forgotten relic of the past? The person who cures cancer, his name will live for (almost) ever.

---

Even if that were true, it isn't to the credit of the profit driven private health care industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name

Maybe it's because I am not wealthy, but if I had attained enough wealth that I could have anything I wanted, what I would want most is legacy.
I don't think it far-fetched to believe that a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates would be willing to sink everything they had into finding a cure for (X). In 100 years, will Microsoft be Microsoft or will it be Standard Oil? A mostly forgotten relic of the past? The person who cures cancer, his name will live for (almost) ever.

---

I don't even think Bill Gates could influence a large research lab to throw away billions in profits for a cure. Unfortunately that isn't how money works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name

Maybe it's because I am not wealthy, but if I had attained enough wealth that I could have anything I wanted, what I would want most is legacy.
I don't think it far-fetched to believe that a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates would be willing to sink everything they had into finding a cure for (X). In 100 years, will Microsoft be Microsoft or will it be Standard Oil? A mostly forgotten relic of the past? The person who cures cancer, his name will live for (almost) ever.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_...tes_Foundation

Yeah, there is an entire research wing at Hopkins that was paid for by that foundation.

Nobody says Gates isn't generous. I just don't think he can influence big pharma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Am_I_Anonymous

Nobody says Gates isn't generous. I just don't think he can influence big pharma.

---

I don't think diff was providing that as a counterpoint to your statement, but as a response to SSJN

I wasn't being confrontational more or less I was reminding myself that companies like pfizer can fuck off.

All I'm saying is that finding a cure doesn't have to (and won't be) profit driven. Once upon a time, a whole lot of smart people figured out how to do shit for the sole reason of figuring it out, not just to make a billion dollars. Though that kind of mentality may not prevail today, I don't believe it's died off entirely. There are still fantastic teachers and doctors that go to the poorest places in the world in order to try to make a difference, in lieu of having fancy titles and Beverly Hills mansions.
Just because pfizer and its ilk won't try to find a cure, doesn't mean that no one can/will.

And who is big pharma? A bunch of doctors and scientists being paid by a corporation to do research. Is there any reason that those same doctors and scientists wouldn't work for a non profit if the salary was comparable?

Where is the money coming from in a nonprofit? We tax companies doing research so that we can fund other organizations doing research? Does that not seem like the government picking winners and losers? How do we avoid a medical Solyndra?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Where is the money coming from in a nonprofit?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_...tes_Foundation

---

BMGF is not funded through taxes.

You don't seem to get how NFP companies work. They don't give away everything for free, NFP hospitals being a great example. They still charge for services, they still pay their workers. To copy wiki on this: 'While not-for-profit organizations are permitted to generate surplus revenues, they must be retained by the organization for its self-preservation, expansion, or plans.'

They don't just give away shit, it's just that making a buck isn't their goal, unlike 90% of our current healthcare industry. And that is why our system doesn't work.

Bill Gates has dumped $28,000,000,000 into it. Who needs funding through taxes?

Buffet has dumped in a shit ton as well. They do really great work and I can say for certain they also take care of their employees quite well, just a great organization all around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name

All I'm saying is that finding a cure doesn't have to (and won't be) profit driven. Once upon a time, a whole lot of smart people figured out how to do shit for the sole reason of figuring it out, not just to make a billion dollars. Though that kind of mentality may not prevail today, I don't believe it's died off entirely. There are still fantastic teachers and doctors that go to the poorest places in the world in order to try to make a difference, in lieu of having fancy titles and Beverly Hills mansions.
Just because pfizer and its ilk won't try to find a cure, doesn't mean that no one can/will.

---

That was my point about Jonas Salk, the idea that no medical research will be done unless some shareholders can make some ungodly profit on it just doesn't seem to hold up.

Besides, this is a distraction, there is a difference between medical research and delivering what is often fairly basic and routine care to people who need it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

BMGF is not funded through taxes.

---

Obviously. I came back in after a change in conversation and missed a piece. I was connecting the nonprofit discussion back to where diff was earlier today about government funded research. Charities are the way all income redistribution should occur.

Also: the big pharm companies target research on diseases that afflict wealthy westerners who are willing to pay outlandish prices.

The BGMF and other nonprofits and, yes, the gubment, can put research into diseases/issues that affect a far larger number of people who happen to be extremely poor and can't pay $50,000 a year for cancer treatment based on gene sequencing. Often the methods and technology already exist, after all they've been used in the west, they just haven't been delivered to these places because those places can't pay for them.

Also x2: Look at the way they are trying to eradicate polio. The techniques to eradicate a disease are well-known, we've done it once. It's just the money and profit motive isn't there. Pfizer's shareholders don't want them spending money on immunizations in the Sudan unless they can turn it into some BS marketing campaign.

It's all about return in investment, Diff.

If you and 3 friends put 20 million each into a pill that cures cancer you're not going to profit. However if you put out a pill that delays cancer significantly...for 400 bucks a month, profits hit in Q2 of release.

That's his point.

I was agreeing. I can't insert an image anymore much less a head nodding gif.

I don't think anyone here doesn't understand why corporations are doing the things they do in the manner they are doing them.

What's a corporation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name

I don't think anyone here doesn't understand why corporations are doing the things they do in the manner they are doing them.

---

Me not defending them might be news to some older folks. That's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

What's a corporation?

---

A miserable pile of secrets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

A miserable pile of secrets.

---

Funny how true that really is. Higher up you get, more it's like high school.

I am glad I adopted the small business route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Am_I_Anonymous

I am glad I adopted the small business route.

---

Who are you this week?

I'm 36, a little chubby, and I'm watching orange is the new black while I fold my kids clothes.

Go buy yourself something nice.

Life isn't for show. Took me a while to learn that.

No. You're just a father with pudding on his shirt.

We're past the please be pudding events, thankfully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Am_I_Anonymous

Funny how true that really is. Higher up you get, more it's like high school.

---

Absolutely.
Just ask Kim Inman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

What's a corporation?

---

Some say, "A person."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name

I don't think anyone here doesn't understand why corporations are doing the things they do in the manner they are doing them.

---

But I think we are disagreeing as to how much damage they are causing to society, and how much regulation should be pushed upon them because of this damage.

We live in a world with limited resources. How can a business model built on infinite expansion be seen as anything but damaging?

When I can't even tell if posts are serious anymore, we've entered the looniverse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name

We live in a world with limited resources. How can a business model built on infinite expansion be seen as anything but damaging?

---

Again though, it is how much damage, that is the core of the debate I would think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

When I can't even tell if posts are serious anymore, we've entered the looniverse.

---

He's not joking. Modern businesses working under such principles.

Why can't there be a public referendum that lets us decide if we want the NSA spying on us?

http://i.imgur.com/NAHbcGT.png

So we are Russia with more spending power

I don't think Russians eat at McDonald's four times a week, which has a hell of a lot more to do with that graph than anything you were implying.

Yes, but now that the pimps and gangsters rule Mother Russia the violence offsets the obesity. This would have never happened in the glorious Soviet Union. Reinstate communism!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

I don't think Russians eat at McDonald's four times a week, which has a hell of a lot more to do with that graph than anything you were implying.

---

Yeah they binge drink vodka 4 times a week.

That myopic idiot Harry Reid decided potentially irreparable damage to checks and balances was worth a short term gain. So now a President and a Senate majority can unilaterally do whatever they want with nominations for everything but the Supreme Court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

That myopic idiot Harry Reid decided potentially irreparable damage to checks and balances was worth a short term gain. So now a President and a Senate majority can unilaterally do whatever they want with nominations for everything but the Supreme Court.

---

It's been a long time coming.

The Senate was ruined by partisanship a long time ago. Nothing will change, except maybe this will result in more direct accountability of Senators to the public.

As Harry Reid said in response to the GOP threatening to remove the filibuster permanently: ""Let them do it. Why in the world would we care?"

Good, now apply it to everything. The filibuster as it exists today has to go. It was different when you had to actually stand there talking about random nonsense until the other side gave up or you passed out, but when you can just say "yeah, I"m gonna filibuster that, move on to the next topic," it just keeps anything at all from getting done.

Apparently Reid isn't alone.

we should quote these replies when the Senate is run by Republicans.

Seriously. If the Republicans did this in 2005, this board would have imploded. There are an awful lot of idiots readily willing to throw their own rights and protection away recently in all kinds of areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advocate

we should quote these replies when the Senate is run by Republicans.

---

Please do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Seriously. If the Republicans did this in 2005, this board would have imploded.

---

I wish they had done it in 2005. If they had, we'd have avoided a sequester and we'd have single-payer health care by now.

Wait till you have say a Dem President, a Repub Senate, and a Dem House.

WHOAAAA boy!

The filibuster is currently abused, by both parties. The current form of just being able to threaten filibuster meaning nothing can be done is crap. They need to just alter the rules so if someone wants to filibuster they need to actually get up and do it.

And doing away with it for lower court and executive nominations is the right thing to do, the president needs to be able to make those appointments, no matter who the president is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advocate

Wait till you have say a Dem President, a Repub Senate, and a Dem House.

WHOAAAA boy!

---

Won't happen anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

That myopic idiot Harry Reid

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeve

Won't happen anytime soon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Apparently Reid isn't alone.

---

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

At the very least for non supreme court nominations it doesn't seem horribly unreasonable.

Good, the filibuster for these appointments was an anti-democratic disaster and had no reason to exist ever, but especially in the current ideological climate.

If Republicans win elections they deserve to enact their agenda. That's kind of how our system works. I'm not afraid of democracy... but I know why the current right wing is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

That myopic idiot Harry Reid decided potentially irreparable damage to checks and balances was worth a short term gain. So now a President and a Senate majority can unilaterally do whatever they want with nominations for everything but the Supreme Court.

---

Were you trying to say something smart here?

The Constitution gives the President broad latitude to nominate the people he wants to run his branch. The idea that 41 Senators in a different branch can prevent him from doing that is actually quite radical and un-democratic. No two ways about it. Remember the exact words in the document - "advise and consent."

Does this also take away their ability to filibuster laws or strictly nominations for positions?

This is for presidential non supreme court judicial and executive nominations only.

Which is the way it should be.

As long as they can still fillibust laws I'm pretty ok with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

This is for presidential non supreme court judicial and executive nominations only.

Which is the way it should be.

---

Right, but Republicans have threatened to abolish the filibuster entirely should they control the chamber again (which, incidentally, given the changing demographics of the country and the increasingly marginal appeal of the GOP, is unlikely).

As Diff says, the majority party should be able to enact its agenda. They should then be accountable to the public for that agenda. This is Democracy 101.

interesting article on vote distribution for the last election

http://geographer-at-large.blogspot....-election.html

thoughts:

I wonder what is different about the slavery states that vote blue? Is there anything that can be reproduced in the other states?

also, this map is interesting

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...port.html?_r=0

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but it looks to me that MS and AL have heavy democratic leanings for the past two elections. HOW did they go red each time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeve

This is Democracy 101.

---

Except this is a Democratic Republic. Or representative republic. Not that people seem interested in that part.

Also, there was a lot said about the 'tyranny of the majority' during the country's founding that elluded to - it's not always the largest number of people that knows what's best at all times.

Could you imagine the issues/prolonged problems we would have had in the country's history if we just got out of the way of the majority party and let them at it? I mean, it seemed to piss off a large number of Democrats when Republicans controlled the White House. Why is it suddenly OK, better, or allowable now? Just because it's the party you like? That's not principled - that's playing favorites.

It's not about 'pissing people off'...The GOP has made a mockery out of the political system since they lost control

or really since Obama was elected

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hero

Except this is a Democratic Republic. Or representative republic. Not that people seem interested in that part.

Also, there was a lot said about the 'tyranny of the majority' during the country's founding that elluded to - it's not always the largest number of people that knows what's best at all times.

Could you imagine the issues/prolonged problems we would have had in the country's history if we just got out of the way of the majority party and let them at it? I mean, it seemed to piss off a large number of Democrats when Republicans controlled the White House. Why is it suddenly OK, better, or allowable now? Just because it's the party you like? That's not principled - that's playing favorites.

---

the issue is that the majority is sometimes wrong.

Though I suppose that is our own fault because we don't take education seriously as a nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hero

Except this is a Democratic Republic. Or representative republic. Not that people seem interested in that part.

Also, there was a lot said about the 'tyranny of the majority' during the country's founding that elluded to - it's not always the largest number of people that knows what's best at all times.

Could you imagine the issues/prolonged problems we would have had in the country's history if we just got out of the way of the majority party and let them at it? I mean, it seemed to piss off a large number of Democrats when Republicans controlled the White House. Why is it suddenly OK, better, or allowable now? Just because it's the party you like? That's not principled - that's playing favorites.

---

First of all, "tyranny of the majority" during the country's founding was evoked to justify slavery, and later it was evoked to justify segregation. So let's put it into context. They weren't talking about executive branch appointments. Think about the fact that members of the losing party was filibustering the winning President's choice of staff. There's just no way that anyone could think this is how our government was envisioned to function. If the losing party wants to pick executive or judicial branch appointments they need to become the winning party.

In any case, we have the Senate. The Senate is anti-democratic by design, in part to prevent "mob rule" or what have you. In the Senate, Wyoming with its 500,000 people has as much power as California with its 35 million or Texas with its 26 million. So this by itself encourages coalition building. The filibuster isn't part of the Constitution. A sixty vote supermajority for every bill or judicial appointments or executive branch appointments isn't in the Constitution either.

The filibuster worked when we had two parties with very diffuse sets of beliefs. JFK was a Democrat but so was Jesse Helms. Nelson Rockefeller was a Republican as was Barry Goldwater. That isn't true anymore. The most right-wing Democrat is still more liberal than the most liberal Republican and vice versa. We can have either ideologically divided parties or the filibuster but not both.

Attachment 74352

*cough*Iran Contra*cough*

Which of those hostages were deserters again? The only way I'd respect this deal is if Obama brought him back to execute him as a traitor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

execute him as a traitor.

---

How much personal research have you done before coming to this conclusion?

I never thought I would see the day when the right wing is going ape shit calling a soldier and a POW a bunch of names.

Also if the five guys were terrorists why weren't they charged?

Because freedom isn't free.

Hippie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

How much personal research have you done before coming to this conclusion?

---

I didn't reach that conclusion, but it's the only way the exchange makes any sense. If he was a simple deserter, which seems pretty clear as a best case, then he wasn't worth having back at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

Also if the five guys were terrorists why weren't they charged?

---

I'd be curious to hear Obama answer that too.

My question was rhetorical. All these guys were tortured illegally and evidence is inadmissible. Even under the flimflam military commissions Dubya and co. championed as a way to allow torture evidence, prosecutors can't get a conviction.

In a functioning country that actually believes what it says about justice this would be the outrage of the century. Yet in this country, people think the solution to this problem is just to keep them locked up forever anyway? MURICA!

And as soon as Obama used that information to go after Bin Laden, he was complicit as well. That was my point.

I wonder how long you can keep someone locked up in Guantanamo before it becomes as expensive as a drone strike.

Obama isn't blameless. He didn't go after torturers. He's claimed he has the right to lock people up forever without charges. But he's not the architect of the policy. He didn't screw up their detention so bad they couldn't be brought to justice even in a kangaroo court. That is 100% the last guys fault and the current guy is dealing with the consequences.

He should consider you to replace Jay Carney. Can you say that he saw it on the news just like we did with a straight face?

People still watch the news? How quaint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

He should consider you to replace Jay Carney. Can you say that he saw it on the news just like we did with a straight face?

---

Ah yes, he was as much to blame as the President who enacted, implemented, and defended these policies in court. This was when he was a state senator, and later as a Senator when he voted against the Military Commissions Act. Got it.

Considering I have zero issue with torturing terrorists, I don't really care about degrees of blame. It led to the only thing Obama has gotten right in almost six years.

Yeah, there's nothing right about torture... and being that there was no form of trial for anyone at Guantanamo a large number of them probably aren't even terrorists.

Also, in response to your stupid comic I would like to once again point out IRAN FUCKING CONTRA. This doesn't even come close to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Considering I have zero issue with torturing terrorists.

---

Why do you hate America?

It's OK to torture them because someone called them a terrorist?

And yet Yoshi will tell you that he isn't a nazi or fascist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

Yeah, there's nothing right about torture... and being that there was no form of trial for anyone at Guantanamo a large number of them probably aren't even terrorists.

Also, in response to your stupid comic I would like to once again point out IRAN FUCKING CONTRA. This doesn't even come close to that.

---

Sovereignty matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Sovereignty matters.

---

Stop pretending that anything but the political party of the person in the White House matters to you.

It has nothing to do with me. Conventions and international law are not the same for enemy combatants that are not fighting for sovereign nations.

edit: Feel free to comment on this as well, since you voted for the piece of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

It has nothing to do with me. Conventions and international law are not the same for enemy combatants that are not fighting for sovereign nations.

---

And these men were determined to be POWs and not war criminals or otherwise immune to wartime conventions. There is a good possibility they would have had a claim to release even without being subject to a POW exchange. Better to get a US soldier back for them then have to otherwise release them for nothing.

Quote:

---

edit: Feel free to comment on this as well, since you voted for the piece of shit.

---

What's the news flash here?

Obama claimed he wanted to close Gitmo since before taking office, but has failed to do so for 6+ years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

It has nothing to do with me. Conventions and international law are not the same for enemy combatants that are not fighting for sovereign nations.

edit: Feel free to comment on this as well, since you voted for the piece of shit.

---

The Russian villagers of occupied Russia were killed under the same reasoning

If anyone asked Yoshi's opinion on Bowe Bergdal last week, he'd have responded with something about Obama leaving him to rot and how we leave military behind now.

Now he's a traitor and should be executed. You can't win either way.

I have a feeling we'd be reading words like "traitor" and "defector" a lot less and phrases like "conscientious objector" a lot more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeve

Obama claimed he wanted to close Gitmo since before taking office, but has failed to do so for 6+ years.

---

People say a lot of things when they want something.

Obama tried to close that shithole, he ran up against Congress pretty hard on that one.