Of course not.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
Printable View
Of course not.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
Wait, i've been busy all day.....there's no tapes?
Surprise! Trump lied.
when trump lied, no one died
This new health care bill is fucked up.
Chumpcare.
I'd have so much more respect for republicans if they were critical of the way things were playing out, even if it's...roughly, sort-of in their favor. There's nothing worse than someone agreeing with you for the wrong reason, because it undermines the logical structure your beliefs are based on...but, this doesn't really seem to bother Republicans. It's like, every hypocritical thing, and there's a near endless list, are secondary to giving tax breaks to the rich or deregulating declining industries.
Is it an issue of ends justify the means? Is Trump just that buffoon'ish means that put certain policies in the proximity of what conservatives care about? There's just so little substance to anything this administration has done, I don't understand how even supporters could be happy with it.
I'm much more able to criticize something I like that's almost perfect. I'm invested, I care, and I have opinions on what could be improved with the context of already being intellectually compatible. How is it that Trump supporters never have anything critical to say?
I've read a theory that the GOP is going to ride this administration hell or to high water to basically own the Supreme Court for decades. Install as many conservatives as possible, everywhere in the chain to rule law making.
The thing I don't get is what they (those who wrote it in secret and are shoving a vote on it in like a week) think the end game of this healthcare bill is. There is a very real chance that it'll fuck over a massive population of active voters and I don't know how they could not be branded for making healthcare worse. How fast it happens could make a difference in curbing public hysteria and keep many of the GOP from being voted out. The moderates who need to be swayed to vote want the timetable of Medicaid getting gutting pushed back as far out as possible. This Senate bill pushed the necks being stepped on from 2020 to 2024 over the Super Turbo Batshit Crazy House bill. The Senate bill has a tighter cap on how much Medicaid will pay over what the House bill proposed so that date might not even matter much as people could find their coverage cut off way before 2024.
You live in a country where people will support rapists, animal abusers and murderess if they are on their team. This is football and he's the new star QB. Who cares if he does vile things if he brings home the game?Quote:
Originally Posted by FuryFox
Thats how these people think. Especially conservatives. It isn't about what is right. Its about winning.
I hope you realize that this post could have been written ~5 years ago and would have carried at least as much truth. The people who like the throw out big numbers that will lose their insurance don't seem to realize that the current law is not even remotely sustainable and will lead to far larger losses if allowed to reach its inevitable conclusion. And it was written in secret and even voted on before anyone got the chance to fully read it. Hypocrites indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy
This was made necessary when liberals started legislating from the bench. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the poster child. They don't give a flying fuck what is Constitutional or not, which should literally be their only concern.Quote:
I've read a theory that the GOP is going to ride this administration hell or to high water to basically own the Supreme Court for decades. Install as many conservatives as possible, everywhere in the chain to rule law making.
Ginsberg cannot die fast enough.
Oh yeah, and conservatives have never legislated from the bench *COUGH*citizens united*COUGH*
That's a pretty awful example, since many of the conservative justices, Scalia specifically, always ruled in favor of free speech, even when they stated in their opinion that they did not agree with what that speech represented, because it's actually in the Constitution.
They ruled in favor of money and you know that.
If they voted in favor of money, they would have found a way to lift the ban on direct contributions from corporations. The free speech support has been very consistent, whether it's campaign contributions, video games, or disgusting "art."
I cannot wait for progress to come knocking on Newsweek's door, and that day is not far off.
Why focus on the deliverer of the story, instead of the story? What's more important?
Nachos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
There is no story, unless you consider manufacturing automation to be news. As the quotes in the article even point out, the companies' plans have not changed in this regard. The only reason this bitch wrote this article is to make light of people losing their jobs. What goes around comes around, since her publication will be a bad memory in a decade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
I think the story is that Trump said some bullshit. Right? That's what I got out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
And that is why the deliverer is more important than the non-story.
Wasn't Newsweek one of the editorial (as opposed to news) organizations that got caught with their hand in the DNC cookie jar? If not, it was only because even the DNC knew they weren't relevant anymore.
edit: If that story were intended to actually be informative, the first thing the author would have done is found out what, if any, overlap there was between the specific jobs targeted for Mexico vs. those replaced with automation. But the intent was never to report facts, so she didn't.
that damn shillary
Better be careful, cka, just because you're in Canada doesn't mean she can't have you killed.
This is completely false and a tired, shameless defense to deflect attention from a horrible, horrible bill. The ACA was debated in multiple House and Senate committees -79 in the House alone over the span of a year - and had hours of bipartisan debate where amendments were allowed. Shit, the Senate alone included over 140 amendments and and had over 70 roll call votes. The full Senate debated it for more than three straight weeks before it was passed. Also, The CBO also provided multiple reports on the bill before it was voted on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
in contrast, the Republican abomination of a bill has had ZERO hearings and ZERO votes. Despite what Sean Hannity tells you, there is simply no comparison. Passing a bill without bipartisan support is not the same as simply not letting anyone - even members of YOUR OWN DAMN PARTY - see the thing before it's time to vote.
I sincerely hope that this bites Republicans in the ass so hard in 2018 that they don't win another election for a century. This is the worst example of "legislating" I've seen in my lifetime. Mitch McConnell should have his balls eaten from the inside out by the worst kind of parasite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRC96-Zi6-0
You can read it right now, and not a single vote has been called in the Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
edit: I also like how you skipped the important part, that the current piece of shit is collapsing on itself, which would have been obvious to anyone who has any business sense from day one.
Except it's really not collapsing on itself, the only places it's collapsing is where republicans purposely sabotaged it by purposely rejecting setting up exchanges and the Medicaid expansion
Pelosi's a dumb bitch that needs to retire. It doesn't change the fact that the bill was debated and Republicans had the opportunity to submit amendments, the opposite of what they're doing now.
And its problems have a lot to do with the obstruction Mitch the Turtle and his group have been doing since it started. Instead of fixing what's wrong, they'd rather sit back and let it die so that they can leave millions of people without care so their rich friends can get a tax break.
A lot of the regulations that made the ACA so expensive are pretty good things--things worth ponying up for. I'd imagine even Yoshi and his hard silicon heart (it's actually an old Soundblaster™ card) opposes, say, the AHCA reinstating an insurance company's right to impose lifetime limits on payouts.
edit: probably not a good idea.
The Republican House just drafted an aggressively terrible, unfinished healthcare replacement at the 11th hour that they knew would have to be almost entirely rewritten, and then hastily pushed it through less than a day later, before anyone could properly evaluate it and before most people read it. How is that not functionally identical to "We've got to pass it to see what's in it," made significantly worse by the fact that the turnaround from its introduction to its vote was far more aggressive, and any open concerns about it weren't even vaguely addressed or entertained?
It was a dumb statement by Pelosi, no doubt, but Republicans no longer have any leg to stand on in quoting it incessantly anymore. They used the exact same logic and piled some extra stank on it.
As a child I would receive punishment if I explained my actions with "well, so and so did it first"
The punishment would often be worse than the punishment for the original misbehavior. .
I wish everyone's parents had such an aversion for passing the buck and scapegoating. It would be a better world.
Agreed. Then I wouldn't have to pay for their fucking health insurance.
I wish we didn't all subsidize your health insurance.
Back to Candy Land I see.
From what I understand the superPAC problem in America was directly related to the misguided idea of banning direct campaign contributions. All it did was push them through private holdings. Unlikely someone who loves money would reinstitute it. It's essentially a silver bullet for compliance laws. That being said it was pro-government nanny state idealists who initially pushed it—so they really have no one to point fingers at here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I really enjoy having basic healthcare in my country. I say this as a pretty well-off individual. It's generally just so much more convenient.
I mean if its shitty enough, just pushes us forwards to our inevitable single payer system.
But yoshi doesn't want to pay for 5 year olds and 95 year olds to not die.
Is it? You work for a Corp right? Most corps take advantage of tax breaks. I would find it hard to beleive that your employer isnt. Like they aren't filing for the research and development tax break?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Yeah, our taxes subsidize your insurance and pay..
Do you understand what a tax break is? That's some seriously convoluted "logic."
The idea that taxpayers are subsidizing tax breaks implies the government is entitled to all of our money, they just let us keep some of it.
If the government decided to kill the deduction for employer-provided plans than the market would change in some way, but I don't think the end result would be that companies would just be paying more tax.
The problem is that being expensive imposes its own burdens. I don't think, in the run-up to the ACA, we ever got a real discussion on this. Obama and the Dems painted it as essentially free, all upside.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
I don't think that banning direct campaign contributions is a bad idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
The problem I have with SuperPACs and all that is not so much their existence but the fact that they are so opaque. I think when Kennedy made the decision on Citizens United he envisioned a world with a lot more disclosure on who is giving who money than actually exists. If a company wants to donate a billion dollars to a politician because they want to start production on Soylent Green, then we should know about that.
At the same time it has not had the effect on voting results that people thought it would. One could make a very reasonable case that 4Chan and The_Donald were more influential last year than all the SuperPAC money out there.
Of course. Power is not exclusively related to money. The actual antics Trump gets attention for are free. He aims to misbehave.
I'm not 100% convinced corp money doesn't belong in politics. The argument never sounded reasoned to me. Too idealistic and not pragmatic - like rose coloured socialism. Prohibition seldom works. In actuality it probably never works. Even in Canada w all the regulation and oversight we still get billions spent on projects that line the pockets of party cronies. Often people don't care so long as they feel productive. So legalize direct contributions and enjoy the audit trail that comes w it. Kibosh PACs and judge businesses based on what they're spending their money on and our own political values. Public companies almost by nature would be policed by scrutiny alone.
I think the simple answer is that companies don't vote.
I would counter the opposite - no money in politics. No ads, no fliers, no campaigns, just face-to-face meetings with the people who are interested in voting. It removes the power from both the financial interests and "swing" voters who are swayed by television and print ads. I want to think that would help voter turnout in a way (e.g. uninformed jerk shows up, realizes they were wrong, gets invested) but chances are dummies would just be bored and leave. Regardless, that's all fantasy world. So just open the flood gates. America is doomed no matter what.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Anyway, I was discussing the 45 tweet acknowledging the hacking last night with some buddies and Stone brought up a good point: It seems like 44 let some of his natural tendencies - a desire to unite people, a belief in people's intrinsic goodness, wanting to limit drama - fuck things over. It happened a few times in his presidency, where he chose the high route and it ended up in a worse result for everyone. 44 could easily have declassified anything related to the hacking and dragged it all out into the public square but because that is the "low road" he didn't.
I have similar tendencies, so that seems to make sense. Dragging everything down into the mud - the wrestling aspect - is the way you appeal to the aforementioned ignoramuses. There's no easy reversal of our ship's course. Conservatives who think moral decay is the problem and Jesus is the solution are simply taking a different manufacturer's LSD from liberals who think we can educate all of our problems away.
You can educate most of them away if you get buy in from kids and parents and tax payers. We have been unable to do that and really have no idea how to do it.
-note: I'm including skilled trades in my idea of education.
Sounds great, shame about that pesky First Amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Ok then no money. No donations. Just voluntary work.
Also do you have to pay income tax on this?
That is a lawsuit waiting to happen, where real money will be awarded.
I'm sorry I gave a click to boobs who would type "the economy isn’t working for 99% of us" on a computer connected to the internet.
I'm never sorry when I give clicks to boobs on the internet.
lol Touché
I wonder if they ever took an economics class or chose to ignore it as fake science? How are you going to find someone to trade 7 hrs of work for 3? Money was created for a reason.
These are the kids of hippies who tried starting communes. Reality was left out of their DNA.
Clarify, por favor. All I can think of at this moment is that not being able to spend money supporting a candidate means freedom of speech is being trampled, which if that's what we disagree on, cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I had to explain to the folks in my office why I groaned after clicking that link. I hate you for bringing it into my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
So they invented a platform for bartering?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
That is almost as bad as all the people that try to replace currency with "labor tokens" nor realizing that is what money is suppose to be.
You do not see where ads and fliers are speech? The American Revolution was built on fliers and pamphlets. You don't see how stump speeches on the campaign trail are speech?Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
My bad, I just wasn't thinking about it from that angle... Good old brain. But yes - I do see how those are speech, which circles back to, "fantasy world."
meh, liberals are just terrified someone is going to write the next Mein Kampf.
Which kind of shows how stupid they are. That book wasn't magic. Unlike what the history channel and your shitty high school history teacher may have told you, the nazis did NOT appear from a void, in the middle of a depression, and trick an entire population into evil with the dark magical book "Mein Kampf"
The nazis and Mein Kampf were a product of the time. Had they not appeared, something similar would have.
Do not fear evil speech. Fear when society starts to produce and align with it.
I'd be down for each candidate getting a set amount to use.
A couple boring pbs debates.
If the Nazis hadn't been so over the top, they'd probably be running the modern world.
McCain agreed to this, but Obama broke his promise to follow suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
We have a public funding system but it's not enough these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
I don't know. It's easy to say "money isn't speech" but I think it clearly is. I give money to someone I agree with and they advocate for those ideas.
So once you get to that point the genie is out of the bottle.
The forces that produced them were over the top. They had very little chance for success. The makings of failure were at their core.Quote:
Originally Posted by kedawa
Like for example, take panzer production. We write the 1940s german off as eccentric super weapon makers and overly technical. That they just didn't make enough because they were focused on being fancy, while the US and Russia pumped out shittier tanks on the assembly line.
Not so.
Germany was anti industrialist. The assembly line was seen as inhumane. As American.
Pragmatic germans pushed for companies like Ford and Opel with assembly lines to pump out panzers. But it was struck down as Ford (though Hitler loved Ford the man) and the assembly line was seen as American. Instead they handed the contracts to German companies that made trains and steel in batches. The batch system was seen as more German. The way of the artisan.
Nazi Germany was a nation lashing out at the changing world. And a reaction and revolt against the super powers of the time.
I feel like it's a hair split on philosophy rather than pragmatism. Freedom of speech isn't absolute. Money is the single biggest problem in democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
That's the rub, isn't it, though? We talk a big game but we don't truly have freedom of speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
I don't know if any of our freedoms are absolute. In the case of speech, we have obscenity laws
Also, if we are to humor arguments against guns like "when they came up with the bill of rights, people didn't have machine guns" you also have to humor the idea that they didn't have TV or the internet. Or shit, the modern concept of branding or propaganda. There is a pretty solid argument to be made that both have killed more people than guns. Even if you were to add modern war deaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
Speech now works in a way that those with the most money have the most speech. At what point does the free speech of one group drown out and silence the free speech of others by volume?
It's not a rub at all. Free speech limits are interpreted to be basically the bare minimum needed to keep society together. FFS, in the middle of our country's wars, the SCOTUS let a bunch of crazy people protest military funerals in the name of free speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
I don't like how "it's not absolute" has turned into this thing that people use to say all sorts of speech should be banned.
This is a rich country, the government has a lot of power, it stands to reason there would be a lot of money in politics. It's not like corruption and decay in democracy is new - we remember Pericles, Cicero, and Solon for a reason.
Like I said earlier in this thread, what would you say had a bigger influence last year, all the SuperPACs or 4chan?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Maybe not banned. But there should be punishment for deliberately misleading the public if it leads to death or health threats. We don't allow that kind of shit from the makers of our drugs and food.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
But thats pie in the sky thinking at this point. Both sides of our government are in bed with those people or do it themselves. The climate for change is so bad I'm not convinced we could create the FDA again if we had to. There would probably be a campaign funded by corporate livestock groups about how we're going to put poor pig farmers out of business if they can't sell us bug infested meat. PLEASE THINK OF THEIR CHILDREN
Neither. Hillary lost before 4chan was made. She has been disliked for a long time. And her team miscalculated by encouraging her to hide that she only knows how to work 1 edevice when confronted with the email scandal. They'd been better off coming clean and letting the country know she was a tech dinosaur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
That's fair, although I don't agree - I think the deplorable speech was a big part in her loss and that was a response to 4chan/Pepe.
Anyway, Romney got all the SuperPAC money, so did Clinton, didn't help, that's my point. It probably has more of an effect down ticket but even then, that is changing as internet activists get more aware. See the recent house race in Georgia.
Well, I meant kind of more big picture. Maybe Ic meant that too.
There should be some kind of punishment for all the global warming denying. Thats the rotten meat of our lives. Our kids or grand kids are going to die because of deliberate misinformation.
I'm not saying ban it. But you shouldn't be able to put the shit on the radio, and tv, if it is going to eventually end up killing people (and you knowingly do so).
There already kind of are some regulations like that. And that is why Fox News is classified as entertainment. But it should be held to the same standard as obscenity laws. If the average person in an average town thinks you are a news station, you should be held to that standard.
Really, more transparency and maybe fines.
I want to know who is donating to what.
I want to know what news sources are classified as entertainment.
I want to see the data and research behind stories.
If the gov can't ban or fine it, then maybe with enough information the public can.
I'm uninterested in giving a pass to the corrupting influence of money, no matter how hard it is to parse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I'd trade 7 hours of audio editing for 3 hours of manual physical therapy. I didn't click the link btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
It's not so much a pass as an acknowledgement of reality. I mean, what's the difference between me giving a politician money because I agree with them and Mark Zuckerberg doing it? Is me doing it more right or less corrupt because I have less money?Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
We have dollar contribution limits from individuals but super pac / "dark money", it's just an organization using its own money to say what it wants to say. That's ultimately why CU went the way the did. Like I said earlier I don't like the current setup only because the disclosure is not good enough.
pragmatically? Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
In that instance he has more votes than you. Because the politician knows that he can use that money to turn around and influence more people and hopefully get more votes by doing so. You're being censored by the amount of his contribution.
So, is it okay for me to give money to a judge presiding over my case because free speech?
I'm glad you brought this up because I don't agree with obscenity laws. I wonder where that moves my needle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Absolutely, and I don't want what I'm saying to be taken as an argument for any kind of banning or tightening of rules & laws - I'm for the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I honestly don't like either case, actually. And, to be clear, this & my comment about wanting money out of it and hoping for, as Ic put it, "boring" stuff is out of a genuine desire to motivate peoples' investment. Obviously, I think political speech is misleading crap, but that's beside the point. Despite my pessimism, I do hope for more civic engagement and I really feel like those "dummies" I unceremoniously trashed would get more invested if they didn't have shitty TV ads blaring at them. Like, I know you and most of the other folks here would keep on participating and being educated in that kind of a scenario. Perhaps I'm too hopeful on that front because I've been involved in city council stuff, going to hearings, community meetings, whatnot.Quote:
I mean, what's the difference between me giving a politician money because I agree with them and Mark Zuckerberg doing it? Is me doing it more right or less corrupt because I have less money?
... the disclosure is not good enough.
But like, I don't want to achieve something like that through straight up banning of funds or anything.
Smartass.Quote:
Originally Posted by kedawa
Is the solution then to functionally deny Zuckerberg's right to speech?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
It's certainly happened before in states where judges are elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by kedawa
Nevertheless there are conflict of interest rules which would apply to situations.
No. But he shouldn't be able to use his wealth to functionally censor the less wealthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
And he or some other magic example shouldn't be able to use their money to dump mind rot into the population if it can result in death.
And that's where we are at. Other things have been regulated for far less. Because machine guns are scary, I have to pay 30k to have one. And fill out special paperwork. And get special approvals. And shoot it so many acres away from a populated area. All of this for a weapon never used by citizen that purchased and registered it legally in a crime. All of that for a maby. For a "it makes some people feal bad and scared."
But climate change denial? Fine. Pump as much of that into society as you want.
I'd be for recusals. Pharmaceutical firms donated to you? You don't get to vote on that stuff.
This idea of corporations as people is nonsense.
That's what I'd expect a Communist to say.
Companies cannot donate to politicians. What they can do is give money to an organize that will advocate for whatever including a politician.
That's where te disclosure breakdown is.
Right. I think we're advocating for the same thing in 2 different ways.
I have no doubt that raising the minimum wage freaks out business in the economy they've built.
Excluding large employers which are a bulk of what pay minimum wage kind of kills any value in that study.
I mean hell, that cuts out Starbucks, and do you know how many fucking Starbucks are in that city?
So many.
Also, gas stations. Supermarkets. Fast food. Every store in the mall. Chain restaurants.
Fuck Americans and their minimum wage. Where's the Chink's $7.25? Where's the wetback's $7.25?
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6735842
It does nothing of the sort. If anything large firms are more able to respond with automation as well - see McDonalds kiosks. Large firms are also better able to pay slightly above the minimum wage and get more skilled workers in return.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Small businesses do most of the hiring and firing in this country. Effects of labor policy changes will be seen there first every time.
It also hurts people who lose a job because their labor is more expensive, which is the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
It's nice if you get a free raise. It's devastating if you get fired and the company is under no obligation to keep you around.
They could have written that at any point in time and replaced "new study" with "economics 101."Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
My new political platform is egalitarianism through nationalism. Unless countries can independently support themselves internally through trade, there will always be inequality as wealthier nations take advantage of the cheap labor of poorer nations and those with restrictive rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
I also agree that large firms are able to respond with automation, but they're already doing that without a minimum wage raise nationwide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
And I question your point about small business, I'd like to see some backup for that. Especially in the minimum wage area I see large firms like fast food, wal-mart, grocery chains, etc. as the ones most paying minimum wage.
And labor costs have gone up nationwide for various reasons. In France once you hit 50 employees you trigger all sorts of extra mandatory benefits and required taxes and such, and sure enough a disproportionate number of companies have 45 people and people spin off multiple companies to not hit that number. The PPACA brought on similar triggers.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Anyone who thinks this doesn't happen or labor does not follow the laws of supply and demand are fooling themselves.
That doesn't mean that the GOP's apocalypse scenario is true (it's not) but all these increases obviously don't wash away in a sea of cost-free demand-side goodness as liberals say either.
I found a link that says about half of min wage workers comes from small businesses employing less than 100 people.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
https://www.epionline.org/oped/who-r...-wage-workers/
That's not strictly my point, though. My point is that these companies hire the most people and fire the most people. They are the ones that are most sensitive to these policies. Any new effects of labor policies will be seen there first.
I get what you're saying and that makes sense, though I think this study is still questionable. I do agree though that expecting no affect is delusional, long term though I still feel it is a net positive for society as a whole, even if I have to pay slightly more for my hamburger.
Without a multiverse all of these studies will be questionable.
True.