I think when our defense spending is equal to that of the next 15 countries combined, that could be seen as a "fact" that it is obscene. It's opinion of course, I don't know how anything could be otherwise.
Both parties spend like drunken sailors, I don't think that is a political comment. We elect them. I doubt anyone would get reelected for really making the effort to cut spending.
Am I missing something here?Yes. Take the Virus discussion to the proper thread.
So one of you is a Russian bot?All of us might be of course, unless you can consider our NFL careers in making this judgment I can't say.
They should all be applying for relief too. It's available, unlike 2008/09, when relief money was generally only made available to big banks and big business. We tried and got nothing.And yet vast majority of the relief this time around is still being made available only to big banks and big business. The bailout is really more like $6+ trillion, possibly even more when you account for the $4+ trillion from the FED in lending power for big banks and big business, authorization to bailout money market funds, and authorization through the FDIC to guarantee trillions in bank debt.
These would be loans, right? In the normal sense of the term?Yes, to start. My accountant explained to me that some or all could/would be forgiven if we don't lay anyone off.
is Pelosi really trying to launch ANOTHER investigation into the President and his handling of the coronavirus? This broad really is something else. She should investigate when she was in China town in San Fransisco telling people as late as February 24th to go to China town and come outside and party and spend that cash! No worries about Coronavirus! Come to China town! Spend your money! Stimulate the economy! Hang out with the Chinese! They are great people!If she did indeed say that well then she should be caned.If she knew that according to your stats 400,000 Chinese People visited this country in January.Many I'm sure on business,many also to visit relatives on the West Coast that has a sizeable Chinese-American community.If all that is accurate then by any measure of justice she should be sent packing
If she did indeed say that well then she should be caned.If she knew that according to your stats 400,000 Chinese People visited this country in January.Many I'm sure on business,many also to visit relatives on the West Coast that has a sizeable Chinese-American community.If all that is accurate then by any measure of justice she should be sent packinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFCzoXhNM6c
So one of you is a Russian bot?
All of us might beI like Vodka,Polish Potato Vodka-Luksusowa,or Tito's,or Smirnoff for the value
Cant blame Pelosi she is just playing to her base
The voters keep putting her in office
The next election should be real interesting specially if sleepy Joe is running
Was there something about no politics in this thread?we aren't getting into political debate.
Cant blame Pelosi she is just playing to her baseIMO,Yes we can blame Pelosi - she is Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.Not an Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows.Her actions or lack there of could have dire consequences for this country she supposedly took an oath to serve.
The voters keep putting her in office
The next election should be real interesting specially if sleepy Joe is running
I had been asked to keep this top secret, but the truth is, I actually am Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows.Monty Python's Flying Circus?
And guess who the odd fellows are?
Theres a remedy for that. It happens every 2 years for the HouseMany may not be around to vote because of incompetent,dismissive inaction.If all previously stated is accurate
is Pelosi really trying to launch ANOTHER investigation into the President and his handling of the coronavirus? This broad really is something else. She should investigate when she was in China town in San Fransisco telling people as late as February 24th to go to China town and come outside and party and spend that cash! No worries about Coronavirus! Come to China town! Spend your money! Stimulate the economy! Hang out with the Chinese! They are great people!Refer to title of thread.
I'm sorry but I hate that hypocritical elitist talking out of both sides of her mouth and her ass double talking bitch in the worst way. And it has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with her being an evil, hypocritical bitch that is nothing but a bullshit artist and shill for the establishment/elites. She pretends to a champion of the common folk meanwhile the lady and her husband are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and she could give a shit less about the common folk.
This is just going to blow up in the Dems face. Biden is going to get slaughtered by Trump imo. The debates will just be murder on live television.
we aren't getting into political debate.Sigh. Refer to thread title.
just pointing out a few facts. Biden clearly has something wrong with him, and Pelosi is an evil bitch who was telling people on February 24th to get out of their houses and come to China town and spend that cash!
If some rent forgiveness can be managed, these restaurants may make it through, most of them. I hope.This is going to be an unprecedented economic catastrophe. I manage rental property and we are doing what we can to help our people. We unilaterally cut rents by 50% for April and we are going to have to suspend rents for our commercial tenants for longer than that. We can do these things for a little while, but we have bills to pay too. Property Taxes were paid earlier for the first half and have to be paid again for the second half. Things break and will need repaired. Insurance, mortgages, etc all need to be paid.
Ok... Let me go on then...
Assume that I'm a new college grad in my early 20s. I decide that for the purposes of my life, I'm actually going to get two jobs instead of one, because I have a particularly interesting "side hustle" that I can do for fun in addition to my career.
So I get two jobs.
- The income from Job A goes into my left pocket. I define Job A as the one that pays the bills, i.e. my "mandatory spending".
- The income from Job B goes into my right pocket. That money becomes my "walking around money", i.e. all my discretionary spending.
Now, I'm a new college grad and can choose to live pretty spartan, and my mandatory bills don't consume all my spending. Prudently, I want to save that money and plan for the future. I may one day get married, have kids, and I'm sure my bills will go up significantly.
Now, where do I save it? I've got a great idea! My right pocket is offering savings bonds, and promises that if I lend the excess money from my right pocket to my left pocket, it'll promise to pay me back with interest when I need to draw down on those assets.
My right pocket is a bit of a spendthrift. And flush with not only the cash from Job B, but all the excess leftovers from Job A, it spends and spends and spends. It keeps creating bigger and bigger promises to the left pocket, but hey, I'm good for it, right? I have excellent credit!
Years and years go by. I get married, have kids, my conditions change and I find my left pocket needing to draw down those assets.
So what do I do? The way I look at it, I have four options:
- Work more hours at Job A. Obviously if my mandatory spending goes up, maybe I should be bringing in more money into left pocket. (This is akin to raising the payroll tax or removing the cap to allow the SSTF to keep growing).
- Work more at Job B, since you need to start paying back left pocket. (This is akin to raising income taxes to pay back the SSTF.)
- Quit spending excess money out of right pocket. It's time for some serious austerity measures! Now instead of having walking-around money, Job B can go pay back Job A. Sure, my standard of living goes down, but at least I'm being fiscally sound. (This is akin to Congress reducing discretionary spending, which we all know ain't happening.)
- Find some new source of money... Hey, maybe right pocket can borrow money from the Chinese to pay back left pocket. Maybe right pocket can max out its credit cards to pay back left pocket. I mean, this causes my overall debt load as a person to get much, much worse, but at least left pocket is getting paid back! (This is akin to the federal deficit increasing much more quickly than it would without a growing SSTF.)
But you're right... None of right pocket's spending is responsible for left pocket needing to draw down the assets it has built up.
But that doesn't change the fact that every one of #1 through #4 is a bad move for @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) -- who wears the damn pants.
Now, the other option would have been if left pocket had been loaning YOU the excess money over the years, @Cincydawg (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=870) -- it would have meant that right pocket didn't have as much hidden income to overspend in the past, but it also would mean that it wouldn't require more earning power from @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) to pay back the assets to myself.
The American taxpayer thinks it has an asset to draw down on, in the SSTF. But that asset comes from our own tax dollars (or deficit borrowing), so it's not like "we" are helped by some magical trust fund that's full of money. The SSTF is a claim on future taxpayers. The only difference is that it has to be funded from income taxes rather than payroll taxes. If you want to call that an "asset", well as one of the non-retired guys paying those income taxes, it certainly seems like a burden to me.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/tom-dispatch-america-defense-budget-bigger-than-you-think/The $1.2 trillion figure is just as deceptive as the $554 billion base figure.
It’s really $1.2+ trillion when you include everything that’s not accounted for in the base budget. Absolute insanity.
. . . Biden is going to get absolutely clobbered by Trump. The guy can barely speak properly. He CLEARLY is showing sings of early stages of dementia. I'm not even trying to be funny. There is something obviously wrong there. I feel bad for the guy. He's freaking 78 years old after all. If the guy actually got elected (which he won't) he would be 79 on his first term with 4 more years to go. That job ages you like no other job. He likely wouldn't make it through.Joe Biden--never, not on his best day, the sharpest knife in the drawer--has deteriorated rapidly over the past 2-3 years. My 87-year-old mother, who is going downhill pretty rapidly in her mental facilities, is sharper than Biden.
On Social Security:Great layout, Medina.
On the other thread @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) did a great job of explaining it. I want to go back a bit further.
The program was passed in the 1930's under FDR. When it became effective they IMMEDIATELY started paying benefits. Think about that for a minute.
A lot of people think that their money that was paid into it was "saved" and will be paid back to them when they retire. This is just fundamentally untrue. On DAY ONE, SS started paying benefits.
One of the original points was to try to encourage old people to retire so that younger people (who had families to support) could get jobs.
From then to now there have been taxes charged and benefits paid. Sometimes at a surplus, sometimes at a deficit. When there was a surplus, as @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) explained, the surplus was "loaned" to the Federal Government which was spending more than it was taking in and they just stuffed the SS fund with IOU's.
What to do about it?
There are a multitude of issues to confront but the big ones are these:
- The population of elderly/retired people is exploding. The Baby Boom ran from 1946-1964. Those people are now 56-74. Worse, following the Baby Boom the birth rate tanked. Here is a chart of births by year in the US (https://www.infoplease.com/us/births/live-births-and-birth-rates-year). During the 1946-1964 Baby Boom there were ~ 3-4 Million births per year peaking in the late 1950's and early 1960's when there were at least 4.2M births every year from 1956-1961. More on births below.
- The number of native-born Americans in their prime earnings years is comparatively very low. On AVERAGE* people earn the most from about the ages of 35-50. Those people, today, were born in 1970-1985. For those years births were never higher than 3,760,561 (1985). *Average: Some people earn a lot younger or older but on a population-wide comparison this is a solid figure. People younger than 35 are generally still getting established and people older than 50 start to retire, die, or reduce their productivity for other various reasons.
- Medical Expenditures: Technically Medicare is separate from SS but it all effectively works from the same sources and Medicare has an unfunded liability that is even larger than SS. Years ago when they added Rx coverage to Medicare they didn't raise the tax. John McCain railed against that. The rest of the politicians (both sides) just did it anyway. From a responsibility standpoint it was insane. You can't pay for something with nothing but they just stuck in in an IOU and kicked the can down the road and the voters basically applauded.
Birth rates:
From the link I shared, birth rates (per 1,000 pop) were over 30 back in 1910. Prior to that they were even higher. Back in the 1800's most Americans were farmers and LOTS of kids died of diseases that we don't even worry about today. In those days, it was not at all unusual for a family to have 6, 8, 10+ kids. As we industrialized, that slowed down. It slowed gradually through 1925 (the chart is in 5-year increments) then plummeted during the Great Depression of the 1930's.
The birth rate fell from 30+ in 1910 and 25+ as late as 1925 to Just over 30 in 1930 and <20 in 1935 and 1940. In 1945, the last year of WWII the rate was still just over 20. During the Baby-Boom of 1946-1964 it got as high as 25.3 (1954 & 1957). The birth RATE peaked, as noted, in the early-mid 1950's but the raw NUMBER of births peaked a bit later due to growing underlying population. Thus, the peak in number of births was not until later in the 1950's up through 1961.
Now I certainly don't want this to become a political discussion of abortion and birth control and it doesn't have to. I'm bringing them up just to illustrate what happened, not to comment on whether it was good or bad.
The Birth Control Pill was first available in the US in 1960. Griswold v Connecticut (US Supreme Court Case in 1965) banned State Laws prohibiting contraceptives (and set the stage for Roe v Wade a few years later). Note, politically, that this was not Griswold v Alabama, it was Griswold v Connecticut. My point is that these laws were not some Southern bible-belt thing, they were pretty common nationally.
My point is that prior to about the mid-1960's the only reliable way that a woman could avoid pregnancy was to abstain from sex. People tried other things such as condoms and the rhythm method. That generated an old joke:
Q: What do you call a woman who uses the rhythm method for birth control?
A: A mother.
Since women couldn't reliably avoid pregnancy without abstinence and for societal reasons related to that, most people back then got married and had kids very young. Among people who graduated from HS up until about the late 1950's it was extremely common for the women to get married within a year or two of HS graduation. There was a draft then so a lot of the guys either got drafted, volunteered for the draft (2 years instead of 3) or enlisted (3 years) then came home and got married.
Various factors but mostly the widespread availability of reliable birth control enabled women to choose to delay having children and consequently the birth rate flat out plummeted. Remember that it was >25 as late as 1957. From 1957-1968 the birth rate dropped every single year and by 1968 it was just 17.5. Note that this is still pre-Roe (1973).
The birth rate then bounced around between 17.2 and 18.4 through 1971 then fell off a cliff in the mid 1970's. From 1973-1976 the birth rate was <15. I was born in 1975 which had the fewest number of births (3.1M) since before the Baby Boom and the lowest birth rate (14.8) until the late 1990's.
The birth rate started climbing after the mid-1970's. My guess is that was a result of those women who delayed family in the mid-60's to mid-70's started coming back.
Why all of this matters for SS?
This all matters for SS because, as was explained above, there is no magic pot of money to pay benefits. Instead, the program is, effectively, simply a wealth transfer from working-aged people to retired people. Further, as I covered above, people generally are the most productive from about 35-50. The problem for the system is that there just aren't a lot of 35-50 year olds today comparatively.
Births in 1989 finally hit 4M again for the first time since the Baby Boom. Since then births have run right around that number. The rate continues to fall (or stagnate) but the raw number is growing (or at least stable) due to growing population. The problem is that those 4M people born in 1989 are still only 31. They will not hit their most productive age for another few years and Baby Boomers are still hitting retirement age at 4M+/year.
They system is going to be a mess until the Baby Boomers start to die off in numbers. The oldest of the Baby Boomers are now 74 while the youngest are only 56.
we'd be in population decline.I don't see the problem.
My idea is to reevaluate our defense commitments overseas (which does not mean abandon them all). That would be my first step, rather than just cutting spending and still having commitments. I don't think we can maintain trillion dollar deficits indefinitely.Andrew Mellon, Treasury Secretary for Harding and Coolidge, believed that taxes that were too high would simply not be paid. Ultra-high earners would find legal (or illegal) ways to shelter their income from too-high taxation.
I don't think term limits would do much in reality.
I had a notion that we'd set tax rates each year depending on the budget that passed. If the budget called for say $5 trillion in spending, we'd have $5 trillion in revenue (calculated), not the same as a BBA. That has problems of course, not least of which is "Hauser's Law".
But if "we" saw our taxes go way up, "we" might be more interested in seeing spending get cut for real.
I don't see the problem.Do you believe that because you don't see it that therefore there is no problem?
The $1.2 trillion figure is just as deceptive as the $554 billion base figure.You have to include the Department of Homeland Security and everything else they did. That’s all legitimately a part of defense. It’s not included because if people knew the real number they’d lose their shit. Most Americans are pretty dumb unfortunately.
For example, counting the entire DHS budget as part of defense spending is just not correct. Counting the Coast Guard seems semi-justifiable (I don't know where it's budget was housed before DHS was formed--probably the Treasury Department), but airport security certainly isn't. And I don't know if the civilian contractors could be replaced more cheaply with government employees. Government employees typically do not get paid less or work more efficiently than their civilian equivalents.
And this gets back to counting apples to apples.
Most Americans think most other Americans are dumb. I worry about the one's who don't in fact.Have you seen Tiger King? See the people in that show, aside from Joe Exotic. That’s your average American.
It's like how 89% of folks polled claimed they were better than average drivers.
I like to say the average American is the comments section of a youtube video.Some of those comments are comedic gold.
I don't see the problem.
I think more population creates more problems.
Do you believe that because you don't see it that therefore there is no problem?First, even if we all stipulate that shrinking population is a good (or at least neutral) rather than bad thing, there is still a problem during the transition.
| 1830 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1830_United_States_Census) | 12,866,020 | 33.49% |
| 1840 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1840_United_States_Census) | 17,069,453 | 32.67% |
| 1850 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1850_United_States_Census) | 23,191,876 | 35.87% |
| 1860 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_Census) | 31,443,321 | 35.58% |
| 1870 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1870_United_States_Census) | 38,558,371 | 22.63% |
| 1880 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1880_United_States_Census) | 50,189,209 | 30.16% |
| 1890 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_United_States_Census) | 62,979,766 | 25.48% |
| 1900 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_United_States_Census) | 76,212,168 | 21.01% |
| 1910 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910_United_States_Census) | 92,228,496 | 21.02% |
| 1920 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_United_States_Census) | 106,021,537 | 14.96% |
| 1930 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930_United_States_Census) | 123,202,624 | 16.21% |
| 1940 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940_United_States_Census) | 132,164,569 | 7.27% |
Yes, to start. My accountant explained to me that some or all could/would be forgiven if we don't lay anyone off.what are your banks saying? we have a lot that aren't moving on with the process because they don't have regs on how it will be repaid once it's forgiven.
Oh man, the other thread got locked before I could chime in, that I actually know Alex Jones. He went to my high school, was a couple years younger than me. We were never BFFs or anything but we had mutual friends and social circles.He is certainly very entertaining. I know he doesn’t believe anything he says. I believe that he and his lawyers basically admitted as much during his divorce hearings. Dude has made a small fortune off of being a crazy internet troll.
He's one crazy mofo.
He is certainly very entertaining. I know he doesn’t believe anything he says. I believe that he and his lawyers basically admitted as much during his divorce hearings. Dude has made a small fortune off of being a crazy internet troll.
what are your banks saying? we have a lot that aren't moving on with the process because they don't have regs on how it will be repaid once it's forgiven.I misspoke a bit. 2.5 months is the limit, but with the cash on hand and that 2.5 months we'd be set for 4 months without any cash flow. There is also a salary cap, so a few of will get a "pay cut", per se.
also, how'd you apply for 4 months? our forms are limited to 2.5 months.
I think more population creates more problems.It's a double-edged sword. It creates more problems and it creates more solutions, and often IMHO the solutions > problems.
Oh man, the other thread got locked before I could chime in, that I actually know Alex Jones. He went to my high school, was a couple years younger than me. We were never BFFs or anything but we had mutual friends and social circles.Cindy listens to INFO WARS all the time,some of what he says has traction.He also throws alot of shit against the wall and hopes it sticks.And he believes it,all of it,every word.He's gonna tell me one day that a Chupacabra/Yeti/Sasquatch/Wookie/Swamp thing and little green men are playing with a Ouija Board in my bomb shelter that I don't even have.SMDH
He's one crazy mofo.
I think having a place to discuss the current event of COVID19 is good.Nope, not me, but I'm glad it got locked. It gave me a chance to clean it up, and then open it again. Lots of good discourse there. We can still have that.
That thread became a shitshow for sure, though. I didn't lock it, I assumed it was you bf.
When population is growing rapidly, the average age is fairly young. When population growth slows or turns negative, the average age rises sharply. Per a Stanford Study (https://www.google.com/search?q=average+age+in+the+us+in+1935&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS824US825&oq=average+age+in+the+us+in+1935&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5759j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8), when SS was established in 1935 life expectancy was just 61 (meaning that the few recipients were already past their life expectancy when they got their first checks).I do want to make a comment on this... And I'm sure you know the subtlety, but "life expectancy" is a concept that I think is woefully misunderstood.
Smells like Lysol and bleach in there. How'd you find it, stores are all sold out I thought?I broke into a storage locker downstairs. I only took one container. The old bag had about 100 in there.
I do want to make a comment on this... And I'm sure you know the subtlety, but "life expectancy" is a concept that I think is woefully misunderstood.This is a great point.
Quoted life expectancy numbers are typically "life expectancy at birth". Which includes all possible causes of death.
But a lot of times I hear people looking it as if people who outlived that number have done something strange. I.e. in 1787 average white male life expectancy at birth was 38 years. So our brains naturally assume that living much past 38 was rare and people at that age are ready to kick the bucket... But that wasn't true. What it means is that there were all sorts of ways to die at a young age that brought the AVERAGE down, but if you avoided those horrible things and make it to 18 years old, it doesn't mean you should only expect to live 20 more years. And if you're 30 years old, it doesn't mean you shouldn't expect to live more than 8 more years.
A good example is this: https://www.annuityadvantage.com/resources/life-expectancy-tables/ (https://www.annuityadvantage.com/resources/life-expectancy-tables/)
- If you're born today in America your life expectancy as a male at birth is 76.04 years.
- If you're 18 years old in 2020, your life expectancy increases to 76.81 years.
- If you're 40 years old in 2020, your life expectancy increases to 78.59 years.
- If you're 65 years old in 2020, your life expectancy increases to 82.92 years.
The more you avoid dying from horrible disease, accident, murder, war, etc, the more your own personal life expectancy extends beyond the average on the day you were born.
So the distinction that most people don't understand is that in 1935, when average life expectancy at birth was 61 years, that most 65 year olds were on their deathbeds or anything like that. Most 65 year olds probably had an expectation of living >10 additional years or more at that time. But because the average was 61, the proportion of the population >65 years old was MUCH lower than it is today when the average is 76 years...
Again, Medina, I know you get the distinction here... But I wanted to post it because I think a lot of people don't look at "life expectancy" numbers properly.
First, even if we all stipulate that shrinking population is a good (or at least neutral) rather than bad thing, there is still a problem during the transition.IMO, we need immigration and for most of our history we've more or less welcomed immigration. For the most part it has been a good thing for us. But there is such a thing as too much immigration, too high a rate of immigration, so that the immigrants tend not to assimilate but instead remain tied to the culture of the country from which they came. We can see that in the SW USA now with non-assimilated immigrants from Mexico. There is a fine Mexican-American scholar at OU whom I have been fortunate to work with for the last four summers. He is proud of his Spanish/Mexican heritage, but he is 100% American. (His father, who fought in the U.S. Army during WWII, was an immigrant from Mexico and could barely speak English at the time.) And he firmly believes that we need to limit immigration to levels that can be assimilated. He says, "We need to build a wall," qualifying that by saying the wall doesn't need to be a physical barrier.
Social Security was set up at a time when our population was growing rapidly. US Population at decennial census from 1830-1940 (I hope this pastes right, if not, link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States)):When the program was set up in the 1930's the US had a population of between 123M (1930 census) and 132M (1940 census). But there were substantially less older people because the people who were >60 had been born in a country of less than half of the then population. The program was established in 1935 at that time:
1830 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1830_United_States_Census) 12,866,020 33.49% 1840 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1840_United_States_Census) 17,069,453 32.67% 1850 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1850_United_States_Census) 23,191,876 35.87% 1860 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_Census) 31,443,321 35.58% 1870 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1870_United_States_Census) 38,558,371 22.63% 1880 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1880_United_States_Census) 50,189,209 30.16% 1890 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_United_States_Census) 62,979,766 25.48% 1900 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_United_States_Census) 76,212,168 21.01% 1910 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910_United_States_Census) 92,228,496 21.02% 1920 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_United_States_Census) 106,021,537 14.96% 1930 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930_United_States_Census) 123,202,624 16.21% 1940 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940_United_States_Census) 132,164,569 7.27%
- 105 year olds were near non-existant and to the extent that they did exist, they had been born in a country of 13M
- 95 year olds were also near non-existant and to the extent that they did exist, they had been born in a country of 17M
- 85 year olds had been born in a country of 23M
- 75 year olds had been born in a country of 31M
- 65 year olds had been born in a country of 39M
When population is growing rapidly, the average age is fairly young. When population growth slows or turns negative, the average age rises sharply. Per a Stanford Study (https://www.google.com/search?q=average+age+in+the+us+in+1935&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS824US825&oq=average+age+in+the+us+in+1935&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5759j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8), when SS was established in 1935 life expectancy was just 61 (meaning that the few recipients were already past their life expectancy when they got their first checks). According to the Social Security Administration there were 6.7M Americans >65 in 1930. That is just 5% of the then population of 123M. By 2000 there were 34.9M Americans >65. That is 12% of the then population of 281M. And note that that was BEFORE the Baby Boomers started turning 65 at a rate of ~11k/day starting January 1, 2011.
Since there isn't a magic trust fund the current benefits are paid by the current workers. The fundamental problem for the system is that the number of workers per retiree is shrinking. A shrinking population only makes the problem worse.
Even if we stipulate that smaller population would be a good (or at least neutral) thing for other reasons, it is a fiscal catastrophe for the SSA.
Second, fundamentally I agree with @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) 's idea that a shrinking (or at least stable) population is a good thing. Growing our population further increases urban sprawl and is bad for the environment and for the per capita amount of resources that our nation holds. I assume, therefore, that @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) supports political movements in favor of limiting population growth such as by limiting immigration? :29:
Oh he [Alex Jones] actually believes plenty of it, but yes he was quite successful at monetizing some fringe crazies.Heh! Silver linings everywhere you look!
And he made, and lost, that small fortune. His divorce, and then various other lawsuits, pretty much wiped him out.
I think more population creates more problems.As I posted to Medina, we're going to have more population. We're too rich a country with too many wide-open spaces for that not to happen.
What I found interesting is that, at the time, the life expectancy was ~40 and yet there were quite a few ~80 year olds. Today the life expectancy is ~80 and there are no 160 year olds, why not?Monsanto,McDonald's and Women drivers
I like to say the average American is the comments section of a youtube video.I disagree. The average American doesn't spend his/her time making jackass comments on Youtube. That is a small, self-selecting slice of the population.
IMO, we need immigration and for most of our history we've more or less welcomed immigration. For the most part it has been a good thing for us. But there is such a thing as too much immigration, too high a rate of immigration, so that the immigrants tend not to assimilate but instead remain tied to the culture of the country from which they came. We can see that in the SW USA now with non-assimilated immigrants from Mexico.To be honest, though, that charge has been leveled at every immigrant group that's come before. It generally takes 1-2 generations to "fully" assimilate. They said the same thing about the Irish and Italians in the old days.
To be honest, though, that charge has been leveled at every immigrant group that's come before. It generally takes 1-2 generations to "fully" assimilate. They said the same thing about the Irish and Italians in the old days.Yup. Takes time to assimilate. Immigrants hardly ever really become assimilated. But their children and grandchildren that are born here are American as you or me or any other American.
I consider it far more dominated by American history prior to my great-grandparents' arrival, which is frankly British--even though I very well may have more Neanderthal DNA than English in my heritage (according to 23andme).Wha...,if it's any consulation you certainly can Cook & Brew better than a caveman.But I doubt they'd like an IPA,dopplebock perhaps
To be honest, though, that charge has been leveled at every immigrant group that's come before. It generally takes 1-2 generations to "fully" assimilate. They said the same thing about the Irish and Italians in the old days.I completely agree that there have been times when immigrants met a lot of resistance, even hostility. (It's true of every country, BTW. In nearly every case, much worse than here. For example, could an American emigrate to China and ever be considered Chinese?) The resisters were and still are called "nativists." And it is also true that as immigration sources moved eastward and southward in Europe, the resistance was greater. More linguistic, religious, and other cultural differences. But they did assimilate,and within a couple of generations, they could consider themselves "old-stock" Americans and even be among those resisting new waves of immigrants.
Heck, you go back three generations and you have my great-grandparents, who all came over from Poland / Eastern Europe and settled on the south side of Chicago--with all the other Poles. Three generations later, when I think of my "cultural heritage" I consider it far more dominated by American history prior to my great-grandparents' arrival, which is frankly British--even though I very well may have more Neanderthal DNA than English in my heritage (according to 23andme).
The charge of "lack of assimilation" is commonly leveled at any new groups of immigrants. And then a generation or two later, when they've assimilated, we forget that and apply it to the new group.
I also think that SW USA culture in particular might be as much of a "meld" as an "assimilation". Most of the SW USA was at one point much more Mexican than it was American--or more accurate is to say it WAS Mexico before the Mexican-American war. You can't erase that cultural impact out here. Heck, every 4th grader has to do a project on a Spanish Mission in California. Around here, Mexican food isn't "Mexican food", it's just food ;-)
When my grandfathers parents came here from Sicily, my grandfather was the first of their children to be born in America. His parents never spoke English, and my grandfather didn’t speak English until he started going to elementary school. He grew up in the house speaking only Italian- Sicilian actually- until he was 5-6 years old.Yep. My grandma* was raised in a house wholly or partially (I don't know which) speaking Hungarian. By the time I knew her she couldn't speak Hungarian any longer, but she claimed she sometimes dreamed in Hungarian.
He learned English in school and now he’s a very old man and he doesn’t speak hardly any Sicilian or Italian. He pretty much forgot it all. He can speak it, but not fluently and it takes him awhile. He really speaks only English, and that’s because his entire life from school to college to his professional life and personal life he only spoke English.
You raise another good point about why Mexican immigration has not followed the usual pattern. You know, in New Mexico anyway, the old Mexican-Americans, those whose ancestors lived in what is now the United States when it still belonged to Mexico, are sometimes as impatient with the recent Mexican immigrants as Anglos are.Well we all know @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) is just as impatient with American kids :57:
The immigrant issue won't ever be fixed until they revamp the legal immigration process. As with the military, as with education, it's all broken and needs to start clean. These plans need to fit on 5 pages, not 500.The last sentence you just wrote is so true. These bills aren’t 500 pages, they are more like 1,000+. It’s absolute lunacy.
The poor, equatorial countries' populations are exploding, btw. They won't have enough power, water, or anything and they'll acquire more, by any means necessary.Yup. Those countries you mentioned plus India and China are putting a strain on this planet. India has 1.35 billion and change. China has 1.42 billion and change. China is about the same size landmass wise as the US but they have over a billion more people. India is about a 3rd the size of the US in landmass and yet they have about a billion more people than the US.
It's all just fluid.
Here's a video clip on immigration from Ronald Reagan: https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/308836506423173/ (https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/308836506423173/).That is amazing. Thank you. I’m not a huge fan of Reagan. He’s got a mixed record in my eyes. But that speech is incredible. And there wasn’t a better communicator in the history of the modern presidency. He wipes the floor with just about anyone. His charisma and ability to connect with an audience and captivate was incredible. He could speak to the entire nation and make everyone feel like he’s speaking to just them. Doubt we’ll ever see someone that gifted and that smooth again.
3 policies the US govt has to put in place if we ever want to fix this mess.I don't know about term limits. We are looking at the "now" and saying "dammit, you've been there too long." And some have, for sure.
1) term limits on senators and representatives.
2) campaign finance reform. get the money out of politics.
3) keep it simple stupid. these bills are convoluted and 2,500 pages long. INSANITY.
1) term limits on senators and representatives.First, as @CWSooner (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1544) pointed out, this would require a Constitutional Amendment and those are hard to achieve.
I don't think national politicians get "paid off" directly because of the risk, and they are more sophisticated in how they do it. And of course many of them were wealthy before they got there.Those who profited greatly off of insider information last month need to be addressed, and removed.
Influence is often more important to them than just money. And of course anyone with access to them -cousins, uncles, sons, etc. - are going to attract "attention".
I think mayors in general are more obviously corrupt, they put Uncle Joe on the Water Board at $300,000 a year etc.
term limits will merely change the names and faces more often - those names and faces behaving the way of their predecessors doesn't changeWithout bringing "politics" into it, I think there are clear recent examples of corruption...
I'm not as concerned with campaign money in politics as money after the election
let's do a deep audit on every politician at the time they are elected, then do that audit annually to see if they are somehow collecting far more money than their salary
Without bringing "politics" into it, I think there are clear recent examples of corruption...The only question I'd have on that is if he actually knows what his mutual funds hold. Holdings in those change all the time. I have some, and I couldn't tell you with any certainty what they hold today, held yesterday, or what they are looking at for tomorrow. I just know generalities and I trust the managers to make sound decisions.
As was seen recently with several (on both sides) of people in Congress and the Senate selling off stock prior to Coronavirus hitting in force, likely because they knew that things were going to be dire all while publicly not sounding an alarm or doing anything to improve our response.
And now it comes out that a certain prominent politician consistently touting hydroxychloroquine as a miracle treatment happens to have a financial stake in a company who makes it (https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5e8c41d7c5b6e1d10a696280?ncid=APPLENEWS00001)...
As far as I'm concerned, if you get to Congress, the Senate, or POTUS, your assets should be held in a blind trust such that it's not possible to trade off of private [or classified] information that you're not making available to the American people.
The story about their selling off stock needs investigation, but I'm not yet willing to claim it was done unethically or illegally. At least one Senator had a good explanation for it, if true, and that is easily verified. Another asked for an investigation.You pretty much have to be these days. That's a problem too.
And both individuals were wealthy before they go there.
I want to see the NPVIC get passed to make the electoral college obsolete and make the popular vote matter. It's getting close to 200 votes worth and just needs to get to 270. Yes, they have been mostly democratic states to this point, but there are conservative states that are supposedly starting to consider it more seriously.This would be the end of the Republic that our founders gave us.
Campaign finance is definitely a big issue.
Term limits have already shown to be counterproductive for reasons explained above.
Nobody would ever campaign in Wyoming. Nobody would ever campaign in California. Nobody would ever campaign in Alabama. Nobody would ever campaign in Illinois.Is this a positive or negative for you?
This would be the end of the Republic that our founders gave us.Nobody does campaign in Wyoming, California, or Alabama.... They only go to swing states....
Nobody would ever campaign in Wyoming. Nobody would ever campaign in California. Nobody would ever campaign in Alabama. Nobody would ever campaign in Illinois.
That's about all I can say on this matter, in this thread and on this board.
If nobody ever campaigned around here, I'd be fine with that. Entirely.
There are not quick and easy solutions, none. There may be no solutions at all.
That is one reason why it's been interesting following the bartender from the Bronx after her shocking upset in the 2018 primary, if for no other reason than it clearly exposed how the modern Congress isn't intended for those without substantial means.
And both individuals were wealthy before they go there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKPmobWNJaU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKPmobWNJaU)Love it.
Eh, I'm still just a bill.That was a good one too. Your post conjured up an image of Jim Stafford singing about, eh... Bill. Heh. About the same time period, I guess.
I want to see the NPVIC get passed to make the electoral college obsolete and make the popular vote matter. It's getting close to 200 votes worth and just needs to get to 270. Yes, they have been mostly democratic states to this point, but there are conservative states that are supposedly starting to consider it more seriously.I am adamantly opposed to this simply because I don't trust other states.
Campaign finance is definitely a big issue.
Term limits have already shown to be counterproductive for reasons explained above.
I am adamantly opposed to this simply because I don't trust other states.The current system is already a disaster.
Illinois is legendary for having dead people vote. At one point I think five straight Illinois Governors (from both parties) had served time in Federal Penitentiaries after serving as Governor. I think that is enough proof that Illinois is corrupt.
California is essentially a one-party state with absolutely zero motivation to make sure that only legal US Citizens vote. I have no doubt that Trump's claims of Illegal Aliens voting in California are likely exaggerated but I also have no doubt that at least SOME Illegal Aliens DID vote in California (some Cali Cities allow it in Municipal elections).
Under the Electoral College I don't really care if a whole bunch of dead people and Illegal Aliens vote in Illinois and California. It doesn't matter nationally because even if you took out their votes I'm sure the D candidate would still win and the margin is irrelevant. However, if you had a National Popular Vote then the margin would matter.
Example:
Suppose you had a National Popular Vote and Trump beat Biden by ~10,000 votes. Millions of Americans would believe that Trump's margin was made up by voter suppression in Red States.
The same could obviously apply in reverse if Biden beat Trump by ~10,000 in the popular vote. Millions of Americans would believe without a doubt that Trump had won and that Biden's ~10,000 vote margin was more than made up for by dead people in Illinois and Illegal Aliens in California and the like.
Thus, in any close election nearly half of the population would credibly believe that the election had been stolen from their candidate by the other side's illegal activities. That is a recipe for disaster.
i know this was rhetorical, but the reason is because we got a lot better at keeping people alive at birth/young age, not so much old age... yet.
What I found interesting is that, at the time, the life expectancy was ~40 and yet there were quite a few ~80 year olds. Today the life expectancy is ~80 and there are no 160 year olds, why not?
..... Better yet, I'd probably rather have a popular vote for primaries with ranked choice voting, but that's not much more likely to happen either.....won't ever happen, but i'd love to see us get rid of the first past the post voting method and go to an alternative vote.
I am adamantly opposed to this simply because I don't trust other states.Ehh, as a one-party state, there's also no incentive to allow illegals to vote....but I get your point sans-electoral college.
California is essentially a one-party state with absolutely zero motivation to make sure that only legal US Citizens vote.
For president, there's an age minimum, why not a maximum? The fact that the last 4 candidates for president in 2020 were all 70+ is a problem. One of them being that old is fine, but exclusively 70+ is not okay.Or even better, set it based on the national average life expectancy at birth.
won't ever happen, but i'd love to see us get rid of the first past the post voting method and go to an alternative vote.I would think that the better system might be more of a parliamentary system with proportional representation.
i don't vote for party and, imo, that's one of the reasons, maybe the single biggest reason, that we're in this shitshow to begin with. people need to STOP voting for party and vote based on candidates, and we need more than 2 to choose from.You may not vote for party, but whoever gets elected in your state/district probably votes their party line 98% of the time.
2: Choices for Federal Office in the most powerful country in the worldGeorge Carlin had a great bit about this. Now I’m going on YouTube to find it lol. Thanks for reminding me about it haha.
50: Choices for Miss America, in that same country
2: Choices for Federal Office in the most powerful country in the worldI mean, that's a structural difference for the most part. (Also probably more than two choices, but two right at the end)
50: Choices for Miss America, in that same country
George Carlin had a great bit about this. Now I’m going on YouTube to find it lol. Thanks for reminding me about it haha.That's true in some ways but definitely not on a lot of important issues.
And also- I’d like to add- both those parties have very little differences and both are bought and owned by corporate America.
That's true in some ways but definitely not on a lot of important issues.IMHO this is the area where we want to tread lightly... I don't think we want to make this a Republican vs Democrat debate about which is worse, which is dominated by whatever evil special interests, etc...
The corporate world has a lot more influence on the republican side than the democratic side, now, too.
That's true in some ways but definitely not on a lot of important issues.That’s just not true my friend.
The corporate world has a lot more influence on the republican side than the democratic side, now, too.
I think if you say each "team" is bought and owned by "special interests" which might or might not be "corporations" then it's extremely accurate.The special interest groups are funded by corporations. There’s a lobby for every industry and that trade group is 100% fully funded by the 3-4 largest corporations in that specific industry.
Oh yeah, by the way- who was the single largest recipient of bailout money during the financial crisis- Citigroup!Grab the Guns,this isn't our founding fathers government it's this shit.......
To the tune of only $477 BILLION dollars in cash and guarantees from Uncle Sam.
I got involved once in some lobbying we were doing. It was an attempt to educate our Congressman on some aspects of patent law and what would be a good change. Our company didn't fund anything remotely partisan.Dan Rather did this piece, it was fantastic. I have to try to find it online somewhere now. It must’ve been done in 2004-2005. Something like that. In the piece, Rather said there was something like a hundred registered lobbyists in DC in like 1983 or something.
How much did they pay back?You don’t think it’s a tiny bit odd, that an executive of a company who basically picked an entire presidential cabinet, wound up receiving the largest bailout of anyone- basically a half a trillion dollar federal govt bailout, no?
Ok, so let's back it down guys.I don’t see anyone going R vs D. Just pointing out a few facts. Both sides are filthy dirty and have been bought and paid for by their corporate masters.
No need to go R vs. D. There is enough of that shit in the world.
I want to see the NPVIC get passed to make the electoral college obsolete and make the popular vote matter. It's getting close to 200 votes worth and just needs to get to 270. Yes, they have been mostly democratic states to this point, but there are conservative states that are supposedly starting to consider it more seriously.What is the problem that the NPVIC is supposed to solve? That Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton?
Campaign finance is definitely a big issue.
Term limits have already shown to be counterproductive for reasons explained above.
What is the problem that the NPVIC is supposed to solve? That Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton?I get what the arguments are against the NPVIC. My reasons for supporting it are independent of my political views.
Citing previous elections where the Electoral College vote went one way and the popular vote went the other way doesn't prove anything. The campaign was to gain electoral votes. Had it been to gain popular votes, it might have gone differently. We don't know that Samuel Tilden would have been a better president than Rutherford B. Hayes, or that Al Gore would have been a better president than George W. Bush, or that Hillary Clinton would have done any better than Donald Trump.
And what will be the unintended consequences of changing the presidential election to a mass popular vote? Many, many unintended consequences. And some malignant changes that might well be intended. Don't mess with the constitutional order unless you've got a good idea of what it was intended to accomplish and whether your "fix" is going to make things better or worse.
I hate the situation with crooked/bought-off/overly-concerned-about-their-re-election politicians as much as anyone, but I have yet to see a campaign-finance-reform proposal that is not a restriction on political speech and freedom of the press. And political speech is what the First Amendment's protection of speech is all about. And freedom of the press is not limited to newspapers and magazines. It's also for Joe Six-Pack and his printer/photocopier.
We've only seen the one case cited in the argument against term limits. I would not say that that means that the case is closed.
Finally, I think there's a good case to be made for stronger parties. When parties are stronger, we know who to blame for the mess. A stronger GOP would have been able to keep Donald Trump from joining it and taking it over. When parties are too weak to enforce party discipline, it sets up a situation where the politicians are lone operators, selling out to the highest bidder.
I'm not defending the stench emanating from Washington, DC. But we need to make sure that fixes don't make the situation worse.
I'll offer an example of fixes that made the existing situation worse. Everyone can cite the 18th Amendment as a bad idea that had the major achievement of enriching organized crime figures like Al Capone (and other non-organized criminals like Joseph P. Kennedy). But I think that the 17th Amendment was even worse. It was supposed to "clean up" the Senate by making Senators elected directly by the people. (I'll insert here that few of us have had much to say good about "the people" on this thread.) What it accomplished was to inflict much damage on the system of checks and balances. Not just the federal government's system, where the Senate and the House are supposed to check and balance each other, but whole federal system where the states were supposed to play a role in checking the federal government. Now Senators are like Representatives with bigger districts and longer terms, essentially beholden to the same interests as those Reps are. And the state governments, which used to elect the Senators to represent the states' interests, now have no direct way of influencing federal policy-making.
My partial solution to political ads is that a campaign cannot mention the name of ANYONE but the candidate(s) on their ticket, no other names.Strikes me as a freedom-of-speech issue.
Any PAC cannot mention ANY names of anyone in office. This might pass muster.
I don't think national politicians get "paid off" directly because of the risk, and they are more sophisticated in how they do it. And of course many of them were wealthy before they got there.I think "obviously" is the key word. It's easier to see the corruption in a mayor than in some national official.
Influence is often more important to them than just money. And of course anyone with access to them -cousins, uncles, sons, etc. - are going to attract "attention".
I think mayors in general are more obviously corrupt, they put Uncle Joe on the Water Board at $300,000 a year etc.
The NPVIC approach, right or wrong, is arguably unconstitutional (arguably not). If that got to SCOTUS, they might have to make a political "judgment" on it.I would hope that the SCOTUS would declare it unconstitutional.
It also could generate some unintended consequences.
This is one.Yep.
(https://constitutionus.com/images/we_the_people.jpg)
But, for anyone who has ever compared charity-led intervention with tax-funded intervention, it is obvious that private action has a very difficult time mimicking government action.I loved your whole post, but I fixated on this because it hits home.
What is the problem that the NPVIC is supposed to solve? That Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton?you have hit the nail on the head. The popular election of the Senate has help destroy federalism. I would love to repeal the 17th amendment.
Citing previous elections where the Electoral College vote went one way and the popular vote went the other way doesn't prove anything. The campaign was to gain electoral votes. Had it been to gain popular votes, it might have gone differently. We don't know that Samuel Tilden would have been a better president than Rutherford B. Hayes, or that Al Gore would have been a better president than George W. Bush, or that Hillary Clinton would have done any better than Donald Trump.
And what will be the unintended consequences of changing the presidential election to a mass popular vote? Many, many unintended consequences. And some malignant changes that might well be intended. Don't mess with the constitutional order unless you've got a good idea of what it was intended to accomplish and whether your "fix" is going to make things better or worse.
I hate the situation with crooked/bought-off/overly-concerned-about-their-re-election politicians as much as anyone, but I have yet to see a campaign-finance-reform proposal that is not a restriction on political speech and freedom of the press. And political speech is what the First Amendment's protection of speech is all about. And freedom of the press is not limited to newspapers and magazines. It's also for Joe Six-Pack and his printer/photocopier.
We've only seen the one case cited in the argument against term limits. I would not say that that means that the case is closed.
Finally, I think there's a good case to be made for stronger parties. When parties are stronger, we know who to blame for the mess. A stronger GOP would have been able to keep Donald Trump from joining it and taking it over. When parties are too weak to enforce party discipline, it sets up a situation where the politicians are lone operators, selling out to the highest bidder.
I'm not defending the stench emanating from Washington, DC. But we need to make sure that fixes don't make the situation worse.
I'll offer an example of fixes that made the existing situation worse. Everyone can cite the 18th Amendment as a bad idea that had the major achievement of enriching organized crime figures like Al Capone (and other non-organized criminals like Joseph P. Kennedy). But I think that the 17th Amendment was even worse. It was supposed to "clean up" the Senate by making Senators elected directly by the people. (I'll insert here that few of us have had much to say good about "the people" on this thread.) What it accomplished was to inflict much damage on the system of checks and balances. Not just the federal government's system, where the Senate and the House are supposed to check and balance each other, but whole federal system where the states were supposed to play a role in checking the federal government. Now Senators are like Representatives with bigger districts and longer terms, essentially beholden to the same interests as those Reps are. And the state governments, which used to elect the Senators to represent the states' interests, now have no direct way of influencing federal policy-making.
Or even better, set it based on the national average life expectancy at birth.It would be unconstitutional. Having upper-age limits at all, just as changing lower-age limits, just as waiving the 2-term limit (as was bandied about for a recent president) would be unconstitutional. Like so many other ideas, good and bad, it would require a Constitutional Amendment.
You can run for president as long as your term will complete before you reach the average life expectancy at birth.
This seems to have multiple facets:
- While you won't limit it to first term vs second term, it will cause political parties to not nominate anyone seeking their FIRST term who is less than 8 years from that age. Because they don't want someone to win if they can't seek reelection, due to the natural advantages of incumbency for the party in power.
- If you want a bunch of old dudes (and women) in Congress, the Senate, or Governorships to take healthcare and public safety seriously--the things that impact average life expectancy at birth, they now have a direct incentive to increase that age.
Where it might get interesting then is if you actually make it different between men and women. That's probably unconstitutional, but if you want to get 50% of the populace to buy in, women have about a 4 year advantage in average life expectancy at birth. For all the people in this country wondering when we'll elect our first female President, that would certainly open the field somewhat. But if you didn't want to do that, I'd set the age as the average between the two.
Here's another massive thing that bothers me: why are there partisan judges at all?!???
Here is an interesting "fact". On the Supreme Court, the conservative Justices vote with the Liberal Justices 70% of the time. They vote with folks on their "side" about 85% of the time. Most decisions are either 9-0 or 5-4, there are relatively few 6-3 and 7-2 and 8-1 decisions. And of course many of the decisions have no Con/Lib slant to them at all.
I would think that the better system might be more of a parliamentary system with proportional representation.If we had had a parliamentary system in the middle of the 19th century, Abraham Lincoln would have left office right after the 1862 mid-terms.
Right now we elect Congress not by person, but by party, anyway. And with gerrymandered districts, we really don't have a lot of turnover where a district actually flips red to blue or vice versa.
Do we really think that our local representative is actually looking out for our direct interests rather than following party line? There's no "Mr Smith Goes To Washington" going on as far as I can tell...
So if we're primarily voting for party rather than "muh reprasentitive" anyway, why not actually vote for party? The parties create their own lists of ranking, and seats are allocated based on national popular vote of PARTY representation and the parties go down their lists and the top whatever number that meet the allocation get seats. You set a lower limit, of course... For any party to get seats, they have to win a certain percentage of the national vote. One seat in Congress is 0.22% of the makeup, so set a limit at say 10x that... If your party gets over 2% of the national vote, you get seats allocated according to your percentage.
You know what this does? It actually allows third parties to do something. Today as a libertarian I'm unrepresented. Libertarians (not the party, but the ideology) are believed to comprise 10-15 percent of the American populace, but we don't get anyone in Congress because we don't command a plurality of ANY individual district.
With individual representation and first past the post voting our system cannot sustain in a stable configuration with more than two parties. I think with individual representation and ranked choice or other voting systems, we still won't have that become a stable configuration. It's only with getting rid of the direct representation model that I think we'd see third parties actually become viable.
You may not vote for party, but whoever gets elected in your state/district probably votes their party line 98% of the time.Very likely yes. And that’s a problem. This my team vs your team has got to stop.
George Carlin had a great bit about this. Now I’m going on YouTube to find it lol. Thanks for reminding me about it haha.George Carlin was funny.
And also- I’d like to add- both those parties have very little differences and both are bought and owned by corporate America.
George Carlin was funny.Carlin: "You know when I wash my hand in the bathroom? When I get shit on it!"
But if he were still alive, he would have been among those 2 months ago telling us that we should lick doorknobs to give our antibodies a workout.
The issue isn't NPVIC vs electoral college.How right you are, Bwarb!
The issue is that so much of our national decision-making is done in Washington, and it's difficult to create a one-size-fits-all policy that adequately addresses the needs of New York City and Syracuse at the same time, or Los Angeles and Shasta at the same time, or Chicago and Mattoon at the same time.
The reason the low-population states are so wedded to the electoral college isn't out of some sense of Constitutionalism, it's because they realize that if we create national policy based on what the major urban centers need, that they're going to get screwed in the process.
We used to have federalism. We used to have a system where Wyoming and California would have different policies, because not everything was decided in Washington. But now that federalism is dead, you can't blame people in Wyoming for being scared of their rights being run over roughshod by bureaucrats in DC.
I get what the arguments are against the NPVIC. My reasons for supporting it are independent of my political views.But that very sentence demonstrates that it is a politicized--better, partisan--idea.
As it is, essentially the only people whose vote matters are those living in swing states. I think that's ridiculous. I also think it's ridiculous that low population states (regardless of their political leanings, from North Dakota to Hawaii) have disproportionate votes in the election compared to California and Texas.
The NPVIC really shouldn't be a politicized idea. If/when Texas becomes a swing state and eventually a blue one, maybe Republicans will start supporting it....
you have hit the nail on the head. The popular election of the Senate has help destroy federalism. I would love to repeal the 17th amendment.The 17th Amendment is always presented in U.S. History textbooks as a great achievement for "democracy." I always tell my students that if I could blink my eyes and make one change to the Constitution, it would be to repeal the 17th Amendment.
The States are charged with how Electors are to be chosen of course, so there is that argument.Under National Popular Vote, the voters in every state that didn't go the way the popular vote went would be disenfranchised, if we're using "disenfranchise" to mean what it usually means in these discussions.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Here's another massive thing that bothers me: why are there partisan judges at all?!???They're not partisan. "Partisan" refers to parties. They don't wear party labels. They have different interpretations of the Constitution. Just like Jefferson and Hamilton did, even before parties existed in the USA.
Being a partisan judge should be what eliminates you from even being a candidate to the Supreme Court. It's obscene. Those 9 judges should be like swing states - we absolutely should not be able to predict what 8 of them are going to do.
Very likely yes. And that’s a problem. This my team vs your team has got to stop.Yes. Screw Ohio State though.
Very likely yes. And that’s a problem. This my team vs your team has got to stop.There's another way to look at it. If the party is strong enough to enforce party discipline, then you are able to clearly identify the good party (from your perspective) and bad the bad party.
Carlin: "You know when I wash my hand in the bathroom? When I get shit on it!"Yep. I just saw that routine on YouTube a couple of weeks ago.
There's another way to look at it. If the party is strong enough to enforce party discipline, then you are able to clearly identify the good party (from your perspective) and bad the bad party.
When parties have been stronger, we have had more responsible, accountable national government. When parties are weaker, we have gotten what we've got now and what we had in the 1850s, in the run-up to the Civil War.
Stronger parties tend to nominate more moderate candidates, because the candidate has to have a reasonably broad coalition of support within the party rather than be at the party's extreme edge.
Look at all the candidates who have effectively hijacked their parties, from Donald Trump to that Judge-turned-Senator in Alabama. For better or worse, a stronger GOP would have prevented both of those happenings. A stronger Democratic Party might have prevented Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez from gaining the nomination.
I'd take all of that.
Very likely yes. And that’s a problem. This my team vs your team has got to stop.Have you ever voted for an Auburn fan? :57:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "strong" vs "weak", but I think it has a lot more to do with how society is changing.Parties are weak at the state and local level when the party leaders have no ability to select the party's nominees.
Our country is more educated and racially diverse than ever. Meanwhile, income inequality is the highest it has been in a long time. Of course that's (among other reasons) going to change the type of people who get elected.
Have you ever voted for an Auburn fan? :57:You joke but I’ll likely have the chance soon. I have no real idea of his politics but tubberville is on the ticket in bama for us senate. Him being au coach has little if any bearing on my thoughts as his political career might go.
A nit to pick, this isn't correct.
I laughed at the Democrats in 2016 because they were actually less "democratic" than the Republicans. Had they been more democratic, Bernie Sanders would have been the nominee. But the Democrats got smart after the George McGovern debacle in 1972 and set up a system where there are a large number of super-delegates--selected by the party--at the nominating convention.
A nit to pick, this isn't correct.Thanks for the correction. She was not trailing without the super-delegates.
Clinton crushed Sanders in terms of votes. She had him by more than 8.8 percent in regular delegates.
People spent a ton of time talking about it, but she did in fact win without them in rather strong fashion.
Establishment?The super-delegates were chosen by the party at, as I understand it, local, state, and national level. The party establishment.
Code for "super" delegates?
Lots and lots of fundamentally wrong things right now.
Thanks for the correction. She was not trailing without the super-delegates.Fair enough. She only won the democratic field, but would've only had a plurality in a field diluted by the anti-democratic dilution. (Democratic in the non-party sense)
But I'm not sure your correction is quite right either.
Clinton came into the convention leading Sanders 2205 (54.4%) to 1846. That would not have been a majority of the 4763 total delegates. So without the 712 super-delegates (which broke 668.5 to 43.5 for her) she would not have won.
A nit to pick, this isn't correct.Those of us who have been watching national Democrats for a long time knew that as soon as Obama finished off Hillary in his 2008 insurrection campaign, she was going to be the nominee in 2016, and there wasn't a thing that us peons could do about it.
Clinton crushed Sanders in terms of votes. She had him by more than 8.8 percent in regular delegates.
People spent a ton of time talking about it, but she did in fact win without them in rather strong fashion.
I've been reading a lot about school being out, and the need for school districts to provide meals to kids. I've been aware that Chicago has been doing this for a long time. What I've found through this is how widespread the practice has become.My wife works with a lot of teachers who teach in the inner city and first-ring suburbs in the Twin Cities. For the majority of their kids, school is the only place they are guaranteed to get two meals.
My kids didn't get fed in school. I know for sure I didn't, because I still remember my Speed Racer lunch box.
When did schools become free restaurants? Is this a thing all over the country?
She looked like she could afford to feed them. She sounded very well educated to me. She had a nice car.Then feed them yourself!
I've mentioned before how my ex had no interest in taking care of the kids, none. I imagine that isn't incredibly uncommon.
I've been reading a lot about school being out, and the need for school districts to provide meals to kids. I've been aware that Chicago has been doing this for a long time. What I've found through this is how widespread the practice has become.I know that lunches are offered at my son's school, and that they're continuing the practice during the shutdowns because they recognize that for poor kids, they may not be adequately fed otherwise. The other two are in a charter school, and they have a hot lunch option for purchase, but I don't know what they do for poor kids there. I send lunches with all three kids every day, and have never looked into the "free" lunch options.
My kids didn't get fed in school. I know for sure I didn't, because I still remember my Speed Racer lunch box.
When did schools become free restaurants? Is this a thing all over the country?
I know that lunches are offered at my son's school, and that they're continuing the practice during the shutdowns because they recognize that for poor kids, they may not be adequately fed otherwise. The other two are in a charter school, and they have a hot lunch option for purchase, but I don't know what they do for poor kids there. I send lunches with all three kids every day, and have never looked into the "free" lunch options.I know our district you have to qualify. I don't know what the qualification is. Our oldest wants to buy once a week, usually on pizza day or chicken strips days, and occasionally he'll buy a milk. It honestly might be cheaper to have him buy every day, I think the full meal, at full price is like $1.50, plus 25 cents for the drink. I just don't particularly want him to eat pizza for lunch every day. So we end up likely spending more to send him with a sandwich, grapes or an apple, and a cookie.
It's possible that there are actual economic qualifications necessary for free lunches, but I haven't even investigated.
So while free lunches are, I believe, available in most places, I don't think they're the default option for most kids.
I'm not saying I'm not OK with it. I'm not sure I am OK with it, at the same time.The psychology that goes into what I'd consider bad decisions of procreation are sprawling and odd. Some people probably even argue there are no bad decisions of procreation.
Maybe.. don't have 5 kids if you can't afford to feed them?
Apparently the income guidelines are national for the lower 48. This was linked from my own school district, so apparently it's not indexed to local COL: http://www.schoolnutritionandfitness.com/data/pdf/incguide1516.pdf (http://www.schoolnutritionandfitness.com/data/pdf/incguide1516.pdf)i'll preface this by saying i'm all for taking care of the kids.
i'll preface this by saying i'm all for taking care of the kids.Agreed... Median household income in my town is $98K/year. The equivalent of houses in my neighborhood (1200sf 3br/2ba) cost in the $600K range, and rent for $2.5-3K/month. 23K doesn't go anywhere.
having said that, i really don't like when things are standard across the nation. 23k goes a hell of a lot further in rural alabama than in metropolises like la/ny/san fran. imo, these things need to be localized a lot more to be more effective for the people that are actually struggling.
I inquired about this same issue. Apparently, these hungry kids have programs over the summer when school is out to get breakfast and lunch!Did you vote for FDR with Truman as his VP in 1944? (https://www.americanprep.org/a-history-of-school-lunch/)
My parents paid for my meals in and out of school
I paid for my daughters meals in and out of school
when did this change that now I'm helping to pay for everyone's kids meals for the rest of my life??? Not sure I got to vote on this....
I inquired about this same issue. Apparently, these hungry kids have programs over the summer when school is out to get breakfast and lunch!You will never get to vote on any "program".
My parents paid for my meals in and out of school
I paid for my daughters meals in and out of school
when did this change that now I'm helping to pay for everyone's kids meals for the rest of my life??? Not sure I got to vote on this....
Did you vote for FDR with Truman as his VP in 1944? (https://www.americanprep.org/a-history-of-school-lunch/)nothing says free here
Then, in 1946 the school lunch program was made official when President Harry S. Truman signed the National School Lunch Act. The act, written by Senator Richard B. Russell Jr said, “It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress, as a measure of national security (http://www.pbs.org/food/the-history-kitchen/history-school-lunch/), to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s children and to encourage the domestic consumption of nutritious (http://www.pbs.org/food/the-history-kitchen/history-school-lunch/) agricultural commodities and other food, by assisting the States, through grants-in aid and other means, in providing an adequate supply of food and other facilities for the establishment, maintenance (http://www.pbs.org/food/the-history-kitchen/history-school-lunch/), operation and expansion of nonprofit school lunch programs.”
– Sec. 2 The National School Lunch Act, 1946
nothing says free hereActually, I think you're wrong about this. It is free and reduced lunch, and has been for a long time, though I'm sure the number of people participating has fluctuated.
wasn't free in the 70s and it wasn't free in the 2000's
Abuse is one of the big reasons for complicated laws. We set process in place to avoid abuse, and we add checks and balances, and accountability. It will never be enough to stop all abuse, but it does stop a lot. But it also adds complications and paychecks/pensions, to 847's point.It also generates bureaucracy to check on everything. One notion I have is to give everyone UBI and end every other kind of aid program at the Federal level.
People think of the Civil War as a slavery thing (and it was, no doubt). What many people don't see is how the Constitution fundamentally changed with the 14th Amendment immediately following the Civil War. The 14th Amendment gave the federal government the authority to intervene against the states for violating citizens' rights, and guaranteed those rights across the states, giving the federal government much more power over how the states operate. Ever since its passage, the Supreme Court has been trying to define just how much the federal government can intervene in what had been state-level questions.well said and i agree, particularly with the last part.
A related, but different question is the electoral college. It, too, has roots in slavery (but not exclusively so). But in the modern United States, its impact is similar--with the slavery question removed--it provides the smaller states with a level of representation in the federal government that protects them from the "tyranny of the majority." This is a valid concern. To begin with, constituents who don't think they have any power will not respect democratic decisions, even when made democratically. Conversely, those who believe that they have power in the process are much more apt to accept decisions that go against them. So allowing smaller states additional representation through the Senate and the electoral college provides them representation that otherwise they might not have. Personally, I think the electoral college could be tweaked to avoid a tyranny of the minority that many people feel is in place right now, where smaller states (and far fewer people) have what feels like far too much power. One option would be to take away the additional two "senator" votes from the electoral college.
It's true (in my view) that too much democracy is undemocratic. In states with robust direct initiatives (like California) we see the poor governance that comes from having popular votes on complex issues. A good example is prison/sentencing reform. This is a hard thing to tackle, and impossible to boil down into the kind of soundbites--and legislation--that lend themselves to popular vote (as opposed to, say, do we or do we not want the death penalty in our state, which is a simpler thing to legislate one way or the other). The essence of our government is representative democracy--electing people we believe in to make these kinds of difficult, complicated decisions. That leads to one of my biggest revelations in voting behavior: being able to trust someone is more important to me than the specifics of their political positions (not that those don't matter--unquestionably they do). This is no panacea--politics is hard business, and all people, whether politicians or not, change their views from time to time.
As a plug for the local politicians--this is the area of your closest representative democracy. Pay attention to what they are doing and engage with them. They make more decisions than you realize that impact your day-to-day life, and they are the most responsive politicians you will ever meet. And, they are, generally speaking, the minor leagues for higher office. So if you want good state and federal officials, elect good local ones.
Finally, I was amused by the mayor comment above because my wife presently is a mayor. ;)
Poor families have the option of free/reduced lunch. If you make a certain amount, you have to pay full-price.poor must have a higher threshold than in the past
People think of the Civil War as a slavery thing (and it was, no doubt). What many people don't see is how the Constitution fundamentally changed with the 14th Amendment immediately following the Civil War. The 14th Amendment gave the federal government the authority to intervene against the states for violating citizens' rights, and guaranteed those rights across the states, giving the federal government much more power over how the states operate. Ever since its passage, the Supreme Court has been trying to define just how much the federal government can intervene in what had been state-level questions.It's long been my preference that we should have two things:
It's true (in my view) that too much democracy is undemocratic. In states with robust direct initiatives (like California) we see the poor governance that comes from having popular votes on complex issues. A good example is prison/sentencing reform. This is a hard thing to tackle, and impossible to boil down into the kind of soundbites--and legislation--that lend themselves to popular vote (as opposed to, say, do we or do we not want the death penalty in our state, which is a simpler thing to legislate one way or the other).Of course, one area that screwed California two ways was the gas tax increase.
It also generates bureaucracy to check on everything. One notion I have is to give everyone UBI and end every other kind of aid program at the Federal level.What would be the inflationary impact? I think there's an economics argument that says this would just result in higher prices for everything, thereby not actually solving the social problems its aimed at.
Shut down nearly all of the bureaucracy in DC and just cut checks (which we kind of are doing now).
And yes, much would get wasted.
What would be the inflationary impact? I think there's an economics argument that says this would just result in higher prices for everything, thereby not actually solving the social problems its aimed at.In my model, spending would be flat, it's just that nearly all of the money would go to citizens, instead of bureaucracies in DC trying to check to make sure fraud and abuse are as low as possible. It would clear out enormous amounts of paperwork. It would NOT solve social problems very well, but I'd argue the current approach doesn't either.
In my model, spending would be flat, it's just that nearly all of the money would go to citizens, instead of bureaucracies in DC trying to check to make sure fraud and abuse are as low as possible. It would clear out enormous amounts of paperwork. It would NOT solve social problems very well, but I'd argue the current approach doesn't either.I understand the argument, but the, "if they waste it, so be it" argument screws the people whose school board (or whatever) wasted it on their account, including those who didn't want it the way the local majority decided. Majorities don't have great histories of protecting the rights of minorities, whether those are civil rights of the kind represented in the Bill of Rights, or whether those are rights to access government benefits.
I think it would need a means test. No HUD, no SNAP., no Welfare, no Medicaid, no nothing, but a simple check (or debit card). My Department of Education would also be simple, a block grant to school systems with an inadequate tax base. Here's a check, bye. If they waste it, so be it.
I have a quarter notion the Democratic nominee with be Cuomo.I don’t think he’s interested in running for president. He’s said as much. And I know he’s playing this dignified leader on tv, but- he ain’t. NYC and NY state officials handled this thing terribly from day one, and that’s why it’s become center of the pandemic in the US where half of all cases in this entire country are.
Our original government only allowed for one Federal office directly elected by popular vote (the House), and voters were all white property owners.I think you've overstated the case. I don't know that there were black/nonwhite voters in any states in 1789, but I don't know that there weren't either. But I do know that a higher percentage of the population got to vote in 1789 America than could vote anywhere else in the world.
Our Founders were scared of "democracy" almost as much as they were monarchy. They wanted a very limited government installed mainly by the Powers that Be (sort of the Deep State of 1783 in effect). Electors were meant to vote for who they thought was the best candidate. Voters voted for electors to make their own decision when it was time to vote. Electors were not supposed to be "political" (ha).
The country was not designed to be anything like a democracy because it was designed largely by wealthy highly educated white men who wanted to keep power to wealthy educated white men.
Here's a check?The government is already the largest employer in this country. That’s not even accounting all the independent contractors they have hired to replace fired govt employees- whose salaries the govt ultimately pays.
I'd rather it be "Here's a job".
All of these "programs" and free shit we have is what continues to hold these people down. We need to give them hope, starting with better opportunities for education, and get them working in good jobs. That's the fix.
He had it the whole time.
Biden has the nomination in the bag now imo.
I've been reading a lot about school being out, and the need for school districts to provide meals to kids. I've been aware that Chicago has been doing this for a long time. What I've found through this is how widespread the practice has become.Many schools/school districts provide not only free lunches but free breakfasts. Sometimes means-tested, sometimes not.
My kids didn't get fed in school. I know for sure I didn't, because I still remember my Speed Racer lunch box.
When did schools become free restaurants? Is this a thing all over the country?
I inquired about this same issue. Apparently, these hungry kids have programs over the summer when school is out to get breakfast and lunch!In the darkest sense, it's a cost saver for you.
My parents paid for my meals in and out of school
I paid for my daughters meals in and out of school
when did this change that now I'm helping to pay for everyone's kids meals for the rest of my life??? Not sure I got to vote on this....
He had it the whole time.I think you’re right. The only one who could’ve really snatched it from him was Bernie Sanders imo.
poor must have a higher threshold than in the pastI guess they wanted to make sure every kid got something to eat, huh?
not surprising
it's just odd to me that if a kid sin't in school for a few days that kid doesn't get a meal or two
I suppose it takes a village and some of my money
My wife works with a lot of teachers who teach in the inner city and first-ring suburbs in the Twin Cities. For the majority of their kids, school is the only place they are guaranteed to get two meals.I have mixed thoughts about this.
There are a lot of school districts in greater Minnesota where there is a significant percentage of students on free and reduced lunches as well, but no one bothers to print that information. Among those, I've noticed a strong undercurrent of "too proud to ask for help."
I think you’re right. The only one who could’ve really snatched it from him was Bernie Sanders imo.No, none of this is the case. You're missing the point.
But in order for him to do that, Bernie would’ve had to gotten dirty and went on the offensive and gone after Biden. Bernie blew his shot.
It was more wide open for him to get in there and get down and dirty and take it this time around than last. He failed to go on the offensive with Biden and now he’s gone.
I have mixed thoughts about this.Yeah, I think this is the only hand that matters. I don't disagree with what you said, but when this is on the one side of the scale, that's all there is.
On one hand, we don't want kids to go hungry, and kids who don't know where the next meal is coming from aren't usually focused on academic learning.
You will never get to vote on any "program"."Federal" is where, IMO, there should not be any educational establishment. The Constitution doesn't assign education as a federal responsibility, so the federal government, IMO, should first take care of its constitutionally assigned responsibilities, then, if there's any money left over after that, take care of the "nice to haves."
Why do we have a federal board of education, state boards of education, county boards of education, local boards of education?
I count lots and lots of pensions and free healthcare in all of that.
No, none of this is the case. You're missing the point.You’re 100% correct on the last part.
Bernie was never going to get it. Same as 2016. He wasn't going to snatch anything. The DNC would rather Trump be president than Bernie Sanders.
People think of the Civil War as a slavery thing (and it was, no doubt). What many people don't see is how the Constitution fundamentally changed with the 14th Amendment immediately following the Civil War. The 14th Amendment gave the federal government the authority to intervene against the states for violating citizens' rights, and guaranteed those rights across the states, giving the federal government much more power over how the states operate. Ever since its passage, the Supreme Court has been trying to define just how much the federal government can intervene in what had been state-level questions.Great exposition, SF!
A related, but different question is the electoral college. It, too, has roots in slavery (but not exclusively so). But in the modern United States, its impact is similar--with the slavery question removed--it provides the smaller states with a level of representation in the federal government that protects them from the "tyranny of the majority." This is a valid concern. To begin with, constituents who don't think they have any power will not respect democratic decisions, even when made democratically. Conversely, those who believe that they have power in the process are much more apt to accept decisions that go against them. So allowing smaller states additional representation through the Senate and the electoral college provides them representation that otherwise they might not have. Personally, I think the electoral college could be tweaked to avoid a tyranny of the minority that many people feel is in place right now, where smaller states (and far fewer people) have what feels like far too much power. One option would be to take away the additional two "senator" votes from the electoral college.
It's true (in my view) that too much democracy is undemocratic. In states with robust direct initiatives (like California) we see the poor governance that comes from having popular votes on complex issues. A good example is prison/sentencing reform. This is a hard thing to tackle, and impossible to boil down into the kind of soundbites--and legislation--that lend themselves to popular vote (as opposed to, say, do we or do we not want the death penalty in our state, which is a simpler thing to legislate one way or the other). The essence of our government is representative democracy--electing people we believe in to make these kinds of difficult, complicated decisions. That leads to one of my biggest revelations in voting behavior: being able to trust someone is more important to me than the specifics of their political positions (not that those don't matter--unquestionably they do). This is no panacea--politics is hard business, and all people, whether politicians or not, change their views from time to time.
As a plug for the local politicians--this is the area of your closest representative democracy. Pay attention to what they are doing and engage with them. They make more decisions than you realize that impact your day-to-day life, and they are the most responsive politicians you will ever meet. And, they are, generally speaking, the minor leagues for higher office. So if you want good state and federal officials, elect good local ones.
Finally, I was amused by the mayor comment above because my wife presently is a mayor. ;)
I have mixed thoughts about this.I'd assume the parents still have the primary responsibility. The schools are really only dealing in the secondary responsibilities.
On one hand, we don't want kids to go hungry, and kids who don't know where the next meal is coming from aren't usually focused on academic learning.
On the other hand, we have taught the parents and are teaching the kids that parents don't have primary responsibility for feeding their children. So the kids whom we are feeding free breakfasts and lunches today will be the parents of tomorrow who don't feel responsible for feeding their children. One tiny aspect of the problem of generational poverty.
Apropos of nothing, Karl Marx didn't feel responsible for feeding his kids. Several of them died from malnutrition-related diseases.
In my model, spending would be flat, it's just that nearly all of the money would go to citizens, instead of bureaucracies in DC trying to check to make sure fraud and abuse are as low as possible. It would clear out enormous amounts of paperwork. It would NOT solve social problems very well, but I'd argue the current approach doesn't either.You mentioned UBI upthread, and now this is about the same thing.
I think it would need a means test. No HUD, no SNAP., no Welfare, no Medicaid, no nothing, but a simple check (or debit card). My Department of Education would also be simple, a block grant to school systems with an inadequate tax base. Here's a check, bye. If they waste it, so be it.
I don’t think he’s interested in running for president. He’s said as much. And I know he’s playing this dignified leader on tv, but- he ain’t. NYC and NY state officials handled this thing terribly from day one, and that’s why it’s become center of the pandemic in the US where half of all cases in this entire country are.Hey! That's no disqualification for running for president! :57:
Biden has the nomination in the bag now imo.
In the darkest sense, it's a cost saver for you.The stocks. Bring back the stocks. Folks can't procreate while they're in the stocks.
If you don't extend that net and kids go super hungry, eventually that's a crime. Parents get locked up, which you pay for. Kids go to foster care, which you pay for. We get a mess of court proceedings, which you pay for.
Can't deny folks the right to have kids and can't make parents not have problems or be very crappy at it.
I'd assume the parents still have the primary responsibility. The schools are really only dealing in the secondary responsibilities.Maybe the food should be delivered to the home, or picked up at a local "free food" dispensary, so that the parent would at least have to get his/her dead ass out of bed to feed the kids with the free food. I teach in a rapidly growing suburb that still has a relatively low cost of living, so many of the families who qualify for reduced/free lunches aren't really "poor" by local standards. Still, some of the kids come to school having gotten themselves up and the unemployed parent(s) still asleep when the kids left the house. The parents need to be part of the solution.
And in the end, if you cut this off, and more kids went hungry and some parents cut back on other things to pay for minimal lunch and breakfast, I'm just somewhat skeptical this would lead to a more responsible next generation.
I mean, the secret here is, few people actually have a desire to be that poor. It's a pretty unpleasant existence and often one difficult to climb out of. I suppose the answer would be that if we just applied enough scarcity, they'd figure it out. But I remain skeptical. Many of these habits are learned, I'll grant that, but I'm unconvinced the lesson of watching a parent pick food over hot water breeds good habits.
(I had some roommates who came from a different economic class than myself, and their understanding of the ins and outs of finances was woeful. And they had modest privilege, but still no clue. I'd assume if my monthly credit card bill is your monthly everything bill, you'd be hard pressed to have any sense of a good structure for finances)
On the other hand, we have taught the parents and are teaching the kids that parents don't have primary responsibility for feeding their children. So the kids whom we are feeding free breakfasts and lunches today will be the parents of tomorrow who don't feel responsible for feeding their children. One tiny aspect of the problem of generational poverty.As @Kris60 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=79) pointed out, this is one area where the cruelty of children is a positive.
Great exposition, SF!The electoral college was not, strictly speaking, to protect the slave-owning states; and as you say, Virginia was one of the most populous states. But, installing a system that took the vote out of the hands of individuals was very much favored by slave-owning states. As Madison said:
Are you tying the EC to slavery in the sense that slave states had lower population numbers? That wasn't necessarily the case. Virginia was among the 2-3 most populous states, while the New England states not named Massachusetts had relatively low populations. (Or were you thinking about the 3/5 compromise?)
As you say, the intent was to give small-population states more influence than their population strictly warranted.
In the darkest sense, it's a cost saver for you.folks don't have as many kids while locked up
If you don't extend that net and kids go super hungry, eventually that's a crime. Parents get locked up, which you pay for. Kids go to foster care, which you pay for. We get a mess of court proceedings, which you pay for.
Can't deny folks the right to have kids and can't make parents not have problems or be very crappy at it.
I guess they wanted to make sure every kid got something to eat, huh?to start yes, then it probably became a way to grow and inflate a program run by self serving bureaucrats
As @Kris60 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=79) pointed out, this is one area where the cruelty of children is a positive.Children don't seem so cruel these days as they were when I was a kid.
I'll bet the kids that were being made fun of by their peers for their poor parents probably don't want their kids to be made fun of for the same thing.
Granted, these days the cruel children would likely be suspended for bullying...
folks don't have as many kids while locked upThe mom isn't locked up, she's still having kids with some other dude.
parents don't have problems and aren't crappy while they're locked up
I'd rather pay for the kids to have better (foster) parents, than pay crap parents
to start yes, then it probably became a way to grow and inflate a program run by self serving bureaucratsSo you're not exactly an expert on this then.
I've lived in this rural/small town area my entire life - there aren't too many parents that can't afford a school lunch
If he had tried this, he wouldn't have been Bernie anymore and lose his supporters.
Bernie never went on the offensive. He could’ve had a chance to snatch it if he did.
So you're not exactly an expert on this then.correct, never claimed to be
correct, never claimed to beWe're not talking about feeding every hungry kid on the planet, why are you leaping to hyperbole? We're talking about every school-aged kid in your school zone being fed, c'mon man.
I don't want kids going hungry, but I can't feed every hungry kid on the planet
I'd rather more parents were responsible enough to feed their children, like my grandparents, and parents, and I did.
It's not impossible.
and IMO be encouraged as opposed to being discouraged
folks don't have as many kids while locked up
parents don't have problems and aren't crappy while they're locked up
I'd rather pay for the kids to have better (foster) parents, than pay crap parents
We're not talking about feeding every hungry kid on the planet, why are you leaping to hyperbole? We're talking about every school-aged kid in your school zone being fed, c'mon man.If I'm only paying for kids in my school district then I'll pay w/o complaint
If I'm only paying for kids in my school district then I'll pay w/o complaintI imagine part of your property taxes go to the food fund. There are probably state and federal grants too. Of course, grant money comes from taxes.
“The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.” – Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War (ca 410 BCE)The 1st half is fairly accurate IMO true,some of the people who work for so called defense contractors that I know make my skin crawl.Their fathers,themselves or their kids will never see war.But go to great lengths to convince others why their wares are so important,after coming home from church.They have no skin in the game but in a sense it is a skins game
"You didn't think they actually spend 10 thousand dollars for a hammer and 30 thousand for a toilet seat, did you?"
The reason this happens is "regulations". They don't want just a hammer. Somebody specifies that the hammer has to have all these characteristics, none of which have ever been measured, and the hammer is an inch longer than normal and the head is quarter inch off. So, a company has to run tests on special hammers to show they qualify, and there are a lot of tests to be run. If the military would just say they wanted a thousand hammers of normal type, they wouldn't cost much at all.This is a lot of it, yes.
At times, some nefarious types who are told to write the specs will write them so narrowly than only the hammers made by Cousin Joe match the specs.
Or Billy Bob pays him to write them to favor their hammer designs.
This happens with large companies also.
So you're saying... it's Aliens?(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5893faa1ebbd1a8f680352a1/1531347999463-GNCUZOI5G6SCRIFVHTVN/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kMTzfTx2pDxKEkuJtQ0imT5Zw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWEtT5uBSRWt4vQZAgTJucoTqqXjS3CfNDSuuf31e0tVFV299Zga2WM0BoKFDBrqh6mqM87BTEhv09GZqr3I8kcJhESHpMfOOzESexg0C_2gM/THECONFESSIONALS1.JPG)
The main expense in the military is manpower. R&D as noted above is also major. But, I think we should FIRST review out defense commitments and THEN determine what sort of military we need. We can't just cut without Step One.No shit. Who suggested we blindly cut, c'mon man.
I doubt anyone here is that ignorant.Have we confirmed that we have no congressmen/women here, before we make blanket assumptions like this?
Would there ever be another all-out ground war?
If we dont start manufacturing our medical drugs and supplies in this country we will be in for a world of hurtFood is also a national defense interest, and a lot of our food supply chain goes through China and other remote countries now, as well.
And Russia is mostly out of it at this point.You're crazy to take your eyes off of IVAN as long as Putin is pulling the strings
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5893faa1ebbd1a8f680352a1/1531347999463-GNCUZOI5G6SCRIFVHTVN/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kMTzfTx2pDxKEkuJtQ0imT5Zw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWEtT5uBSRWt4vQZAgTJucoTqqXjS3CfNDSuuf31e0tVFV299Zga2WM0BoKFDBrqh6mqM87BTEhv09GZqr3I8kcJhESHpMfOOzESexg0C_2gM/THECONFESSIONALS1.JPG) I was looking for just that 😜
So I could see ground war movement against geographical sites sitting on... say... very large oil deposits.Or taking over large Tech Manufacturing Installations
Or taking over large Tech Manufacturing InstallationsOr destroying the ones we built, rendering them useless.
You're crazy to take your eyes off of IVAN as long as Putin is pulling the stringsI'd start opining on whose strings he's pulling, exactly, but this is the "no politics" thread...
a lot of the problem is budgeting, at least within local governments.this needs to stop
i have some friends in charge of some aspects of the police force here, and every year they scramble around spending what left in their budget on things they don't need, because if they don't they'll lose that amount in the next budget. so they have no "savings" for when they do need something unexpected and expensive. and when that happens, they go asking for an increase in the budget for that item, and then put it in the budget request for the next year, and so it grows and grows.
y'all mean ground war with aircraft, drones, missiles and other things in the sky supporting a handful of men in boots?Actually we were going send you out with some Bud Fat and your clubs.Any belligerent force would be laughing so hard the rest of us could get them in a rush
this is something i run into quite a bit as an auditor and that's more likely just poor understanding of procurement rules and regs. lowest bidder is typically a general rule, but there are almost always exceptions, and it's generally just explaining a legitimate reason for why you didn't use the lowest bidder. and there are a myriad of legit reasons that could be (your example being a great one). someone blindly using the lowest bidder is either incompetent, lazy, or too scared to make an argument. maybe all 3.
Because of the taxpayer's concern for budgets, one of the ways in which government is inefficient is the requirement (in most cases) that the government buys from the low bidder. This is true in DOD, but also throughout most of government. I was on the sidelines for a massive infrastructure project where one bidder had completed Phase I, below budget and ahead of schedule, with a better-than-expected safety record. Nonetheless, that bidder lost Phase II despite submitted a bid less than 1% higher than the winning bidder. That is an example of where the desire for low government spending almost certainly ended up costing the government more. Few businesses would ever make that decision. Anyway, I digress (a little).
I know there are exceptions to that rule, but the case I'm talking about was a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project where the second-to-low bidder had completed Phase I with a stellar record, but lost because it wasn't the low bidder for phase II (by a tiny margin). Again, something that wouldn't happen in the commercial world. As noted above, I believe the government is actually much better at spending the taxpayer's money than most people, but this low-cost mentality can make it worse, not better.I'm not talking about anything but critical items here.
Back to localizing manufacturing and food production, it would have a dramatic impact on the corporate model that generates a massive portion of wealth/profit in this country. You're talking about a fundamentally different economic system largely driven by government regulations.
I know there are exceptions to that rule, but the case I'm talking about was a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project where the second-to-low bidder had completed Phase I with a stellar record, but lost because it wasn't the low bidder for phase II (by a tiny margin). Again, something that wouldn't happen in the commercial world. As noted above, I believe the government is actually much better at spending the taxpayer's money than most people, but this low-cost mentality can make it worse, not better.that's my point, though. more often than not, that scenario doesn't need to play out. in that specific instance, maybe it did, sometimes the rules are just too confining. but more often than not, the entity would be perfectly within the rules to use the phase 1 bidder again, despite not being the lowest bidder. it's not really mandatory in gov either, as long as there's a legitimate reason. people are just too afraid to challenge it.
Back to localizing manufacturing and food production, it would have a dramatic impact on the corporate model that generates a massive portion of wealth/profit in this country. You're talking about a fundamentally different economic system largely driven by government regulations.
that's my point, though. more often than not, that scenario doesn't need to play out. in that specific instance, maybe it did, sometimes the rules are just too confining. but more often than not, the entity would be perfectly within the rules to use the phase 1 bidder again, despite not being the lowest bidder. it's not really mandatory in gov either, as long as there's a legitimate reason. people are just too afraid to challenge it.For fear of lawsuit, which happens from time-to-time around here.
this needs to stopTwo things on this.
and the folks that spend less than their budget should be rewarded, not penalized
Oh yeah, we need to start making all of our stuff here. Put people to work in manufacturing and other good fields, after we educate them.Yeah, this is what I was talking about. I think these numbers are absolutely meaningless.
As for a ground war, I often wonder. The US as 1.3 Million in its military.
China: 2.3M
North Korea: 1.2M
Russia: 770K
Iran: 550K
Venezuela: 320K
Those are the main adversaries, I guess. I don't worry too much about the last one. They attacked a defenseless cruise ship with their navy last week and their navy sunk.
Lots of manpower in that group though. I highly doubt they could get it here.
India has 2.3M.
Turkey has the 2nd most (700K) numbers in NATO, by far (France - 200K). Of course, I don't trust Turkey.
I see a whole lot of the bidding process for heavy construction work. Some of it is laughable, unless "we" are allowed to be part of the process (to save the agency's ass).Ditto.
It is shocking to me how agencies can't seem to compare apples to apples on this things, only to go low-bid. And then the low bidder performs crappy, and extras the client to death. Lather, rinse, repeat.
My guess is that this money is well spent even if some of it is wasted. Some of any money would be wasted of course. I read that Headstart is money well spent.I have read that Headstart kids are effectively where non-Headstart kids of the same demographics are 3 years after graduating from the program.
And yes, we'd all prefer a world where parents took the responsibility.
My kids' school system had a large number of AFDF students in it. They had incorporated decades ago a largely black school district. Fortunately, they had gobs of money. I saw quite a few of those underprivileged kids go on and do very well because they had a chance, which they would not have had in the old school district. I like to focus on them versus the kids who didn't take advantage of that chance.
Thread killer. :-)Long ago, I went to visit a female OCS classmate at Fort Ord, CA. We went into Monterrey to a comedy club and every stand-up jackass there got up and made fun of the GIs at Ord. They couldn't say enough hateful things about them, and the audience just laughed and laughed and laughed. I mean, all one of them had to do is end a joke with "He was an effin' GI, whadya know?" to get uproarious laughter. A year or two later, Ord was put on the base-closure list, and oh, how the citizens of Monterrey howled in anguish! Suddenly, they loved, loved, loved Fort Ord and all those GIs!
You have a few too many verys on there, particularly as it relates to me, but thank you. Now let's get back to some government questions...
Defense spending is an interesting topic. Since the end of World War II we have attempted to maintain a ready military, capable of immediately reacting to crises anywhere in the world (that we anticipate). This is an expensive proposition, but arguably it has more than paid for itself (many times over) by helping to stabilize a much more peaceful world than preceded it. Arguably. (I agree with that proposition, but I'm sure there are reasonable, contrary views).
A massive portion of our defense budget (the budget traditionally considered capital "D" defense), somewhere between about 1/5 and up to about 1/3 is not for operations, but is for R&D, procurement, and other forward looking expenses. Those expenses are arguably necessary to maintain the kind of military presence we've had since 1946.
More cynically, a significant portion of defense department costs are really just disguised jobs programs. It's why bases are hard to close and weapons systems are hard to cancel, even when the service for which they exist doesn't want them. As big a government cost cutter as McCain had a reputation for, one of the biggest reasons the Air Force still has the A-10 is that it is built/maintained in Arizona (McCain was FAR from the only elected official to fight for an arguably unneeded weapons system or base). Personally--as an Army guy--I really like the A-10, but listening to an Air Force officer involved in the budgeting process talk about why it should be phased out (or replaced), I came away convinced.
Another interesting question is what would happen if we simply scaled way back on R&D and particularly procurement. The U.S. will always be likely to be able to ramp up production if necessary, but that would lead to military situations like we had at the beginning of World War II, in which we were pretty far behind the curve for what we needed. There is an argument that given our economy, that would be an acceptable risk: that we should spend less on the military, knowing that we can spend more when the time comes. Obviously, that risk comes with a large cost at the outset of any large military endeavor (especially the kind that calls for total mobilization like we had during WWII).
However, another piece of these hugely expensive weapons systems--the F35 is a perfect example--is that it is the research and development, not really the procurement, that drives the massive price tags. That's why when we order more F35s, the price per aircraft comes down. It is almost certainly the case that the F35 was too expensive, but the decision to order fewer of them also drives the higher cost per unit, which may make it sound worse than it really was.
My thing with the military is our privileged situation, in which during a war, we concern ourselves with cost, not survival. We are a gentleman's war-mongers....attacking from afar, attacking from above, attacking via video game joystick.Honestly, you don't know what you're talking about, any more than I know about teaching teaching kids on an Indian reservation.
If small groups of special ops are more effective than a giant ground army, why not get rid of it? I don't know this to be true, but I'm confident we could snip 1/3 of the military budget and lose zero effectiveness. Can you envision a tank battle in 2020? How many of those do we buy every year? Maybe it's none, but only because we have 10,000 of them sitting in a warehouse with the ark of the covenant somewheres.
The main expense in the military is manpower. R&D as noted above is also major. But, I think we should FIRST review out defense commitments and THEN determine what sort of military we need. We can't just cut without Step One.CD, this just isn't so.
But, inherently, Congress wants to retain bases and production of items made in their districts, that simply is inherent.
Aircraft carriers are incredibly expensive to procure and operate. The air wing costs more than the actual carrier, and of course it is terribly expensive to train aviators to fly the things. And they then get a job at Delta because they have so much multiengine time.
The Air Force has mainly single engine jets (F-15 excepted) and their pilots get a lot of single engine time, and that matters a lot.
“The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.” – Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War (ca 410 BCE)Thucydides was a smart man.
a lot of the problem is budgeting, at least within local governments.I saw that in the Army, especially in Aviation. Oddly, in Army Aviation, getting lots of flight time for the aviators is not a high priority. A big reason is that the more you fly, the more time and money you have to spend on maintenance. In fact, each flying hour for each type of aircraft is budgeted to account for how much it costs to keep them running. But flying a lot means you are working hard to keep your Operational Readiness (OR) rate up to standards. So, every year, as the end of the fiscal year is ending, many aviation units who don't want to keep their mechanics and parts guys and maintenance test pilots working long hours and weekends try to slough off the remainder of their budget flying hours without ending up the year still holding some in the bag. So they transfer them to some other unit that is willing to take them, fly their hours to keep their aviators proficient, and maybe take a hit on the OR rate. When I was S3 (Operations Officer) of 1-6 Cav (Atk Hel), we took all the hours we could scrounge at the end of the year to train as hard as we could. And we took a hit on maintenance.
i have some friends in charge of some aspects of the police force here, and every year they scramble around spending what left in their budget on things they don't need, because if they don't they'll lose that amount in the next budget. so they have no "savings" for when they do need something unexpected and expensive. and when that happens, they go asking for an increase in the budget for that item, and then put it in the budget request for the next year, and so it grows and grows.
Would there ever be another all-out ground war?There could have been one in Ukraine, had NATO chosen to defend its fellow member instead of just letting Russia have the SE chunk of it.
A full scale ground war is unlikely in the current environment, but it wouldn't take a lot to change that (I think COVID-19 is showing how fragile many things are that we don't normally think about).Excellent, SF!
Given all the factors that go in, the military acquisition process is actually fairly efficient. Indeed, government in general is relatively efficient in more cases than people think. Particularly people who work in big business are quite familiar with the inefficiencies in it. Large bureaucracies naturally contain inefficiency. The Government is a VERY large bureaucracy, and it still manages many things more efficiently than the private sector. But it doesn't turn profits, so people think it isn't working (notwithstanding that the government's job isn't to turn a profit).
Because of the taxpayer's concern for budgets, one of the ways in which government is inefficient is the requirement (in most cases) that the government buys from the low bidder. This is true in DOD, but also throughout most of government. I was on the sidelines for a massive infrastructure project where one bidder had completed Phase I, below budget and ahead of schedule, with a better-than-expected safety record. Nonetheless, that bidder lost Phase II despite submitted a bid less than 1% higher than the winning bidder. That is an example of where the desire for low government spending almost certainly ended up costing the government more. Few businesses would ever make that decision. Anyway, I digress (a little).
The question of whether a military branch "wants" a system, base, etc. is also fraught. Generally it's not whether the military wants the thing, it's a question of how high a priority it is for the branch. The Army wants a next generation tank to replace the M1 variants (currently working on A3), but when Congress tells it to expect a certain amount of money for procurement, the new tank isn't high enough on the priority list to make the cut. The Air Force recognizes the need for a next generation close air support aircraft (i.e., to replace the A-10), but when it looks at the role We the People expect USAF to execute, that CAS airframe isn't high enough on the priority list to make the cut.
For a long time now the stated goal of the US Military was to be able to respond to two significant military crises at the same time (e.g., southwest Asia and Korea). That demands a lot of resources. Re-thinking that may be worthwhile (and is happening all the time, I think). We are also currently operating with some really old technology throughout the services. The Army's "new" transport helicopter has been in service since the 80s. The M1 came on line in the late 70s (granted, both have been upgraded, but many of those upgrades have been computer systems). The Army's "heavy" transport helicopter has been in service since the 1960s! Same with the Air Force--while it has the F-22 and F-35, the F-15s and 16s have been in service since (I think) the early 80s (maybe late 70s); and we really don't have a fleet of heavy bombers--the B52 first flew in 1952!
Nonetheless, for 35 years the US has been unchallenged on a traditional battlefield (whether ground, air, or sea).
Russia's annexation of the Crimea has the military (and policy makers) much more concerned with traditional battlefields, and China's buildup of a deepwater navy--which primarily serves as a vehicle for force projection--gives another cause for real concern about future conflict/battlefields. War with China versus war with Russia look much different from a planning/operational perspective.
Ok, but turning back to a different, if related, comment above: returning primary food and manufacturing production to the United States would take a major government intervention and would be a massive assault on the fundamentals of free-market capitalism that have been the basis for U.S. economic expansion since, essentially, the end of WWII. That is radical, leftist thinking. Seriously.
In a wartime environment, the U.S. would likely be able to shift food and manufacturing production to the home front, as required, but it wouldn't be nimble. Of course, each one of our likely competitors would have the same problem.
Honestly, you don't know what you're talking about, any more than I know about teaching teaching kids on an Indian reservation.I don't know all I need to know about the military.
I'm sure that you would recognize this in anyone else--that there is nothing more hard to change than someone's mind who doesn't know anything about a subject but is convinced that he knows all he needs to know.
The one thing I'm sure of is that other countries enter into a war knowing they need to knock them out at all costs or be knocked out.This is not my understanding of history. I don't even understand what is meant by this.
I recall somewhere that the USAF has a LOT of F-16s and not nearly as many multiengined aircraft. It was an article about how most commercial pilots were naval aviators.Yeah, if you're talking about just single-engine fighters, the Navy has none (until they get F-35s) and the Air Force has a bunch of 'em.
This is somewhat correct as they have more F-16s than anything else, but they do as you note have quite a few multiengine jets and turboprops. It looks like about half their inventory is F-16 types plus about 200 F-35s.
I don't know all I need to know about the military.The vast majority of wars going way back in history were not fought to annihilate the enemy. They were to gain an advantage.
The one thing I'm sure of is that other countries enter into a war knowing they need to knock them out at all costs or be knocked out. The U.S. goes into a war hoping our face isn't puffy after the fight.
.
The rest, I have a lot to learn.
American War | Dates | European War | Dates | Opposing Sides | Results |
| 1st Anglo-Powhatan War | 1610-1614 | N/A | N/A | Virginia Colony vs. Powhatan Confederacy | "Peace of Pocahontas," with first inter-racial marriage in Virginia between Pocahontas and John Rolfe. "Golden age of English-Powhatan relations" followed. |
| 2nd Anglo-Powhatan War | 1622-1632 | N/A | N/A | Virginia Colony vs. Powhatan Confederacy | English were able to expand settlements. |
| 3rd Anglo-Powhatan War | 1644-1646 | N/A | N/A | Virginia Colony vs. Powhatan Confederacy | Peace treaty of Oct. 1646 established Powhatan as formal tributaries to King of England, established racial frontier with border forts preventing both sides from crossing. |
| Pequot War | 1636-1638 | N/A | N/A | New England colonies, Narragansett and Mohegan Indians vs. Pequot Indians | Power of Pequot tribe virtually destroyed. |
| Susquehannock War | 1675-1675 | N/A | N/A | Virginia settlers vs. Susquehannock Indians | Triggered Bacon’s Rebellion. |
| King Philip's War | 1675-1678 | N/A | N/A | New England Confederation, Mohegan and Pequot Indians vs. Wampanoag, Nipmuck, Podunk, Narragansett, and Nashaway Indians | Colonial victory. Bloodiest Indian war (in terms of percentage of white losses) of British colonial history. |
| King William’s War | 1689-1697 | War of the Grand Alliance or War of the League of Augsburg | 1688-1697 | NA: England, English Colonies, and Iroquois Confederacy vs. France, New France, and Indian Allies EU: Holy Roman Empire (HRE), Dutch Republic, England, Spain, Savoy, Portugal, and Sweden vs. France and Irish Jacobites | NA: Ended by Treaty of Ryswick, 1697. Status quo ante bellum. EU: Ended by Treaty of Ryswick, 1697. France surrendered minor territories in Europe to Holy Roman Empire, acquired or reacquired territories in West Indies and Nova Scotia. |
| Queen Anne’s War | 1702-1713 | War of the Spanish Succession | 1701-1714 | NA: England, Great Britain, British America, and Iroquois Confederacy vs. France, New France, Spain, and Indian Allies EU: HRE, Austria, Prussia, Great Britain, Dutch Republic, Savoy, and Portugal vs. France, Spain, Bavaria, and Hungarians | NA: British victory, ended by Treaty of Utrecht. France ceded Acadia, Newfoundland, Hudson Bay, and St. Kitts to Britain. EU: Ended by Treaty of Utrecht, 1713, and Treaty of Rastatt. Resolved competing claims by French royal family to Spanish throne and Spanish royal family to French throne, precluding unification of French and Spanish crowns. Spain’s European empire divided between Savoy, Britain, Portugal, and Holy Roman Empire. |
| Tuscarora War | 1711-1715 | N/A | N/A | Colonial militia of S. Carolina and N. Carolina, and Yamasee, Northern Tuscarora, Apalachee, Catawba and Cherokee Indians vs. Southern Tuscarora, Pamlico, Cothechney, Coree, Mattamuskeet, and Matchepungo Indians | Colonial victory. Power of Tuscaroras was broken; Tuscaroras retreated from the coast; Southern Tuscaroras migrated to New York. |
| Yamasee War | 1715-1717 | N/A | N/A | Colonial militia of S. Carolina, N. Carolina, and Virginia, and Catawba and Cherokee Indians vs. Yamasee, Ochese Creek, Catawba, Cherokee, and Santee Indians | Colonial victory. Power of the Yamasee was broken; South Carolina colonists established uncontested control of the coast; Catawba became dominant tribe in the interior. |
| Dummer’s War | 1721-1725 | N/A | N/A | New England colonial militia and Mohawk Indians vs. Wabanaki Confederacy, Abenaki, Pequawket, Mi'kmaq, and Maliseet Indians, all allies of New France | Ended by Dummer's Treaty of December 15, 1725. Contested territory in Maine fell under British control. |
| King George’s War | 1744-1748 | War of Jenkins' Ear War of the Austrian Succession | 1739-1742 1740-1748 | NA: Great Britain vs. Spain NA: Great Britain, British America, and Iroquois Confederacy vs. France, New France, and Indian Allies EU: HRE, Great Britain, Hanover, Dutch Republic, Saxony (1743-45), Sardinia, and Russia vs. France, Prussia, Spain, Bavaria, Saxony (1741-42), Naples and Sicily, Genoa, and Sweden | NA: Ended by Treaty of Aix-la-Chappelle, 1748, Status quo ante bellum. American gain of French Fortress of Louisbourg returned to France in exchange for Madras, India. EU: Ended by Treaty of Aix-la-Chappelle, 1748, confirming Prussian control of Silesia. Otherwise, status quo ante bellum restored. France recognized Hanoverian succession to British throne, expelled Jacobites (Stuart pretenders). |
| French and Indian War | 1754-1763 | Seven Years' War | 1756-1763 | NA: Great Britain, British America, Iroquois Confederacy, and other Indian Allies vs. France, New France, and Indian Allies EU: Prussia, Great Britain, Hanover, Portugal, Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, and Hesse-Kassel vs. France, HRE, Russia, Sweden, Spain, Saxony, and Sardinia | NA: Ended by Treaty of Paris, 1763. France ceded New France east of the Mississippi River (i.e., Canada) to Great Britain and ceded Louisiana to Spain. Spain ceded Florida to Britain. Minor adjustments in Caribbean. EU: Ended by Treaty of Hubertusburg, 1763. Restoration of pre-war boundaries and conditions in Europe. French lost claims to India, but retained trading posts. |
The vast majority of wars going way back in history were not fought to annihilate the enemy. They were to gain an advantage.Okay, you're kind of missing my point for the satisfaction of telling me I'm wrong.
World Wars I and II are the only wars we've fought in that meet what I take to be your definition of war.
So the one thing that you are sure of is not correct.
This is not my understanding of history. I don't even understand what is meant by this.It's not about a quick easy victory, but of their mindsets going in.
China invades Vietnam.
Hitler invades Russia.
North Korea invades South Korea.
Iran and Iraq fight a protracted war.
France fights various colonial wars.
German invades France 1914.
Russia invades Germany 1914.
I imagine every country that "goes to war" hopes for and expects a quick easy victory, which is very rare in history.
We have overkill for what type of conflict?Okay, take me down the road of a situation in which our having 1.3 million active military personnel matters in a war versus, say, Iran's 500,00 soldiers. In what universe will those numbers matter in 2020?
I'd agree we have nuclear overkill, but not conventional overkill for some types and conflicts that one can realistically imagine. For one thing, we have to get troops and supplies across large oceans for virtually any conceivable conflict.
Therein lies the rub, so to speak.
Well, first, we would not be able to get 1.3 million active military personnel to Iran obviously. We have other commitments, like Korea where we have 28,000, and another 20,000 or so on Okinawa. The majority of sailors would not be "on the ground" obviously or even in theater.Yeah, it would be bloody. Much like the "Japs" in WWII, they'd probably rather die a martyr than surrender to infidels.
An invasion of Iran by us would be extremely taxing and difficult and messy and long lasting, a sort of Iraq on steroids. And then the US would need to move however many ground forces - and supplies - to Iran. As I keep saying, the ability to project power is a key part of the expense equation. We have ten active Army divisions and three active Marine divisions. Two of those are tied up in the Pacific. Assuming we could ship and support the remainder to Iran (leaving no one anywhere else active duty), that would be approximately 11 divisions or 200,000 ground troops. They would be met initially with some conventional warfare resistance and then the very difficult asymmetric warfare that is inevitable any time a country is invaded by a much more capable conventional force.
I shudder to imagine what an invasion of Iran would be like. Bad isn't close.
The Corsair is perhaps my favorite (among many) WW 2 planes (still used in Korea for ground attack). It had a massive Double Wasp engine and was designed so as to allow a very large propeller to clear the ground. The engine is 18 cylinders in two banks of 9, 46 L displacement (2800 CID).I love the Corsair too!
It initially was judged too dangerous for carrier landings, but the British later solved that problem with a different approach so pilots could see to the side of it's long nose. This meant USMC aviators got to use it off island bases.
The US leaned to air cooled engines, which meant radials, while the Brits leaned to V engines with liquid cooling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnome_et_Rh%C3%B4ne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnome_et_Rhône)Heh! I'll bet the compression ratio was something on the order of 4:1.
I've been several times to the Safron air museum in Villa-Roche near Paris. (A good friend was President of one of their subsidiaries.) This engine is interesting because the Germans were building it in WW One under license. Ha. Check out the octane number. After the war, they started building motorcycles and made some good ones.
General characteristicsComponents
- Type: 9-cylinder, single-row, rotary engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine)
- Bore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bore_(engine)): 124 mm (4.88 in)
- Stroke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke_(engine)): 150 mm (5.91 in)
- Displacement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_displacement): 16.28 l (993.47 cu in)
- Length: 1,150 mm (45.28 in)
- Diameter: 1,020 mm (40.16 in)
- Dry weight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_weight): 135 kg (297.6 lb)
Performance
- Valvetrain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valvetrain): Automatic centre-piston inlet valve, one overhead exhaust valve per cylinder.
- Fuel system: one static Bloctube carburettor feeding the crankcase
- Fuel type: 40 / 50 Octane gasoline
- Oil system: Total loss pressure fed
- Cooling system: Air-cooled
- Power output: 75 kW (100 hp) at 1,200 rpm
- Specific fuel consumption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption): 0.362 kg/kW/hr (0.6 lb/hp/hr)
(https://i.imgur.com/IRcT4Gj.png)
Well, first, we would not be able to get 1.3 million active military personnel to Iran obviously. We have other commitments, like Korea where we have 28,000, and another 20,000 or so on Okinawa. The majority of sailors would not be "on the ground" obviously or even in theater.Right, it would be so horrible that it's not something we would do. We would destroy them from afar, safely. If we ever landed troops on Iranian soil, it would be to pick off any remnants of their defense and to pick up the pieces.
An invasion of Iran by us would be extremely taxing and difficult and messy and long lasting, a sort of Iraq on steroids. And then the US would need to move however many ground forces - and supplies - to Iran. As I keep saying, the ability to project power is a key part of the expense equation. We have ten active Army divisions and three active Marine divisions. Two of those are tied up in the Pacific. Assuming we could ship and support the remainder to Iran (leaving no one anywhere else active duty), that would be approximately 11 divisions or 200,000 ground troops. They would be met initially with some conventional warfare resistance and then the very difficult asymmetric warfare that is inevitable any time a country is invaded by a much more capable conventional force.
I shudder to imagine what an invasion of Iran would be like. Bad isn't close.
Because of it's incredible range the B-24 closed the 300 mile Atlantic Gap that the Royal or US Navies couldn't close concerning the U-Boats.Doenitz's days were numbered
The B-24 could fly farther with a heavier bomb load than the
Back to engines.I was on Youtube perusing some WWII history and there were some intersting conversations this was one.Rolls Royce allowed Ford to build their engines that went into the The Spitfires that they were also putting in the Mustangs
Right, it would be so horrible that it's not something we would do. We would destroy them from afar, safely. If we ever landed troops on Iranian soil, it would be to pick off any remnants of their defense and to pick up the pieces.Where are you getting "what we'd never deploy" just because you think we'd pound Iran into rubble before invading it?
.
I just don't see the need to have what we'd never deploy.
.
Thanks to the Iraq debacle, we know that for us, war is easy, country-rebuilding is a garbage proposition that should be avoided. Anyway, I'd like to just see what a pulled-back world looks like, where we're not the world's police.
Because of it's incredible range the B-24 closed the 300 mile Atlantic Gap that the Royal or US Navies couldn't close concerning the U-Boats.Doenitz's days were numberedYeah, it was a useful bomber. It just wasn't one you'd want to take into combat. In addition to what I mentioned upthread, it was harder to fly and less tolerant to battle damage than the B-17.
I was on Youtube perusing some WWII history and there were some intersting conversations this was one.Rolls Royce allowed Ford to build their engines that went into the The Spitfires that they were also putting in the MustangsGood find, MrNubbz!
Well, it is related in Stanley Hooker's Autobiography "Not much of an Engineer" on pages 58-59.
" ...A number of Ford engineers arrived at Derby, and spent some months examining and familiarizing themselves with the drawings and manufacturing methods. One day their Chief Engineer appeared in Lovesey's office, which I was then sharing and said " You know, we can't make the Merlin to these drawings"
I replied loftily " I suppose that is because the drawing tolerances are too difficult for you, and you can't achieve the accuracy".
' On the contrary', he replied, ' the tolerances are far too wide for us. We make motor cars far more accurately than this. Every part on our car engines has to be interchangeable with the same part on any other engine, and hence all parts have to be made with extreme accuracy, far closer than you use. That is the only way we can achieve mass production'.
Lovesey joined in, "Well, what do you propose now?"
The reply was that Ford would have to redraw all the Merlin drawings to their own standards, and this they did. It took a year or so, but this was an enormous success, because, once the great Ford factory at Manchester started production, Merlins came out like shelling peas at a rate of 400 per week. And very good engines they were too,....."
Yeah, it was a useful bomber. It just wasn't one you'd want to take into combat. In addition to what I mentioned upthread, it was harder to fly and less tolerant to battle damage than the B-17.It also had a usable autopilot which was extremely handy in the Pacific. My Dad told me they would launch raids on Truk (I think from New Georgia). It was at extreme range, so they took a Snooper along with them each time during the day. The radar could be tuned to read moisture in the air so they could navigate around storms. He said the Snooper aircraft never returned from that raid. He said they were all waiting their turn, stoically, with really not expectation of survival until 1948.
Where are you getting "what we'd never deploy" just because you think we'd pound Iran into rubble before invading it?But our 13 ground combat divisions aren't any part of our deterrent of being attacked. For any war vs one enemy or many, our ground troops might as well be a cleanup crew after the event. That's why I don't understand the need/cost for them.
An invasion of Iran is not the only, much less the most serious, contingency for which we need to be prepared. And we need to be prepared for multiple contingencies at the same time. We can't count on our enemies only presenting us one problem at a time.
Unless we want to surrender our hegemony--which is China's goal for us--and let China, Russia and others set the rules for international affairs, including trade, alliances, etc.
That would be a far worse world than anything anyone on this board has seen.
Of our 13 ground combat divisions (active duty), there are of course scenarios where most would deploy. The worst would be a Soviet invasion of say Lithuania or Estonia or Latvia, or perhaps Poland. I don't view that as likely, the Russkis are not in good shape.Not sure which Iraq war you are citing, CD.
Another would be the Korean peninsula, I don't view that as likely either. Another would be Taiwan, though we'd probably try and maintain distance there, not ground forces.
One reason these things are not likely is those 13 divisions.
We went into Iraq with 2 divisions reinforced as I recall, 4th ID was held up in Turkey. That was plenty to destroy the Iraqi military and not nearly enough to stabilize the country. If you break it, you own it.
I lean to think we could go to a larger reserve force and smaller active, but I'm not sure about that of course. The IRR is there as well, and then the NG, which is not in great shape according to one member of my family.
But our 13 ground combat divisions aren't any part of our deterrent of being attacked. For any war vs one enemy or many, our ground troops might as well be a cleanup crew after the event. That's why I don't understand the need/cost for them.There's a book you should read. This Kind of War, by T.R. Fehrenbach, a good writer (despite being a Texan).
Our navy, air force, and technological weapons are the deterrent, no? They're what we rule with, they're what we'd fight with, and what we'd win with. The ground troops would be for helping civilians and maintaining order in the country we decimated.
“In July, 1950, one news commentator rather plaintively remarked that warfare had not changed so much, after all. For some reason, ground troops still seemed to be necessary, in spite of the atom bomb. And oddly and unfortunately, to this gentleman, man still seemed to be an important ingredient in battle. Troops were still getting killed, in pain and fury and dust and filth. What happened to the widely-heralded pushbutton warfare where skilled, immaculate technicians who never suffered the misery and ignominy of basic training blew each other to kingdom come like gentlemen?
In this unconsciously plaintive cry lies buried a great deal of the truth why the United States was almost defeated.
Nothing had happened to pushbutton warfare; its emergence was at hand. Horrible weapons that could destroy every city on Earth were at hand—at too many hands. But, pushbutton warfare meant Armageddon, and Armageddon, hopefully, will never be an end of national policy.
Americans in 1950 rediscovered something that since Hiroshima they had forgotten: you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud.”
Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even into death.
If, however, you are indulgent, but unable to make your authority felt, kind-hearted but unable to enforce your commands; and incapable, moreover, of quelling disorder, then your soldiers must be likened to spoiled children; they are useless for any practical purpose.
—From the Chinese of Sun Tzu, THE ART OF WAR
TEN YEARS AFTER the guns fell into uneasy silence along the 38th parallel, it is still impossible to write a definitive history of the Korean War. For that war did not write the end to an era, but merely marked a fork on a road the world is still traveling. It was a minor collision, a skirmish—but the fact that such a skirmish between the earth's two power blocs cost more than two million human lives showed clearly the extent of the chasm beside which men walked.
More than anything else, the Korean War was not a test of power—because neither antagonist used full powers—but of wills. The war showed that the West had misjudged the ambition and intent of the Communist leadership, and clearly revealed that leadership's intense hostility to the West; it also proved that Communism erred badly in assessing the response its aggression would call forth.
The men who sent their divisions crashing across the 38th parallel on 25 June 1950 hardly dreamed that the world would rally against them, or that the United States—which had repeatedly professed its reluctance to do so—would commit ground forces onto the mainland of Asia.
From the fighting, however inconclusive the end, each side could take home valuable lessons. The Communists would understand that the free world—in particular the United States—had the will to react quickly and practically and without panic in a new situation. The American public, and that of Europe, learned that the postwar world was not the pleasant place they hoped it would be, that it could not be neatly policed by bombers and carrier aircraft and nuclear warheads, and that the Communist menace could be disregarded only at extreme peril.
The war, on either side, brought no one satisfaction. It did, hopefully, teach a general lesson of caution.
The great test placed upon the United States was not whether it had the power to devastate the Soviet Union—this it had—but whether the American leadership had the will to continue to fight for an orderly world rather than to succumb to hysteric violence. Twice in the century uncontrolled violence had swept the world, and after untold bloodshed and destruction nothing was accomplished. Americans had come to hate war, but in 1950 were no nearer to abolishing it than they had been a century before.
But two great bloodlettings, and the advent of the Atomic Age with its capability of fantastic destruction, taught Americans that their traditional attitudes toward war—to regard war as an unholy thing, but once involved, however reluctantly, to strike those who unleashed it with holy wrath—must be altered. In the Korean War, Americans adopted a course not new to the world, but new to them. They accepted limitations on warfare, and accepted controlled violence as the means to an end. Their policy—for the first time in the century—succeeded. The Korean War was not followed by the tragic disillusionment of World War I, or the unbelieving bitterness of 1946 toward the fact that nothing had been settled. But because Americans for the first time lived in a world in which they could not truly win, whatever the effort, and from which they could not withdraw, without disaster, for millions the result was trauma.
During the Korean War, the United States found that it could not enforce international morality and that its people had to live and continue to fight in a basically amoral world. They could oppose that which they regarded as evil, but they could not destroy it without risking their own destruction.
Because the American people have traditionally taken a warlike, but not military, attitude to battle, and because they have always coupled a certain belligerence—no American likes being pushed around—with a complete unwillingness to prepare for combat, the Korean War was difficult, perhaps the most difficult in their history.
In Korea, Americans had to fight, not a popular, righteous war, but to send men to die on a bloody checkerboard, with hard heads and without exalted motivations, in the hope of preserving the kind of world order Americans desired.
Tragically, they were not ready, either in body or in spirit.
They had not really realized the kind of world they lived in, or the tests of wills they might face, or the disciplines that would be required to win them.
Yet when America committed its ground troops into Korea, the American people committed their entire prestige, and put the failure or success of their foreign policy on the line.
. . .
The civilian liberal and the soldier, unfortunately, are eyeing different things: the civilian sociologists are concerned with men living together in peace and amiability and justice; the soldier's task is to teach them to suffer and fight, kill and die. Ironically, even in the twentieth century American society demands both of its citizenry.
Perhaps the values that comprise a decent civilization and those needed to defend it abroad will always be at odds. A complete triumph for either faction would probably result in disaster.
Perhaps, also, at the beginning a word must be said concerning discipline. "Discipline," like the terms "work" and "fatherland"—among the greatest of human values—has been given an almost repugnant connotation from its use by Fascist ideologies. But the term "discipline" as used in these pages does not refer to the mindless, robotlike obedience and self-abasement of a Prussian grenadier. Both American sociologists and soldiers agree that it means, basically, self-restraint—the self-restraint required not to break the sensible laws whether they be imposed against speeding or against removing an uncomfortably heavy steel helmet, the fear not to spend more money than one earns, not to drink from a canteen in combat before it is absolutely necessary, and to obey both parent and teacher and officer in certain situations, even when the orders are acutely unpleasant.
Only those who have never learned self-restraint fear reasonable discipline.
Americans fully understand the requirements of the football field or the baseball diamond. They discipline themselves and suffer by the thousands to prepare for these rigors. A coach or manager who is too permissive soon seeks a new job; his teams fail against those who are tougher and harder. Yet undoubtedly any American officer, in peacetime, who worked his men as hard, or ruled them as severely as a college football coach does, would be removed.
But the shocks of the battlefield are a hundred times those of the playing field, and the outcome infinitely more important to the nation.
The problem is to understand the battlefield as well as the game of football. The problem is to see not what is desirable, or nice, or politically feasible, but what is necessary.
I didn't recall we had 4 Army divisions in 2003. I knew we shifted VII Corps from Europe in 1991.3rd ID and 4th ID, 82nd Abn and 101st Air Asslt. Each of those last two was minus a brigade, which I didn't notice the first time I went through the OB.
Good find, MrNubbz!Ya Packard did make them state side.i just saw how brilliant though archaic RR was.The were handcrafting and Uncle Sam was mass producing.One thing the Packard merlins solved in 42-43 was the Merlin's float controlled carburettor meant that if Spits or hurricanes were to pitch nose down into a steep dive or climb, negative g-force produced temporary fuel starvation causing the engine to cut-out momentarily. Packard went with the Bendix Pressure carb A floatless pressure carburator is a type of aircraft fuel control that provides very accurate fuel delivery, prevents ice from forming in the carburetor and prevent s fuel starvation during negative Gs and inverted flight by eliminating the customary float-controlled fuel inlet valve.
I thought you were going to tell a story about Ford making Rolls-Royce engines in the USA. Packard made Merlins, but I didn't know anything about Ford making R-R engines.
But this is about Ford of England. And I didn't know about that either.
I'd like to see the US have another 10 aircraft carriers and all the supporting fleet that goes with them.The Marines are very good at what they do, surely the best in the world at amphibious operations, but they don't do everything. The Marine Corps is actually getting a bit smaller, and is in the beginning stages of a redesign that will make it more specifically oriented toward littoral rather than inland fighting. Eliminating its tank battalions, for example. Overall, making it more different from the Army than it already is.
Increase the size of the Marine Corps too. Those are our finest fighters - first to fight - and supremely trained at that.
Ya Packard did make them state side.i just saw how brilliant though archaic RR was.The were handcrafting and Uncle Sam was mass producing.One thing the Packard merlins solved in 42-43 was the Merlin's float controlled carburettor meant that if Spits or hurricanes were to pitch nose down into a steep dive or climb, negative g-force produced temporary fuel starvation causing the engine to cut-out momentarily. Packard went with the Bendix Pressure carb A floatless pressure carburator is a type of aircraft fuel control that provides very accurate fuel delivery, prevents ice from forming in the carburetor and prevent s fuel starvation during negative Gs and inverted flight by eliminating the customary float-controlled fuel inlet valve.Have you read about "Miss Tillie's orifice" regarding the RR "carburettor"?
Have you read about "Miss Tillie's orifice" regarding the RR "carburettor"?I've read about it and a mighty fine orifice it was too.Although a stop gap measure that Bendix cured permantly until fuel injection then jet engines
Jet engines are fascinating to me, the more I learn about them (the wife worked for a company that makes them, so I got some inside previes)."Mentour Pilot" on Youtube has an excellent explanation of that. Boeing should have bitten the bullet and redesigned the landing gear to accommodate the fatter engines, but they did the cheap fix instead.
The turbine blades in the combustion section survive at a temperature above their melting point. The blades have special cooling techniques to prevent that (usually).
The higher the temperature the more efficient they are.
The high bypass fans used today in civilian applications are basically turboprops that are ducted. Nearly all of the air bypasses the combustion chamber and is pushed out of the read end by fans. The thrust provided by the actual combustion directly is 10-15% of the actual thrust developed.
Unducted fans would be even more efficient but have noise issues, and perhaps some safety issues.
The Boeing 737 Max issue MAY be in part due to a shift in the center of thrust with the new engines that caused them to add in a "safety feature" that can cause the aircraft to pitch down uncontrollably to prevent what registers as a stall/high angle of attack.
The US has not had a great track record over the past 50 years of positive results from military interventions of any size.I think this point is at least arguable. I am far too biased to offer an opinion about the last twenty years, but I think there is a decent argument that Vietnam achieved the ultimate goal of stopping Soviet expansionism, as did Grenada. The Gulf War is harder to analyze, but at a minimum it shut down Iraq's direct aggression towards its neighbors, so accomplishing at least its stated goal. Other interventions, including in the Sinai and the former Yugoslavia, were quite effective, the latter taking longer than people would have liked, but leading to positive results.
The military wins battles though. The outcome of the conflict often is not at all positive.
Those who say the bigger you make it, the less elite, are correct....In the statistical sense, yes. "Elite" is supposed to mean "not many", unless you're PJ Fleck and everything is ELITE.
I don't think Grenada was a military intervention of size. I've never seen a rational explanation for taking Qaddafi out, and what is left is a mess. I'd rather see Assad in control of Syria than the mess we have there now. Iraq and Afghanistan are messes in my book, though perhaps I am biased. Vietnam was a mess.Ever watch Team America?
The older I get the more prone I am to wanting to let the rest of the world solve their problems without our "help".
I also think our Number One national "emergency" is deficit spending.
Many of them are. I'd probably say they are relatively well trained. The ground combat units tend to be good, slackers don't last. Obviously the aviation component is highly trained. There is a decent correlation between numbers and level of training and capability, but quantity has a quality all its own.
I'm talking about training and skill set. Marines are highly trained and highly skilled. Maybe cross-training is the better answer.
Ever watch Team America?Is that a game show? I almost never watch network TV.
In the statistical sense, yes. "Elite" is supposed to mean "not many", unless you're PJ Fleck and everything is ELITE.But I think if you're talking about special forces, it's the same sort of dynamic you're talking about with professional sports...
I'm talking about training and skill set. Marines are highly trained and highly skilled. Maybe cross-training is the better answer.
I think the reference is to Team America: World Police, a clay-mation movie by the South Park guys (I think).Are you thinking of "The Fallen of World War II (https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/spectacular-video-putting-wwii-deaths-perspective.html)"?
I saw a cool presentation showing the number of deaths due to warfare not too long ago that makes a compelling case that Pax Americana has been real--and a major benefit to world security (which includes our own). I'll try to dig it up and link it here...
If North Korea invaded South Korea:We'd rather prevent a war than make it more likely to happen, even if our ally would have a 50/50 chance to eventually win.
a) South Korea wouldn't be surprised
b) wouldn't South Korea have at least a 50/50 chance of winning by itself (including what we have there already) without us intervening with off-site resources?
.
We could obviously erase North Korea off the map. Honestly, I think we'd be doing China a favor. They could never admit it, but I bet they'd be glad to be rid of that risky ally.
. . . Could we have reached the Iranian government in 1952-53 and made peace between it and the UK regarding oil production, thus making Iran our friend in the middle east? Could that have been a better check on Soviet efforts in the middle east? Probably. Could we have understood the massive problems French colonialism caused in Vietnam, and supported a democratically elected government that represented the people of that country, instead of backing failed regimes? Maybe. . . .Man, we made a hell of a lot of mistakes in Vietnam. A lot of them even before the French collapse.
It bothers me that we wont/can't just take a step back for a decade and allow the rest of the world to just do what it' would do.I am mostly in agreement, though I tend to think our trip wire troops in ROK have prevented a war from starting.
Are you thinking of "The Fallen of World War II (https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/spectacular-video-putting-wwii-deaths-perspective.html)"?Yes, that's it. The part about wartime deaths as a percentage of worldwide population flies by, but it's worth pausing and considering.
Could we just have Seals, Rangers, and Marines? Have a full navy, have a full air force, but small/elite ground forces only. Tactical, surgical incisions only, combined with infinite attacks from the air, anywhere on the planet.No. Small ground forces do small-tactics-related things. They do not, for instance, prevent invasion, nor are they any good at taking large pieces of land. For that, you need lots of people, and heavy equipment. And keep in mind that a large portion of the military isn't a "combat" element, but support. As the military saying goes, "Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics." Or something like that.
No. Small ground forces do small-tactics-related things. They do not, for instance, prevent invasion, nor are they any good at taking large pieces of land. For that, you need lots of people, and heavy equipment. And keep in mind that a large portion of the military isn't a "combat" element, but support. As the military saying goes, "Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics." Or something like that.Heh! That's what logisticians always say!
No. Small ground forces do small-tactics-related things. They do not, for instance, prevent invasion, nor are they any good at taking large pieces of land. For that, you need lots of people, and heavy equipment. And keep in mind that a large portion of the military isn't a "combat" element, but support. As the military saying goes, "Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics." Or something like that.Right, I get all that, and they wouldn't be tasked with any of it.
Fro: "Still is."
We all knew New Orleans was under sea level.
Maybe the idea of moving, or closing one of the most culturally significant large cities in the United States, one of the urban anchors of the South, with a population of about 1.3 million people is a really hard one to get any traction for.Oh, okay. Well you're right, we rebuilt it in the same place....because of...what? Tradition?
technically, it wasn't built below sea level, it sank after it was built. but the act of building and developing it is at least part, if no the primary, reason it's sinking.That's not entirely true. There were several parts that were expanded into - sprawl - after the original city was planned. That part was, and still is, above sea level. Comfortably above, mind you. 20+ feet. See the map below. The areas on the other side of the river are problematic, and always were. Yes, they have sunk over the years. The soils do not have proper bearing capacity to support urban development. Never have, and never will.
saving the part that's above sea level and moving on from the rest seems sensible, but much or most of the quintessential new orleans is the part that's at/below sea level. might as well find somewhere new and start over at that point.
large cities with significant cultural influences have been abandoned before, just not in our country/culture (that i'm aware).
Everything was redesigned and rebuilt to withstand a Cat 3 hurricane. Ummm...Is that the highest category possible?
And no one has mentioned yet that the main channel of the Mississippi River should probably be in Morgan City right now.I've mentioned it many times before. The cost of holding the Mississippi in its current place is roughly $7.5 Billion/year (2016 figure - the last time I researched it).
Maybe the idea of moving, or closing one of the most culturally significant large cities in the United States, one of the urban anchors of the South, with a population of about 1.3 million people is a really hard one to get any traction for.don't have to move it or close it down
I read somewhere that NO was above sea level when it was built. The river would flood the area and deposit silt which offset the normal sinkage that occurs.Then there's this. All the dams on rivers that eventually flow into the Mississippi reduce the silt load that the Mississippi carries, so less is deposited at the mouth.
They build levees and the flooding stopped, usually, so no more silt. Subsidence.
Shoot, by that metric (costs the feds more than it provides), we can get rid of well more than half the states in the union. Might be the way for the Confederacy to finally be rid of the U.S.A.!Please read the article I posted.
Or we could just get rid of the states that cost twice as much as they generate in federal revenue. That would only be about ten states, and we would need passports to travel to Hawaii and Florida. The new non-United States would have a pretty balanced college football conference, with Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, as well as Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, and even North Dakota bringing the spoiler from FBS-land. Every conference needs cellar dwellers, and that's where Hawaii and New Mexico come in.
Long but interesting analysis of what Iran might try to do to us in the near future. (https://thedispatch.com/p/the-islamic-revolution-vs-donald)Part 2 of 2 of the above analysis. (https://thedispatch.com/p/iran-vs-trump-suleimanis-legacy-and)
Please read the article I posted.Badge:
We, as in mankind, need to stop believing we can control nature. We cannot, and we never will. It's just not possible.
CW.. there are many more dammed tributaries. The Illinois has a ton. The Wisconsin has a ton. The St. Croix. It goes on and on - there are many many more than just those.
You'd be surprised about how little sedimentation is behind all of those upstream dams too - not nearly as much as one would think. The water flowing in these rivers is very turbid, and the velocities are often so high, there is not enough time for settlement to happen. Combine that with the hydraulic "violence" that occurs when a lock opens and there you have it.
Velocity is what causes the delta to get blown out. If all of the levees were removed, you'd see a lot less velocity and a whole lot more settlement.
Please read the article I posted.I get your take on New Orleans. You are probably right. Good luck getting traction with the idea (I'm not your audience, I like it out here near the fault lines, not in there near the big river).
We, as in mankind, need to stop believing we can control nature. We cannot, and we never will. It's just not possible.
Badge:Where?
The engineers who ran the Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering were firm on dammed rivers depriving the seacoast of sediments. I remember watching a documentary movie "River of Sand" on the subject.
And they also said that the destiny of every dam is to be at the foot of a mudflat with a stream meandering through it and going over the dam in a waterfall.
Where?Sorry. U.S. Military Academy.
I'm all for taking out every damn dam and every damn levee too, but it wouldn't do a damn thing for the delta. I understand the shipping industry would suffer. Transition those workers to rail and trucking. Let the rivers have their floodplains and floodways back. The below was a bad plan, and still is.
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americaswetlandresources.com%2Fbackground_facts%2Fdetailedstory%2Fimages%2Fclip_image038.jpg&hash=ac17160e41962bbdc060ce8a4336d668)
Another sad fact,I'm going outside it's sunny today but staying cold
The US and Europe MIGHT meet the Paris targets by 2030, but that clearly is not going to matter if the models are roughly correct. And China and India, well, they make whatever we do irrelevant.
I used to have long discussions with some folks at work about climate change, and it aroused my curiosity to a significant "degree" (sic). I had both Nature and Science coming across my desk each week, so I started trying to read the articles in them about climate. My problem was that they used so much jargon like "the 3STO4g model" that they were hard to follow. Most were about a modification of some third order term in a climate model based on another analysis of past climates. Some tried to calculate the impact of say permafrost melting, I recall that one fairly clearly (in concept). It was pretty scary. Many dealt which changes in our albedo, both melting ice and increased cloud cover. Suffice it to say none of them outright said "Climate change is real and here is the evidence.". That was not their purpose obviously.I'm going to take a second and talk about this post, because there's a lot of things I think I can clear up for you.
My impression, duh, is that we humans have a lot of hubris thinking we can model climate change. The only data we have with which to construct a model is what has happened up to now, and it is surprisingly difficult to get reliable data on simple things like global temperature over time. There were differing models for THIS folks used. How can you devise a model if history is unclear? What might happen in the future is speculative. And the 5 or 6 or 7 main models of course differ to some "degree" in their projections, which is not a shock either.
That climate is changing and it may be in large part due to man's actions is not something I argue against. I think it likely, I don't know how much. I also know with high certainty that China and India are NOT going to do much to reduce their CO2 output, nor is the US and Europe for that matter. It's window dressing.
The US and Europe MIGHT meet the Paris targets by 2030, but that clearly is not going to matter if the models are roughly correct. And China and India, well, they make whatever we do irrelevant.
The US and Europe MIGHT meet the Paris targets by 2030, but that clearly is not going to matter if the models are roughly correct. And China and India, well, they make whatever we do irrelevant.How come no one ever talks about this? It drives me insane. China and India are literally 1A & 1B for most over-populated, disgusting, polluting countries in the entire world. Yet no one ever says anything about it.
What will happen if the rain forest continues to lose mass?I think cutting down trees is the culprit.On the hottest summer daze take a stoll in a real woods,doesn't take a biologist to understand that
China and India are working very hard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Even if they weren't - their inaction has no bearing on the actions we can do in our country.China and India have way too many people to do anything real about their emissions or pollution. You’re talking about 37% of the worlds entire population in just two countries.
Can’t have plastic straws in some parts of the US bc: plastic in the oceans. That’s hysterical considering something like 90% of all plastic pollution in the oceans come from....CHINA, India, and other Asian countries. And Africa.I doubt this,on any weekend during football seasons think about how many plastic bottles are thrown away and not recycled.Out of sight out of mind.Think of these packed stadiums Sat/Sun 60- 100,000 plus theyre not recycling all that.We're just as guilty
I doubt this,on any weekend during football seasons think about how many plastic bottles are thrown away and not recycled.Out of sight out of mind.Think of these packed stadiums Sat/Sun 60- 100,000 plus theyre not recycling all that.We're just as guiltyhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plastic-tide-10-rivers-contribute-most-of-the-plastic-in-the-oceans/
Sorry. U.S. Military Academy.Sure. More sediment would lead to even higher velocities, since the cross-sectional flow area would be decreased. Not all of that sediment is going to make it to the delta. Some will sit behind dams, but not much.
Can you explain why more sediment in the Mississippi would not help stop or at least slow the subsidence of the delta?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plastic-tide-10-rivers-contribute-most-of-the-plastic-in-the-oceans/And how can they prove that?Where are all the plastic containers/bottles/straws/bags going from big events in N.America.Landfills,they are definitely not remanufacturing all of that.
93% of the plastics flowing into the ocean come from 10 rivers. 8 are in Asia. 2 are in Africa.
If China and India can't cut CO2 emissions significantly, which is reality, what we do here is irrelevant, rounding error, at best, and at significant expense.That’s the $64,000 question.
The US could magically go to zero carbon tomorrow and the projected impact on global temperature by 2050 is a few tenths of a degree, maybe.
And how can they prove that?Where are all the plastic containers/bottles/straws going from big events in N.AmericaI think in the US most of them go into landfills rather than the ocean. Sure, maybe using that much plastic isn't a good thing here, but it doesn't go into our rivers, and then into the ocean.
We purposely avoid using plastic now, for about the past year. If it's not glass or aluminum, we stay away if at all possible.I started thinking about all the plastic we use in one form or another. There isn't much we can do to avoid it. The building gets a lot of packages obviously, and many are filled with polystyrene foam packaging, or the envelop is Tyvek, with plastic film inside, etc. A lot of food items come in plastic, milk, bread, mustard, cheese, sushi, meat, fish, hot dogs, .... a large portion of automobiles are plastic of course. Computer housings, printer housings, pen outsides, tape, I'm just looking around my desk.
That’s the $64,000 question.well, perhaps not practical, but we could nuke the crap outta China
How do you get them to cut emissions? And is that even realistic or possible for them when they have 37% of the worlds population and most of their citizens are poor as shit. I doubt very many of their people can afford electric cars, solar panel roofs, and Tesla powerwalls.
I started thinking about all the plastic we use in one form or another. There isn't much we can do to avoid it. The building gets a lot of packages obviously, and many are filled with polystyrene foam packaging, or the envelop is Tyvek, with plastic film inside, etc. A lot of food items come in plastic, milk, bread, mustard, cheese, sushi, meat, fish, hot dogs, .... a large portion of automobiles are plastic of course. Computer housings, printer housings, pen outsides, tape, I'm just looking around my desk.I think there's plenty we could do, but it's not practical. It would cost a LOT of $$$
If China and India can't cut CO2 emissions significantly, which is reality, what we do here is irrelevant, rounding error, at best, and at significant expense.
The US could magically go to zero carbon tomorrow and the projected impact on global temperature by 2050 is a few tenths of a degree, maybe.
One reason--maybe the biggest--it's important for the U.S. to cut its emissions is to give us moral authority in our dealings with other nations. As the world's largest consumer and one of the largest/wealthiest economies, we drive much of the worldwide consumptive behavior. And if we expect other, particularly poorer, nations to help with reducing emissions, we need to show real leadership by doing so ourselves. Do as we say, not as we do is a bad way to lead in negotiations.But you have to look at the balance.
As I said, I strongly disagree. I've looked at this thing over the years and it is evident to me "we" are simply going to find out what is going to happen, and a few tenths is not even measurable.
Sure. More sediment would lead to even higher velocities, since the cross-sectional flow area would be decreased. Not all of that sediment is going to make it to the delta. Some will sit behind dams, but not much.Badge: I'm not challenging your logic; I just don't understand it. So . . .
Q = VA (Q is flow rate, V = velocity, A = cross-sectional area). Q doesn't change. If A is reduced, V goes up.
The reason why the delta is going away is because the river is not supposed to be confined to where it is right now. The river has taken an estimated 300 different courses over time, but "we" now confine it to one course. Because New Orleans.
The US obviously is NOT going to zero carbon tomorrow, so my example is "Best case scenario that we all know is impossible and it hardly makes a difference."The best time to start was yesterday. The second best time to start is today.
We could all meet the Paris targets and it hardly makes a difference.
This train has done run. We're too far down the curve to make a change that matters. It's simple math if you use the models available and consider just how much "we" could cut GLOBAL CO2 emissions by when. The MIT Climate Group has done work in this area and the output is very very dire even with optimistic CO2 cuts.
Badge: I'm not challenging your logic; I just don't understand it. So . . .1. Because, at lower velocities, the silt will settle at the bottom and reduce the depth. The hydraulic grade line would not change, and as a result, the velocities would increase.
1. Why is cross-sectional area reduced when the river is carrying more silt?
2. If we let the river take its course, would the delta stop subsiding?
It seems to me that if we undammed all the upstream tributaries and removed all the dikes and levees, the Mississippi would be muddier than it is now and would deposit more of its load along the way while also accumulating more from erosion. It would build a wider flood plain and it would meander more. And what was left of that increased load would be deposited at the mouth, building up the delta.
For me, liberal-arts major, it is a very counter-intuitive idea that reducing the load in the river by damming its upstream tributaries can have no effect on what's happening at the mouth of the river. I'm not an engineer, but the guys I worked with in D/G&EnE, USMA, were, and what you are saying seems (24 years later) to contradict what they said about flood-control, etc.
The best time to start was yesterday. The second best time to start is today.I'm busy with other shit.
Finally, this flood "control" thing is big business for the Military guys (and USACE, of course). Not to mention the big contractors who make tons of money off of these flood "control" efforts.Excellent point! :86:
Of course they would contradict me!!
The Miss River would be the Atchafalaya now already, right?Could be. We don't know where it would be, because "they" messed it up.
The current river bed would become a kind of oxbow thing?
I liked the term "Ruhr Valley" for what exists on the current stream.
I'm busy with other shit.You're missing your chance for your vehicle to be powered by 100% grade A Wisconsin cattle flatulence.
You're missing your chance for your vehicle to be powered by 100% grade A Wisconsin cattle flatulence.Well his conversation already is, so I guess it's ok if his vehicle isn't...
The Miss River would be the Atchafalaya now already, right?Maybe, maybe not. The Mississippi could have punched through in any number of places.
Maybe, maybe not. The Mississippi could have punched through in any number of places.So, my answer then. We don't know. "They" F'd up. Because New Orleans.
Captain Shreve's cut may be the ultimate demonstration of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Hey, sometimes you need to move, reverse the flow, or completely change the routing of rivers.Yet another engineering disaster that needs to be fixed.
It worked to keep the Chicago lakefront clean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_River)...
Cincinnati was built on a flood plain obviously, surrounded by hills. During a typhoid outbreak (or some such disease), wealthier folks moved up into the hills, one of which today is called Mt. Healthy. In 1937, they had a great flood that left water marks still visible in places that are impressive.By "significant" do you mean "navigable"?
The city grew because of river boats, and diminished because RRs passed them largely. It was the fourth largest city in the country in 1880.
Savannah, GA was founded on a hill on the river because of mosquitoes (malaria, which means bad air, and yellow fever etc.) It's about a 40 foot bluff over looking the river. The old city was almost torn down but was saved and is interesting today.
I think the only large cities today not on a significant body of water are Dallas and Atlanta.
Water is the reason why the Twin Cities are the Twin Cities. St. Paul remains the effective head of navigation on the Mississippi River, whereas Minneapolis grew up around the industrial power source of St. Anthony Falls.Correct. People have been building cities right on, or near water, forever. Sins of the past are the problems of today.
That city should be America's largest wetland - larger than the Everglades, which have also gotten screwed up.Pretty sure they are making efforts to unscrew it though
By "significant" do you mean "navigable"?I was thinking that, yes, but it's open to interpretation. Maybe the river in Dallas is navigable, I don't know.
By "significant" do you mean "navigable"?Or lack thereof.
That would be completely wrong.Ehhh, I disagree, with a caveat.
People have been building in water's harms way for thousands of years. That's the problem. People know better now, and it's highly regulated. There is no way Chicago ever gets built where it is with current FEMA, Army Corps and DNR regulations. It was all wetland and floodplain.
Let's not even get into New Orleans. That city should be America's largest wetland - larger than the Everglades, which have also gotten screwed up.
Ehhh, I disagreeNo shit.
People, probably going back only a couple hundred years ago: See that flood plain? Okay, we need to build up over there, on that high ground. You know, to avoid inevitable catastrophe.This is completely wrong.
.
Recent people: See that flood plain? Okay, we need to fill it in and build on it. You know, anything catastrophic would only be like a once-in-a-lifetime event, anyway (proceeds to build a city that will lasts hundreds of years).
I was thinking that, yes, but it's open to interpretation. Maybe the river in Dallas is navigable, I don't know.The river in Dallas is not navigable.
"Back in the day", the Ohio River were often dry up in August to the point larger boats could not make it.
Some flat boats would load up with barrels of whiskey and head down to NO. Supposedly, one of the lots of barrels was in a fire and partially burned. They shipped the whiskey anyway. Folks in NO liked this whiskey and asked from whence it came and the answer was Bourbon county (or country). The traders would dismantle the rafts in NO and walk home.
Or lack thereof.Yep. That's the same function seaports fulfill.
Buffalo, Louisville, St. Paul, and Montreal were all established at break-in-bulk points, where freight is transferred from one mode to the other.
Just back from a walk, the weather is about as perfect as it can be for being outside.Ya for january,snowed overnite 35 right now,maybe more snow on the way.If this happened 3 months back we could have went ice fishing
People have been building in harms way since the beginning of timeFoolishness knows no socio-economic limits.
and I take exception that these are just poor people
Just go to Bolivar across from Galveston and see all the houses being built which will be
wiped out the next time a cat 4 or 5 hurricane hits. After then the building will start again until the
next time and on and on
Yep. That's the same function seaports fulfill.Don't know, but it's not on the list of ranked ports by tonnage. Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland are ranked.
Does Buffalo qualify as a seaport?
For the record, my overall plan for America's waters calls for shutting off access from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi basin. It can be replaced with rail. Chicago will scream bloody murder, but oh well. It's time to right a wrong.Ya but Chi-Town is ok with rails,a tit for a tat
Yep. That's the same function seaports fulfill.At the time of its heyday, yes. Recall the location of the Niagara Falls. Buffalo is where the freight coming east off the Great Lakes had to be offloaded. Where it went varied. Most of it was reloaded onto barges and smaller boats for the journey down the Erie Canal.
Does Buffalo qualify as a seaport?
Don't know, but it's not on the list of ranked ports by tonnage. Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland are ranked.Where does traffic from the Great Lakes get into the Mississippi basin?
You can find stuff here if you are curious.
https://www.aapa-ports.org/
For the record, my overall plan for America's waters calls for shutting off access from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi basin. It can be replaced with rail. Chicago will scream bloody murder, but oh well. It's time to right a wrong.
At the time of its heyday, yes. Recall the location of the Niagara Falls. Buffalo is where the freight coming east off the Great Lakes had to be offloaded. Where it went varied. Most of it was reloaded onto barges and smaller boats for the journey down the Erie Canal.I was thinking it might be a seaport by way of the Great Lakes Waterway. I wasn't thinking about the Erie Canal, although I know that Buffalo is its western terminus.
It wasn't until the opening of the current Welland Canal that large-size lake boats could get between Lakes Erie and Ontario without offloading. This wasn't the sole reason for Buffalo's decline, but it's a non-small part.
Where does traffic from the Great Lakes get into the Mississippi basin?Port of Chicago and downtown Chicago.
River transportation is a lot cheaper and more energy-efficient than any form of land transportation, although rail is by far the best method on wheels.
I was talking about ancient peoples - not modern times. In modern times, people build everywhere, because there's a dollar to be made and they don't care about foresight. That's obvious.Is ancient history an area of expertise for you, Afro?
Is ancient history an area of expertise for you, Afro?I do tend to think much can go unsaid because of how obvious it is. I guess that's cartoony.
It's not for me, but it seems that you have a sort of cartoon understanding of it.
That is an interesting website.Back in the late 1800's, Chicago had a drinking water problem because all of the waste was sent to the river and the river drained into The Lake. Long story short, engineers designed a system to reverse the flow of the river and locks were installed. Now, all of Chicago's waste would be sent "down" river and eventually to the Mississippi River - a complete watershed transfer.
So, Chicago is the culprit?
Coastal property values are already in decline (or at least not rising much relative to other places) and flood insurance costs are increasing, but that's still not stopping people from re-developing South Beach, Myrtle Beach, The Outer Banks, Cape May, Long Island, Cape Cod, etc, much less other coastal areas that aren't as popular like the Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay.Not that I can tell.
Unfortunately it may take another superstorm like Sandy in 2012 for investors and property owners to realize how stupid it is to keep rebuilding increasingly disaster-prone areas. Given the state of the world, it might be best to have that happen this year.
Conversely, I can definitely see property values of homes on/near lakes and/or mountains increasing substantially in the future.
Sewage today should be treated and pretty clean water, often cleaner than the river water.Not before it's treated.
Run off, well, that can be suspect of course. Haber process, one of the great innovations of the 20th century.
Shipping goes through Calumet Harbor, which is where the Port Authority is centered. Almost all of the traffic downtown is now recreational and some commercial tour boats. There is no passage at Wilmette - just gates and a massive pump. Sewerage is often dumped at this location.Thanks, Badge.
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnehakrishnan.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F07%2Faisan-carp-canal-map-800.jpg&hash=ab27581d1c8f9a78710798f0356523ca)
I do tend to think much can go unsaid because of how obvious it is. I guess that's cartoony.No. It's not what you're not saying that's cartoonish, it's what you do say.
No. It's not what you're not saying that's cartoonish, it's what you do say.I don't recall saying people were better and smarter back then. But they paid attention to nature, because they had to. Nowadays, we think we can dictate everything, so we build anywhere we want and include infrastructure that works 99% of the time, but we bail out that 1%.
Like "people" were better and smarter "back then," whereas now people are stupid and just want to make a buck. And vote for political candidates that you don't like, of course.
Fortunately, we're on a ridge, but a lot of fancy mansions were built too close to Peachtree Creek which has a fairly large watershed. Guess what happens in heavy rains?
The Chattahoochee is mostly hemmed in with bluffs, no real bottomlands around here to build anything, so the river stayed relatively pristine except Lake Lanier.
The Ohio River cuts through bluffs but does have some bottomlands along the path, many of which today are heavy industry. I remember flying our little Cessna up the river a bit, it was pretty neat to see all this stuff along the river.
Well, at least Americans know better than to build a large city somewhere in the middle of a desert. That would be inane. How would they get water?
I have a friend in Cincy who works for the water works. We talked a bit about comingling storm water and raw sewage and he said they had an issue but were making progress over time. I know several points on streets I would use to get to work where pink slimy water would be pouring out of manhole covers in bad rains. It looked like Ghost Busters, and of course I had to detour. I'd take one side road when the freeway would clog up.When I first moved to Cincy, I was surprised that Mill Creek was actually a creek, I thought it was man-made with it's concrete sides.
Nasty looking stuff.
The Mill Creek bisects Cincinnati in the flood plane and was consistently a problem, so they concreted the creek sides in places. At times when I first moved there, enormous soap bubbles would be generated and drift across I-75 closing it down. I don't know where the soap came from. Ha.
The creek runs into the Ohio of course, but traverses a large levee of course, and when the Ohio is high the creek is pumped over the levee into the river.
I marvel at the massive infrastructure humans can generate, like Hoover Dam.
100% of the lakes contained entirely within Ohio are man made.Our geology suggests our natural lakes had large wetlands associated with them. 100 years ago they viewed wetlands as worthless because you can't farm it. Hence dam 'em up.
The quality of life would certainly take a pretty big hit if they got rid of all the dams.
The desert is full of water ;)For the time being
100% of the lakes contained entirely within Ohio are man made.This is exactly my point.
The quality of life would certainly take a pretty big hit if they got rid of all the dams.
This is exactly my point.??
People wouldn't live where there wasn't water. So we want to spread out and we make the water sit where we want it. It's precisely what I've been saying.
Wait, all rivers don't look like this?Greased Lightning!
(https://i.imgur.com/Y64x1NW.png)
I don't recall saying people were better and smarter back then. But they paid attention to nature, because they had to. Nowadays, we think we can dictate everything, so we build anywhere we want and include infrastructure that works 99% of the time, but we bail out that 1%.You related to George Tirebiter?
Back when people were at the mercy of nature far more than 1% of the time, they acted as such.
That's all. No cartoons necessary.
100% of the lakes contained entirely within Ohio are man made.Oklahoma's the same way. We claim more miles of shoreline than any other state or something of the sort. Whatever we claim, it's all shoreline on man-made lakes.
The quality of life would certainly take a pretty big hit if they got rid of all the dams.
Oklahoma's the same way. We claim more miles of shoreline than any other state or something of the sort. Whatever we claim, it's all shoreline on man-made lakes.Michigan and Wisconsin have a lot of shoreline. I don't know about the number Michigan's inland lakes, but they have 3000 miles of Great Lakes shoreline. Wisconsin has 800 miles (2nd of all states) and over 14,000 inland lakes. I'd like to know how much shoreline OK claims.
I'd like to know how much shoreline OK claims.Enough to have noodling contests and cook offs
Michigan and Wisconsin have a lot of shoreline. I don't know about the number Michigan's inland lakes, but they have 3000 miles of Great Lakes shoreline. Wisconsin has 800 miles (2nd of all states) and over 14,000 inland lakes. I'd like to know how much shoreline OK claims.Here's what a quick Google search revealed.
Lake Burglars!!Those hayseeds will burgle ANYthing!
Those hayseeds will burgle ANYthing!It's not burgling, it's boasting when the facts aren't there to match the brag.
It's not burgling, it's boasting when the facts aren't there to match the brag.The type that are all hat and no cattle?
We probably had some immigrants from south of the border who are responsible for that.
The type that are all hat and no cattle?Well if you actually have cattle, then I guess you can't really be all hat and NO cattle, can you?
Well, it raises and interesting point: the ability to pay the bail set has very little to do with how dangerous the person is, right? So the wealthier you are, the more dangerous you can be and still win your freedom. It's almost as if bail should be conditioned on how dangerous the person is, not how much money they have.I thought that was a key factor in setting bail, how dangerous a person might be if let out. Crimes that do not allow for bail are things like murder.
“We’re charge agnostic,” McFarland added. “We are operating off the presumption of innocence.”It was the judge that set the bail, not the non-profit.
“I think that we are forthright. We’re very clear whenever we’re asked that we don’t make distinctions based on charge,” said Sharlyn Grace, executive director of the Chicago Community Bond Fund.
_________________________________________________ _
are they also race agnostic?
if not, they are racist
It was the judge that set the bail, not the non-profit.we know that all cases had bail set, regardless of race
Absolutely. Bail should be about risk, not wealth.I think it pretty much is, in theory, but there a lot of judges out there who set ridiculously low bails for very dangerous people. One of their gang buddies comes, throws down $100, and the gang bangers are bang bangin' the next day.
I understand your reference to the judge nowWhat about the bail bondsman? Its responsibility, too?
the Judge should be making distinctions based on charge.
I'm not sure why why the non-profit shouldn't do the same.
But that doesn't make for a juicy story. I think elsewhere we've been discussing the media and what makes it tick/pays its bills. Unsurprisingly, there is more to this story than the article tells. Much more.There is definitely much more to it. Bails have been going lower and lower over the past 3.5 years - this is proven and true. It starts with the Crook County States Attorney's office. It's a very complicated subject, and a key issue that should be talked about a whole lot more than it is. But, talking about it is not a comfortable subject, and people don't like to be uncomfortable. Know what I'm saying?
There is definitely much more to it. Bails have been going lower and lower over the past 3.5 years - this is proven and true. It starts with the Crook County States Attorney's office. It's a very complicated subject, and a key issue that should be talked about a whole lot more than it is. But, talking about it is not a comfortable subject, and people don't like to be uncomfortable. Know what I'm saying?Crystal clear.
What about the bail bondsman? Its responsibility, too?I agree with everything you are stating. I just have a problem with a policy that they are bragging about........... some charges are more horrible than others
Part of the issue here is that accused criminals, released on bond, sometimes commit other crimes. There is nothing surprising about that. The judge who makes the bail decision takes that into account, and attempts to set an appropriate bond. Is there any research here indicating what percentage of the time something awful like this happened? Is that number an appropriate number? Is there any discussion of that percentage compared to the percentage of people the non-profit paid the bond for who did something horrible? Is there any connection between the overall number and the non-profit number?
But that doesn't make for a juicy story. I think elsewhere we've been discussing the media and what makes it tick/pays its bills. Unsurprisingly, there is more to this story than the article tells. Much more.
Crystal clear.for the love of God, can't there be a bit of common sense?
A key point: the state/county criminal justice systems don't profit in any meaningful way from the cash bond system. But there is an industry that does. That industry has no particular interest in an effective criminal justice system, unlike the government employees (cops, DAs, PDs, judges, etc.) who take oaths to protect the people, including both society at-large and individuals accused of criminal conduct.
Still waiting to be selected for jury duty (at a time when I actually have the flexibility for it, of course). :93:That reminds me. I got a jury summons, and it's for next week.
for the love of God, can't there be a bit of common sense?Like just about everything else, there are legitimate reasons this industry cropped up, and they aren't all bad. And the industry itself has largely been corrupted by the easiest way to increase profits, which has been to prey on the desperate poor.
wouldn't it be OK, for folks in the bail bond industry to do SOMETHING else to make a living?
Like just about everything else, there are legitimate reasons this industry cropped up, and they aren't all bad. And the industry itself has largely been corrupted by the easiest way to increase profits, which has been to prey on the desperate poor.Sounds like we need to disappear most of the industry, no?
All of us MIGHT HAVE dementia at an early stage. It's not easy to spot casually. By the time a man passes 70, the odds obviously start to climb. And we could elect some 70 year old President who was fine and 2 years later ....There has been some speculation that the candidate with dementia would be paired with a very ideologically desirable VP nominee and, should he win, the VP would replace him via the 25th Amendment.
We do have the 25th Amendment, which some wanted to employ with the current President a year or so back.
That Amendment is not the clearest thing in the world, to me.
There is a nice article on 538 about replacing a candidate before or after the convention and after the election but before inauguration.Cuomo may not come out of the coronavirus crisis looking as good as he has so far. The State of New York has been paying obscene amounts to some ridiculous "vendors."
After the convention, the DNC can do whatever it wants. They could put Cuomo in the top spot if they convince Biden to sit it out.
How dare you suggest such a thing! (see entire coal industry issue)
wouldn't it be OK, for folks in the bail bond industry to do SOMETHING else to make a living?
For the mainstream media, Biden is one of "their guys," whereas Kavanaugh is one of the "other side's" guys.I’m with you all the way around. The media is honestly really just useless. They lambasted W and many times rightfully so- only to hold the bath water of Obama who on many things was to the right of Bush and was worse than Bush- never once heard them say a peep, because like you said: he was on “their” team.
I don't want to see Biden smeared the way Kavanaugh was. I'd like 'em both to be treated properly.
With that, I'll join Big Beef and his pipe-dream fantasy that we could pay down the national debt during times of prosperity.
Speaking of the debt, I saw "we" are borrowing $3 TRILLION this QUARTER alone. Does anyone think that might have ramifications down the line? Anyone? Bueller?Man I'd love to get me some of that free money!
The states and cities will be toast without Fed funds.
Maybe all this fiat money is really free and we can make it up as we go.
Speaking of the debt, I saw "we" are borrowing $3 TRILLION this QUARTER alone. Does anyone think that might have ramifications down the line? Anyone? Bueller?As a government, as long as you can tax your own citizens in perpetuity, you can control your own currency, and your currency also happens to the worlds reserve currency- the debt honestly almost doesn't matter.
The states and cities will be toast without Fed funds.
Maybe all this fiat money is really free and we can make it up as we go.
Man I'd love to get me some of that free money!Sorry. You need to be a wall street firm, an airline, or a small business like ShakeShack, Harvard, and the Los Angeles Lakers.
Sorry. You need to be a wall street firm, an airline, or a small business like ShakeShack, Harvard, and the Los Angeles Lakers.Well, I did eat at Shake Shack once...
At some point, if money floods the market, you'd expect to see inflation, too many dollars competing with limited goods.Globalization + extreme concentration of wealth + Central banks around the world gaming the system leaves us in a weird world where inflation is like non-existent. You can't tell? Central banks around the world injected 14 TRILLION dollars worth of yuan, euro, usd, etc., last go around a decade ago and yet inflation was almost non-existent.
I also marvel at the ability of the Fed to buy up T bonds.
Well, I did eat at Shake Shack once...Shake Shack, LA Lakers, and Harvard all gave the millions of dollars they took back, but only after it became public knowledge they received any money and they all rightfully got roasted in the court of public opinion.
I think it pretty much is, in theory, but there a lot of judges out there who set ridiculously low bails for very dangerous people. One of their gang buddies comes, throws down $100, and the gang bangers are bang bangin' the next day.I mean, as long as the number ties in to money, it'll get sent through the prism of wealth. What is a stern sum for some is a highly unreasonable one for others.
A cop buddy of mine--a very good friend--has this to say: "of course they are guilty. Why else would they have been arrested?"When i hear such a thing, it only seems to erode faith in his profession. A damn shame it is.
Won't get specific into politics, but is anybody else worried about someone with dementia winning the presidency?Party can run anyone who gets the votes.
A) how is a party even allowed to run someone that might have dementia.
B) how easily will this person be too heavily influenced or be over-ruled by the many advisors a President has.
How come you need to take tests to drive a car, become a lawyer or doctor- but to become leader of the free world- nada. You're good bro.
I really think there needs to be rounds of testing done on all politicians, not only presidents. They should have to take IQ tests, competency tests, and go through mental & physical evaluations- and this stuff needs to be made public knowledge. Just my two cents.
If the injection is quickly paralleled with production of goods, it should be OK. IF.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i0eQzMRrrc
I don't truly understand macroeconomics. Or micro. Or midi.
Ok this isn’t political at all- more a critique of the useless, useful idiot, hypocrites in mass mainstream media...Were the media as influential as many folks think it is and as slanted as many think it is, the world would not look the way it does.
Disgusting to me to see they way they treated the sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh vs how they are treating this one against Joe Biden.
They go from one extreme “BELIEVE ALL WOMAN ALWAYS....HE’S A RAPIST” to “There’s no evidence of this! Joe Biden is a great guy!”.
It honestly scares me. The power these morons have to shape opinion and influence people’s minds. It’s scary.
Were the media as influential as many folks think it is and as slanted as many think it is, the world would not look the way it does.It has a lot more influence than you think. I see it all the time in real life. A lot of people don't have the time or care to look into what they see someone say on the tv. They just believe it and regurgitate it.
Shoot, if the media were so influential, you'd assume the first order of business would be to influence people to stop treating them with such distain. Weirdly, all that mind-shaping skill can't even do that.
When i hear such a thing, it only seems to erode faith in his profession. A damn shame it is.perhaps that Cop buddy is one of the "good" cops and has never arrested someone that wasn't guilty?
perhaps that Cop buddy is one of the "good" cops and has never arrested someone that wasn't guilty?Even if this cop was such a person, he still lives in the larger world. He still knows "bad" cops exist somewhere.
It has a lot more influence than you think. I see it all the time in real life. A lot of people don't have the time or care to look into what they see someone say on the tv. They just believe it and regurgitate it.So in the first post, they were a chorus in harmony, but now they're actually a cacophony of different views? Interesting.
And media is incredibly slanted. They pick a side and shill for that side no matter what. Saw it first hand with how they covered W. vs. Obama. Fox: W did nothing wrong. He's the best! MSNBC/CNN: W is an idiot and a criminal! Fox: Obama is a muslim from Kenya! MSNBC/CNN: Obama is the best president everrrr! Failing to mention he was basically the same as W. In some instances worse.
These assholes in the media just pick their sides and shill. Democrats seem to have more outlets, Republicans seem to have louder more over the top opinionated outlets.
And the world unfortunately looks the way it does, in large part because of media. We're more divided than ever before and you have the PC police, the "woke" social justice warriors, the fake outrage, cancel culture out there trying to cancel people and censor speech. And it's the media that gives these jackasses a voice and echo chamber.
I've never seen anything like it in my entire life. We are at the worst it has ever been. I blame the media and social media for this shit. And bad parenting.
Even if this cop was such a person, he still lives in the larger world. He still knows "bad" cops exist somewhere.don't get me started
Let's put it this way, you're talking about a government employee with the most ability to violate the rights/body of others and some pretty high insulation from consequences. And this employee believes in the infallibility of himself and those like him.
That strikes me as a mighty fine recipe for some large blindspots.
be accountableWhy should they? No one else seems to be.
This is where I'm at.I used to write for [and eventually run] a political group blog. I put in a lot of time. I tried to research and make sure anything I wrote was well-supported and meaningful. I even tried to make sure that my voice, my take, on issues was unique--or else why bother writing about them?
I know I blah-blah a lot on here about politics, but it all just is what it is. Yeah, we have a *&@#&$ in the WH now. And yeah, the Dems nominated a guy who suffers from post-withitness. Yeah, the system is broken if these are the 2 options.
I tend to hang out with people a little younger than me, mostly women (teachers), mostly liberal. They REALLY get after it during political discussions and I'm just like, "yep, it's the will of the masses." Now don't get me wrong, I will verbally curb-stomp on "the masses," but as I said - it is what it is.
Our Founders feared democracy almost as much as a monarchy for this reason.I think people underestimate Hamilton wildly... He was a lot of the force behind Washington, who was an eminent statesman but I don't think really was a policy wonk of any stature. And he followed the same role with Adams.
They really envisioned a kind of oligarchy, with people like them in charge. The amazing thing is how little they agreed among themselves about anything.
Aaron Burr, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Marshall ... John Marshall really despised Jefferson.
We should be amazed and thankful the Constitution is as good as it is.
The particular cop in question has no doubt that there are bad apples who do bad things among the boys in blue. He knows that there is injustice committed by police officers. His point is that overwhelmingly cops don't arrest someone without a really good reason to do so. He is also--like so many people in the criminal justice system--jaded by his day to day work, primarily interacting with bad people who do bad things. He has his biases, and--unsurprisingly--generally believes in his colleagues as professionals who do the right thing. That doesn't mean he doesn't believe there are bad cops--he knows there are--but his initial instinct is to believe the cop, not the suspect.I feel that, and the dynamic they're in is certianly a tough one. They're part of a system that says if they deprive a person of freedom, it doesn't necessarily mean it was a just act. But the problem is if they profess these feelings, that anyone arrested is guilty, it in essence delegitimizes the system at large. When the people enforcing the laws say "this structure beyond me is a bunch of hooey," it casts doubt on the system overall.
As likely one of this board's more liberal contributors, I can say with absolute certainty that this particular cop is the kind of person I want policing my streets. He's not infallible, nor cured of any bias (we all have bias, like it or not). I take his view on this subject as a reference point, nothing more. The police need to be policed, too, and like many organizations that profess to regulate themselves, they do have blind spots with regard to their own. This is particularly problematic when trying to address societal trends that are hard to pin on any one person, but that show up very clearly in statistics for larger populations. That doesn't make them bad people, it makes them people.
Our Founders feared democracy almost as much as a monarchy for this reason.We’ve never lived in a true democracy. Representative republic.
They really envisioned a kind of oligarchy, with people like them in charge. The amazing thing is how little they agreed among themselves about anything.
Aaron Burr, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Marshall ... John Marshall really despised Jefferson.
We should be amazed and thankful the Constitution is as good as it is.
We’ve never lived in a true democracy. Representative republic.But it was meant for a moral (and also religious) people. We aren't that today. Too many of us today want a tyrant, so long as he's (or she's) a tyrant who will impose the views we like on the "others." How many people cheered Barack Obama when he said he'd do what Congress wouldn't, because he had a cellphone and a pen? How many people cheer Donald Trump when urges a crowd to throw "them" out of the arena?
And the founders wanted an oligarchy- but instead now we’ve got soft form of fascism. Thanks Neoliberals!
“When fascism comes to America it will not be in brown and black shirts, it will not be in jack boots, it will be in Nike shoes and smiley shirts.”
You’re right about one thing man- thank god for that constitution. Most beautiful thing EVER written in the history of man.
But it was meant for a moral (and also religious) people. We aren't that today. Too many of us today want a tyrant, so long as he's (or she's) a tyrant who will impose the views we like on the "others." How many people cheered Barack Obama when he said he'd do what Congress wouldn't, because he had a cellphone and a pen? How many people cheer Donald Trump when urges a crowd to throw "them" out of the arena?Weren't that back then either.
I can't recall who made this formulation, but it's about where "civic virtue" is necessary in different forms of government, and it goes something like this. In a monarchy, the monarch has to be virtuous. In a plutocracy, the rich have to be virtuous. In an aristocracy, the aristocrats have to be virtuous. In a democracy, the people have to be virtuous. But "the people" are always susceptible to becoming the mob and virtue is not a trait of mobs.
"But it was meant for a moral (and also religious) people. We aren't that today. Too many of us today want a tyrant, so long as he's (or she's) a tyrant who will impose the views we like on the "others." How many people cheered Barack Obama when he said he'd do what Congress wouldn't, because he had a cellphone and a pen? How many people cheer Donald Trump when urges a crowd to throw "them" out of the arena?
I can't recall who made this formulation, but it's about where "civic virtue" is necessary in different forms of government, and it goes something like this. In a monarchy, the monarch has to be virtuous. In a plutocracy, the rich have to be virtuous. In an aristocracy, the aristocrats have to be virtuous. In a democracy, the people have to be virtuous. But "the people" are always susceptible to becoming the mob and virtue is not a trait of mobs."
Weren't that back then either.The expectation of civic virtue was a cultural norm. It's like the back side of the Moon today.
this is my take
None of this was hardly ever mentioned. And it blows my god damn mind.These two parties are basically the same side of the coin, very little differences to be honest with you
this is my takethe Koch brothers, big pharma, wall street firms & banks, big tech, private equity, Sheldon Adelson- all these billionaires, businesses, and groups donate ridiculous sums of money to politicians' campaigns and re-election funds on both sides of the aisle. They bet on both horses to ensure they get outcomes they want. There's a website called opensecrets.org where it tracks exactly how much each politician has gotten and from whom. It's fascinating.
there is only one party and it's corrupt and self serving
Democrats took a big conservative turn under Clinton, and have continued that strategy for the last 20+ years. The plan was to get more of the moderate vote. What it really did was allow republicans to go even more conservative.
Not buying the religious aspect of the argument. I'd say we should just leave religion out of government and discussion of government. Like the founders. Jefferson wasn't exactly religious. And not sure how moral slavery and women being essentially property of a man were....'cause yeah that shit happened back then. Not really moral.
I don't know. I think it all just comes down to tribalism. No different than people rooting for their favorite college football teams. "Red team awesome, blue team SUCKKSSSSS!" People just pick the democrat or republican team and cheer on no matter what.
I actually voted for Obama first time around because he caught me hook line and sinker on all the "hopey changey" (as Sarah Palin would say) - bullshit. I wasn't going to vote for McCain- not with his long horrific track record. Obama didn't really have a track record as he had been a state legislator and had only been a US senator for like a year and a half before he ran for President. Little did I know the guys entire first cabinet was handpicked by CitiBank. Thank god for WikiLeaks revealing that info many years later.
The same people who protested in the streets and condemned W for being a corporate stooge, for the Iraq war (rightfully), for black ops capture and torture programs (rightfully), drone strikes (rightfully) - pretty much never said a god damn word about Obama continuing and expanding most of the worst of Bush's policies. Not a god damn word. The guy made Bush's tax cuts permanent. He took the US from 2 wars to 7. Increased drone strikes by something insane like 4,000% or something like that. Pushed through the biggest corporate bailout in history which was completely geared towards Wall Street and completely screwed over Main Street- which saw 95% of the income gains go to the top 1% during the recovery- NEVER prosecuted a single person involved in the entire financial crisis- he deported just as many if not more people than Mr. Trump. Destroyed Libya and turned it into a failed state where slavery markets exist now. Did nothing about 5.1 million families losing their house to foreclosure. Not people. Families. The foreclosure relief program was designed to help bankers, not homeowners. He EXPANDED spying powers and the security state. He prosecuted more whistle-blowers under the espionage act than EVERY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY COMBINED.
None of this was hardly ever mentioned. And it blows my god damn mind.These two parties are basically the same side of the coin, very little differences to be honest with you
the Koch brothers, big pharma, wall street firms & banks, big tech, private equity, Sheldon Adelson- all these billionaires, businesses, and groups donate ridiculous sums of money to politicians' campaigns and re-election funds on both sides of the aisle. They bet on both horses to ensure they get outcomes they want. There's a website called opensecrets.org where it tracks exactly how much each politician has gotten and from whom. It's fascinating.Sounds like you might not vote. The Supreme Court is my #1 voting concern, and it probably should be for you.
We're basically living under soft form of fascism. The corporations have become the government. Thanks Citizens United!
There's a website called opensecrets.org where it tracks exactly how much each politician has gotten and from whom. It's fascinating.I've checked it
I think I can say with quite a bit of confidence that Ronald Reagan would be a democrat these days.1. He was elected because Jimmy Carter was a f'ing disaster. Democrats? Republicans? Nobody knows WTF that even means anymore.
1. He was elected due to his hard stance on the cold war, and probably would have taken Russian interference in our elections as an act of war. Obviously that is nowhere even close to Trump's position on the matter.
2. I could go on and on an on.
3. Except for social issues, the country has shifted right.
Sounds like you might not vote. The Supreme Court is my #1 voting concern, and it probably should be for you.Yep. Me too. Hopefully there will be one more constitutionalist confirmed before we go to hell.
Democrats took a big conservative turn under Clinton, and have continued that strategy for the last 20+ years. The plan was to get more of the moderate vote. What it really did was allow republicans to go even more conservative.Respectfully, I disagree on every point except #5. Reagan would not be a member of today's Democratic Party. What about today's Democrats would draw him in? He wouldn't like the current all-in-for-Trump GOP either, though. He was also pro-immigration, another way he wouldn't like today's GOP. He'd be a man without a party.
I think I can say with quite a bit of confidence that Ronald Reagan would be a democrat these days.
1. He was elected due to his hard stance on the cold war, and probably would have taken Russian interference in our elections as an act of war. Obviously that is nowhere even close to Trump's position on the matter.
2. The Clean Air Act vs ???? The republican party platform has pretty much been rolling back environmental regulations as fast as they can.
3. Unions are no longer a real concern for either party, so his hard anti-union stance would be unnecessary
4. He worked to find a bi-partisan solution to fix the Social Security system for the long term. Republicans today are actively trying to find a way to cut social security, including massive cuts proposed by Trump in his 2020 budget proposal.
5. He downplayed hot button issues like abortion, gay rights, and racial integration.
6. He was very anti-drug. Although the republicans are still more of the "anti-drug" party, even they have lost enthusiasm for the war on drugs.
7. He was a huge supporter of free trade. Our president now? Quite the opposite.
8. Reagan was staunchly in favor of the New Deal and was proud that he voted for FDR 4 times. The new deal would be rolled back completely by almost any libertarian or Tea Party republican.
I could go on and on an on.
Except for social issues, the country has shifted right.
I had a long rebuttal posted, but I deleted it, as this thread is supposed to be "no politics."nice work
this is my takeThey're rewarded for being so.
there is only one party and it's corrupt and self serving
1. He was elected because Jimmy Carter was a f'ing disaster. Democrats? Republicans? Nobody knows WTF that even means anymore.It wasn't Jimmy Carter being a disaster. It was honestly more just the circumstances of the times and Jimmy Carter getting blamed for them. The inflation of the 70's was caused by 40+ years of policy by central planners aiming for full-employment in the US economy. A polish economist named Michal Kaelcki predicted the 1970's to a T in a paper he wrote in the early 1940's called Political Aspects of Full Employment.
Sounds like you might not vote. The Supreme Court is my #1 voting concern, and it probably should be for you.Unfortunately I am probably going to vote for Trump. Joe Biden is one of the biggest corporate shill puppets in the history of this country and is a completely useless morally bankrupt turd that is corrupt as they come. Both of his sons and his brother have made stupid money off of him. Oh yeah, not to mention he is clearly suffering from early on set dementia.
Democrats took a big conservative turn under Clinton, and have continued that strategy for the last 20+ years. The plan was to get more of the moderate vote. What it really did was allow republicans to go even more conservative.Democrats took a turn towards big business under Clinton. I wouldn't necessarily say they took a conservative turn.
I think I can say with quite a bit of confidence that Ronald Reagan would be a democrat these days.
1. He was elected due to his hard stance on the cold war, and probably would have taken Russian interference in our elections as an act of war. Obviously that is nowhere even close to Trump's position on the matter.
2. The Clean Air Act vs ???? The republican party platform has pretty much been rolling back environmental regulations as fast as they can.
3. Unions are no longer a real concern for either party, so his hard anti-union stance would be unnecessary
4. He worked to find a bi-partisan solution to fix the Social Security system for the long term. Republicans today are actively trying to find a way to cut social security, including massive cuts proposed by Trump in his 2020 budget proposal.
5. He downplayed hot button issues like abortion, gay rights, and racial integration.
6. He was very anti-drug. Although the republicans are still more of the "anti-drug" party, even they have lost enthusiasm for the war on drugs.
7. He was a huge supporter of free trade. Our president now? Quite the opposite.
8. Reagan was staunchly in favor of the New Deal and was proud that he voted for FDR 4 times. The new deal would be rolled back completely by almost any libertarian or Tea Party republican.
I could go on and on an on.
Except for social issues, the country has shifted right.
Voting is the opiate of the masses.I dunno. Seems like lately (a lot) voting is more about the lesser of two evils. That's the suckass part, and it leads to lower turnouts too, especially at the state and local levels.
Cincydawg.
I dunno. Seems like lately (a lot) voting is more about the lesser of two evils. That's the suckass part, and it leads to lower turnouts too, especially at the state and local levels.I love voting at the local level in my suburb of Austin. Our city has about 77,000 (compared to 964,000 in Austin proper) and I actually know or have at least met in real life, many of our city council, school board, etc.
I refer to my individual vote. It means nothing. I prefer not to waste my time. It confers an illusion of having some influence which does not exist in any national election.Not to mention that for POTUS, the electoral college ensures that only voters in a few states have a meaningful effect on the outcome.
Some school bond issue back years ago passed by 7 votes, it is possible MY vote might matter locally, though that situation is very rare.
Nationally? It's nonsense.
The odds that a single vote would be decisive in any national election are small enough I'm willing to ignore them. You can blame me if it happens.Oh yeah? If everyone thought like you did, and only one person voted in the entire country, what then, smart guy??
Oh yeah? If everyone thought like you did, and only one person voted in the entire country, what then, smart guy??That's why I do vote.
I love voting at the local level in my suburb of Austin. Our city has about 77,000 (compared to 964,000 in Austin proper) and I actually know or have at least met in real life, many of our city council, school board, etc.The fact that you had to talk to the Chief of Building codes to move your backyard fence and put in a shed on your property drives my libertarian psyche crazy. :91:
I don't know our mayor personally, but several friends do, and he's a really great dude.
Trips to city hall are a breeze, I went in and talked personally to the chief of building codes when I was going to move a backyard fence and put in a shed, and he was so welcoming and accommodating. I'm definitely never going to live within the city limits of a large city again, that is such a total beating.
Not to mention that for POTUS, the electoral college ensures that only voters in a few states have a meaningful effect on the outcome.
Here in California, voting for POTUS is literally pointless. The state will vote reliably Democrat, ensuring all 55 electoral college votes to that candidate. If there is some Republican that is SO much better than the Democrat that even California is in play? Well then that Republican will win the election in such a landslide that even if my vote was the one tipping those 55 electoral college votes, the Republican would have won so many other states that my tipping of 55 electoral college votes wouldn't change the outcome of the election either.
It's why I vote third-party. Even if the Libertarians nominate a whackadoodle [as they've done a few times], I know that my vote won't be counted either way in the popular vote as a "mandate" for the winning candidate. It's purely a protest vote, a "vote of no confidence" in the two major parties. And since my candidate has zero shot at winning, it's not like it matters if he/she is a whackadoodle.
The fact that you had to talk to the Chief of Building codes to move your backyard fence and put in a shed on your property drives my libertarian psyche crazy. :91:I didn't HAVE to, I could have called or emailed or pored through the city codes. Instead I walked through the front door of City Hall, asked the receptionist where the building code office was, walked down the hall, and sat in his office and talked to him. Without an appointment and without waiting at all.
That's why I do vote.It wouldn't just be you, because I would have voted for the same candidate. ;)
Because if I was literally the only one, I cannot imagine all the fun of knowing that all of you had to live under a Libertarian POTUS for four years because of me. It would be high comedy.
I totally appreciate the electoral college and what it does. I would only like to see one change to it (Which is constitutional and Nebraska use to do it (maybe still does)).I disagree. I think this proposal would convince a potential POTUS to spend most of their time ONLY on large urban areas. The "bang for the buck" so to speak is so much higher there.
I would have the electors elected by congressional districts. So say a state has 25 electoral votes. 23 for congressional representation and 2 for senatorial. So if I won the popular vote of the state I would get the 2 senatorial electors and I would get the electors for each district in which I received the majority vote. So I could get 19 of the electors, but my opponent won 6 districts so he would get 6. I think this would put states such as California and New York that are solid blue because of their major urban areas in play, but would also put many solid red states with large blue districts into play.
I disagree. I think this proposal would convince a potential POTUS to spend most of their time ONLY on large urban areas. The "bang for the buck" so to speak is so much higher there.Most of the attention is going to go to Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona, and Florida as it is.... Everyone knows how the other 44 states and DC are going to go. Some states like Minnesota and Iowa will be more competitive than others like Kansas and New Jersey, but I'd be surprised if most of the campaign spending goes anywhere but those 6 swing states.
Nobody would spend any time or money in primarily rural states if you didn't believe you'd get the entire state win or lose. It would be a waste of resources.
Most of the attention is going to go to Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona, and Florida as it is.... Everyone knows how the other 44 states and DC are going to go. Some states like Minnesota and Iowa will be more competitive than others like Kansas and New Jersey, but I'd be surprised if most of the campaign spending goes anywhere but those 6 swing states.Agreed. Essentially the proposal from @Riffraft (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=33) gets us closer to popular vote mattering, because large urban areas contain many more Congressional districts, so from the decision of "where do I buy advertising time" you hit a lot more voters (and a lot more districts) in Los Angeles than you do in Sioux Falls.
If the popular vote mattered, then there would be more campaign money spent not only in California, Texas, and New York, but also even the Great Plains states, Southeast, and Northwest.
Agreed. Essentially the proposal from @Riffraft (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=33) gets us closer to popular vote mattering, because large urban areas contain many more Congressional districts, so from the decision of "where do I buy advertising time" you hit a lot more voters (and a lot more districts) in Los Angeles than you do in Sioux Falls.I find the last paragraph to be a sticky one because I honestly think the "safe" states idea is just moving things around. I mean, you have to win over Columbus and Cleveland suburbs more than LA suburbs, and you have Coldwater, Ohio being worlds more valuable than Auburn, Ca. or Auburn, Alabama.
While I'll agree that having a bunch of attention focused on swing states at the exclusion of "safe" states is its own problem, I don't think this change would benefit rural "safe" states. It would cause both Republican and Democrat policies to favor the needs of urban voters and nobody would care about the needs of rural voters.
The rural vs. urban thing is a tricky one as well. On one hand, favoring more over fewer is the argument against favoring urban needs over rural, but on the other hand, voting is literally about more over fewer. If you want to help more constituents, you'd focus on places with more people. Right now we're just playing with borders.I've mentioned before that the answer is more federalism. The fundamental difference is that the policies that best help residents in Cheyenne, Wyoming are likely different than the policies that best help residents of San Francisco, CA. If everything is decided in Washington, then if you tailor policies towards Wyoming it means that those in California feel disenfranchised, and if you tailor policies for San Francisco the people in Cheyenne feel disenfranchised. They feel like their elected representatives are not respecting their needs.
Catch 22, the Yosarian Rule.Actually, Kant's categorical imperative is the operative rule.
5) He just had a don't ask don't tell policy in the military. He basically ignored the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Never tried to do a single thing about the crack epidemic plaguing black communities in inner-cities the 80s.Funding for AIDS research basically doubled each year of Reagan's presidency.
I can't understand that.Act in the way that you could recommend everybody act.
I've mentioned before that the answer is more federalism. The fundamental difference is that the policies that best help residents in Cheyenne, Wyoming are likely different than the policies that best help residents of San Francisco, CA. If everything is decided in Washington, then if you tailor policies towards Wyoming it means that those in California feel disenfranchised, and if you tailor policies for San Francisco the people in Cheyenne feel disenfranchised. They feel like their elected representatives are not respecting their needs.I'm with you, Bwarb. Returning to more federalism would help a lot of what ails us. Too many issues becoming nationalized means that what Cheyenne and San Francisco decide to do about mass transit or feeding homeless people or having schools named for Christopher Columbus become life-or-death national issues.
If Cheyenne is allowed to decide its own policies and San Francisco its own as well, then there's no conflict.
The big problems is when you get into individual rights. If Cheyenne decides it wants to outlaw gay marriage while San Francisco wants to outlaw guns... You have a problem. Which is why my ideal system is that individual rights are protected federally [the widest possible jurisdiction], while government powers are distributed to state or local authorities [the smallest efficient jurisdiction].
But... I'm not in charge.
1. He was elected because Jimmy Carter was a f'ing disaster. Democrats? Republicans? Nobody knows WTF that even means anymore.Points 1-3 don't really refute anything I said, or even discuss them. In fact, I will also agree with point 1. JC had a rough presidency, some his fault, some not. But RR did focus on the cold war during his campaign.
2. No.
3. Bulljive.
People who are the center-right give far more to charity than those on the left, based on proportion of income. You are a "data guy" and I HAVE DATA. One example would be your presumed* hero Bill Gates. He gives far less of his percentage of income than I do. ONE example.
I'd much rather ME distribute my money than some dumbass in DC. I'm good at. Those in DC SUCK at it.
* I <<think>> I know where you roll. Please give 20% of your income to charity, like I do, and have done for years.
Volunteer too. 15 hours per week. Rock on.
Respectfully, I disagree on every point except #5. Reagan would not be a member of today's Democratic Party. What about today's Democrats would draw him in? He wouldn't like the current all-in-for-Trump GOP either, though. He was also pro-immigration, another way he wouldn't like today's GOP. He'd be a man without a party.Eh, I tried to stay factual. But I probably shouldn't have posted. You're a better man than me.
I had a long rebuttal posted, but I deleted it, as this thread is supposed to be "no politics."
Act in the way that you could recommend everybody act.I disagree. It's akin to the Golden Rule, which I also disagree with.
If you would recommend that nobody vote, then you can in good conscience not vote.
Unfortunately I am probably going to vote for Trump. Joe Biden is one of the biggest corporate shill puppets in the history of this country and is a completely useless morally bankrupt turd that is corrupt as they come. Both of his sons and his brother have made stupid money off of him. Oh yeah, not to mention he is clearly suffering from early on set dementia.Maybe I was wrong about your passion for the Citizen's United decision. lol
I cannot in good conscience vote for MBNA Joe.
Um, yes there was. That's not political, that's a fact. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections)
And also- to suggest there was massive Russian interference in the election and that's why Hillary Clinton- one of the most corrupt, most disliked people in the history of politics- lost the election is laughable. I'm sorry but you will get nowhere and fast with me on that. Russigate was nothing but propaganda and bullshit. Years of investigations and the facts have borne this out.
I think the Russians wanted to sew doubt on any outcome and thus weaken the incumbent President. I'm not sure Trump has been any more in their corner than Hillary would have been with her reset button.They had an awesome bot net set up to influence social media. It was pretty damn genius, and it worked. Read the link I posted.
The campaigns spent billions, the Russians maybe 85 million, the examples I saw of their meddling was amateurish in comparison, often not even clearly partisan, just weirdness.
Maybe I was wrong about your passion for the Citizen's United decision. lolPoll... How many of us have actually read the Citizen's United decision cover to cover?
I vote for who think will make the best decisions - or, more lately, not the worst decisions.This is basically me, except I don't really care for BG one way or the other. He's done great things, he's done bad things.
I'm pretty much about as dead-center as you can possibly get.
More: I support a woman's right to choose under the right circumstances, although I would prefer they all put their children into the adoption process, since I'm one of those adopted people. I love my guns. Don't dare try and take them. I do give away a lot of money. I don't go to church. I do not like Bill Gates. I like German things, like cars. I hate China.
Weird guy, huh? Good luck finding a box to put me in.
The two political parties should hire them.Both parties used social media, but the Russians took it to a whole new level. I suppose the 70+ years of experience they have in propaganda paid off.
They seem better able to influence voters than the pros here.
Um, yes there was. That's not political, that's a fact. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections)Um, no there wasn't. If that's what people think is interfering with elections well, they are on crack cocaine. They generated memes on social media! OH NO. Give me a break. This is so absolutely pathetic it doesn't even rise to the level of bullshit. Like I said, get back to me when you can show they actually rig a US election- like the US actually did in Russia in the 90's to get Yeltsin elected. Like the US has done all over the world and worse for the past 60+ years.
Maybe I was wrong about your passion for the Citizen's United decision. lolNo. You're not wrong. It was an incredibly stupid decision by the supreme court to equate money with free speech- only to see an already corrupt system explode into the stratosphere of corruption.
Um, no there wasn't. If that's what people think is interfering with elections well, they are on crack cocaine. They generated memes on social media! OH NO. Give me a break. This is so absolutely pathetic it doesn't even rise to the level of bullshit. Like I said, get back to me when you can show they actually rig a US election- like the US actually did in Russia in the 90's to get Yeltsin elected. Like the US has done all over the world and worse for the past 60+ years.That's all it takes, and they knew it. Fabricated stories, memes, hacking -- they only need to change 1% of the vote, and that is equivalent to a 2% jump on election day.
How come the DNC never let the FBI look at it's servers or computers. KINDA WEIRD NO, IF YOU'RE CLAIMING YOU WERE HACKED. And how the F#!K can the DNC even make that decision? HOW? FBI should've had the right to seize the servers if they were in fact hacked.
The 13 indictments that Mueller's investigation made were people that will never in a million years see the inside of a US courtroom and were also people that don't work for the Russian government. So. There's that too.
It was all a dog and pony show, and none of it passes the level of the sniff test.
No. You're not wrong. It was an incredibly stupid decision by the supreme court to equate money with free speech- only to see an already corrupt system explode into the stratosphere of corruption.Were you a Sanders supporter?
Joe Biden has a 50+ year history of being a corrupt morally bankrupt useful idiot for his corporate masters. Forget his one son making $83,000 A MONTH as a consultant for a Ukranian gas company for a moment. Both of his sons and his brother have literally made millions of dollars off of his name/political career. And he's an absolute pushover on China. The guy has been a puppet of China for the last 30 years. Throw in the fact that he's got early on set dementia and holeeeeee shit. How anyone could even think of voting for him is beyond me.
This election to me hinges on the economy, free trade- not the investor rights agreements we have now- but actual free trade- and China- all things that Trump is far superior than senile old MBNA Joe on.
That's all it takes, and they knew it. Fabricated stories, memes, hacking -- they only need to change 1% of the vote, and that is equivalent to a 2% jump on election day.Lol. No. I'm sorry but if people think memes actually swung an election, I don't know what to say to that. It's hilarious. And if any person gets their news from facebook well, they are an idiot that probably shouldn't even have the right to vote. Forget Russia for a moment. One of the biggest problems this country has is f###ing Facebook. It's ruining peoples lives. I am so down for it being shutdown and that dickless little dweeb Mark Zuckerberg being hanged in a public square. Seriously that guy is SO weird. Every time I hear him talk or be interviewed my skin crawls. I think the guy might be a serial killer or something. Weirdest little dweeb I've ever seen in my life.
I can't really blame Russia. 52% of Russian budget revenues and 70% of their exports are from oil and gas. One party aims to change that by investing heavily in green energy. That's a very serious problem for them.
Were you a Sanders supporter?I would have voted for him yes. I don't agree with him on everything, and a lot of his agenda he'd never have been able to push through, but he was the best choice of the lot in my opinion.
Lol. No. I'm sorry but if people think memes actually swung an election, I don't know what to say to that. It's hilarious. And if any person gets their news from facebook well, they are an idiot that probably shouldn't even have the right to vote. Forget Russia for a moment. One of the biggest problems this country has is f###ing Facebook. It's ruining peoples lives. I am so down for it being shutdown and that dickless little dweeb Mark Zuckerberg being hanged in a public square. Seriously that guy is SO weird. Every time I hear him talk or be interviewed my skin crawls. I think the guy might be a serial killer or something. Weirdest little dweeb I've ever seen in my life.Well, sadly, people do. Which is why it was effective. And it wasn't just Facebook.
Why does nobody remember 2007-2008 when Obama and Dodd both flat out came out and said in the primary debates that Hillary is one of the most unlikable people in the country and therefore unelectable. Newsflash: THEY WERE RIGHT.
The claim that the Democratic party wants to invest heavily in green energy and that's why Russia doesn't like Hillary is also laughable. Hillary Clinton is a war hawk. There has never been a war she wasn't for. And she was openly speaking of going to war with Russia. That's why they didn't like her.
Do you have any idea how the US absolutely and completely helped Yeltsin rig an election in Russia in the 90s? Read up on it. They completely stole/rigged that election. Now THAT is interference in an election. Not some f$$#king memes on twitter or facebook.
Lol. No. I'm sorry but if people think memes actually swung an election, I don't know what to say to that. It's hilarious. And if any person gets their news from facebook well, they are an idiot that probably shouldn't even have the right to vote. Forget Russia for a moment. One of the biggest problems this country has is f###ing Facebook. It's ruining peoples lives.I think memes absolutely swing elections, and not just ones created by Russia.
I think to say they tried to hack voting systems is accurate. To claim they succeeded is perhaps hyperbole;They absolutely hacked voter systems in all 50 states. That does not meant they changed votes. Those are two separate things.
"It concluded that while there was no evidence that any votes were changed in actual voting machines, “Russian cyberactors were in a position to delete or change voter data” in the Illinois voter database. The committee found no evidence that they did so."
Well, sadly, people do. Which is why it was effective. And it wasn't just Facebook.Stop. Just stop. It wasn't effective. At all. Hillary Clinton was probably going to lose regardless of who she ran against. She lost because she didn't campaign hard enough in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. She lost those states and instead of taking blame, she puts it elsewhere. She doesn't even blame Russians for losing those states- she blames James Comey. She explicitly says this in her stupid book What Happened.
It was much more genius than that, though. For instance, they were able to track people they believed could be "turned." Conspiracy theorists. People angered by antifa. Disillusioned Sanders supporters. Those that didn't vote. Etc. etc. etc.
There are absolutely fascinating articles on the subject.
There's more than just social media interference, though. They also hacked into voting systems in all 50 states. Linkee (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/russian-hacking-elections.html)
Does anyone here think we have found two of the best candidates for President, or anywhere close to it, in the country?No, because they didn't ask me to run.
I think the republicans fell off the deep end after Obama was elected. So many conspiracy theories and so much anger.You mean things like "resist", "not my president", kids being put through hell for wearing red hats, and endless investigations?
No, because they didn't ask me to run.I'd vote for you. But you'd have to make me your VP.
Well, I personally do not believe Russian actions changed the outcome of the election.It didn't. These are people just grasping at straws. Pathetic straws at that.
I know some do. I disagree.
You mean things like "resist", "not my president", kids being put through hell for wearing red hats, and endless investigations?LOL. I've never seen anything like this. Trump won fair and square and it sent people into looney tunes mode.
Stuff like that?
:67:
(no need to answer... we are just really f'd up right now.)
You mean things like "resist", "not my president", kids being put through hell for wearing red hats, and endless investigations?"Not my president", "endless investigations", and "resist" all happened under Obama, too. With a vocal minority, the anger was very real. Donald Trump's campaign cultivated that anger. "Make American Great Again." It was enough to get him the republican nomination.
Stuff like that?
:67:
(no need to answer... we are just really f'd up right now.)
I think social media has exacerbated what once was mostly hidden partisanship and extremism. You knew your neighbors and maybe waved at them etc. Now if you want you can find their posts on SM easily enough and perhaps discover they are radical Left or Right wingers. Couple this with the rife disinformation and silliness we all see on SM and you have stirred up a witches brew of extremism that now is out in the open.Exactly. It used to be that you didn't likely know many of your relatives' political views. It's generally impolite to discuss it, and to a large extent you probably saw many of them 2-3 times a year at both. So except for crazy Uncle Phil who spouts off about politics like a crank every Thanksgiving, and who everyone essentially ignores because he's a boor, it doesn't come up.
Discussions that used to be largely private no longer are, and it stirs emotions, and I suspect some people who once were more centrist have become more extreme trying to counter whatever they heard from whoever they read.
Add to all that confirmation bias .... I can find support for just about any position SOMEWHERE on the Internet, I just have to ignore a bunch of contrary information and discard that as being biased or from "experts" or extremists of the other side. This shows up in the climate change "discussion" obviously. All I need to do is cling to "experts" who write what I WANT to believe and ignore the rest.This is huge. While we can complain about the "MSM" all we want, prior to the internet we all basically lived in the same world and shared the same facts.
Any real attempt to delve into the matter even handedly is complicated, time consuming, and frankly confusing in some places.It's a lot of work, and most people don't have the intelligence.
And now we confront another technical "crisis" or issue or problem, and "we" are simply not prepared to analyze it, so "we" develop an opinion, based on our political views, and then rush to find whatever supports that.We've literally turned a pandemic into a political football. I'd like to say I'm surprised by that. I'm not. I am saddened, though.
"Not my president", "endless investigations", and "resist" all happened under Obama, too. With a vocal minority, the anger was very real. Donald Trump's campaign cultivated that anger. "Make American Great Again." It was enough to get him the republican nomination.Which endless investigations happened under Obama? Anybody investigate him killing American citizens without charge or due process. I don't remember that one.
I don't think that Trump is a typical Republican, and I'm really curious where the party will be going after he's gone. I'm hoping they go back to the civility of McCain, Romney, and Kasich. Pipe dream?
"Not my president", "endless investigations", and "resist" all happened under Obama, too.Not like it is now. Now is different.
I don't know what republican or democrat even means anymore. Republican certainly isn't what was when Lincoln was in charge, and democrat certainly isn't what it was when Kennedy was in charge.I think it's incredibly stupid to only have two parties. And I am neither Republican or Democrat. I usually either don't vote or I'll vote for the person who I think is lesser of two evils. I voted for Obama in 2008. I voted for Romney in 2012. I voted for no one in 2016.
Just tell me what "your" plans are, and if I like those plans, or don't dislike them as much as the other person's plans, I'll make my mind up.
I really dislike the fact that they are all forced by "leadership" to pick a "side" to be on when they get to DC, or risk losing funding, etc.
Not like it is now. Now is different.Yep, it was worse then.
I think it's incredibly stupid to only have two parties. And I am neither Republican or Democrat. I usually either don't vote or I'll vote for the person who I think is lesser of two evils. I voted for Obama in 2008. I voted for Romney in 2012. I voted for no one in 2016.Our system structurally cannot be stable with more than two. It's inherent in our direct representation system and in our voting structure.
We have a broken system. Need more choice. Should have multiple parties. Why just two?
Eh, I tried to stay factual. But I probably shouldn't have posted. You're a better man than me.Nah! I just had more time to reflect on it.
Yep, it was worse then.OK, so now it's a different topic. You're talking racism. Yes, that was different in some places. The guy in charge now is not black, but is hated by most blacks and browns, and 40 percent of whites. In many, it runs very deep. That I see in Chicago and other big cities like it.
Of course I live in formerly coal county PA. People around here think Trump is the messiah. The hatred during the Obama years was real. I think we had more confederate flags flying than South Carolina.
Chicago is probably different, I'm guessing? (that was tongue-in-cheek...)
To answer an earlier question, Biden got nominated because the primary system is broken.All the primaries should be held on the same day, and "calls" should not be made until ALL the votes come in. This way, there is more incentive to vote.
There's no reason that Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina should have such disproportionate influence on who gets nominated, but that's how it is.
I think I suggested before that presidential primaries should be held in the order that the party got the most percentage of votes, so the Democratic side would start with states like Hawaii and DC and the Republican side with Wyoming and North Dakota.
Here's data for you. After we pay for Social Security, Medicare, interest on our debt, and defense, we are already deficit spending. That means that every other thing the government spends money on is deficit spending. Mind you, this was at a time of economic prosperity. Bottom line: We have to eventually raise federal taxes. Nobody likes them. Nobody wants to. But we sorta have to.Historically, it has been very difficult for the federal government to raise revenue exceeding about 17% of GDP. And at some point, increasing tax rates results in lower tax revenues because people find ways to avoid paying the tax. You're probably familiar with this concept, expressed in the Laffer Curve. At a tax rate of 0%, no revenue would be collected. But at a tax rate of 100%, there will also be no revenue collected, because nobody would work for anything that could be taxed at that rate.
I disagree. It's akin to the Golden Rule, which I also disagree with.I think you are pulling my leg here.
I do my thing, you do your thing, everyone is happy so long as out things don't conflict. You keep your helo separate from me on final and call your spots.
Utee probably will read something else into this.
Historically, it has been very difficult for the federal government to raise revenue exceeding about 17% of GDP. And at some point, increasing tax rates results in lower tax revenues because people find ways to avoid paying the tax. You're probably familiar with this concept, expressed in the Laffer Curve. At a tax rate of 0%, no revenue would be collected. But at a tax rate of 100%, there will also be no revenue collected, because nobody would work for anything that could be taxed at that rate.We absolutely know we can raise our tax rate and increase tax revenue, because we are nowhere near the peak of the laffer curve. Especially given our progressive tax structure.
So, while I agree that revenues do need to increase, we can't squeeze blood from a turnip. The economy has to keep growing for us to get higher revenue, no matter what the top income tax rate is. And the higher the taxes, the less the economy grows, all other factors being equal.
And we're going to have to cut spending too. At some point, the debts have to be paid, and revenues of 17% of GDP cannot pay for the federal government spending of 21% of GDP, which is what it was in 2015, a reasonably prosperous, non-emergency year.
Bush 41 and the Democrat-controlled Congress made a deal ca. 1990--when the federal debt was about 1/3 of what it is now as a percentage of GDP--to raise taxes and cut spending. Bush signed off on the tax increases, which may have cost him the 1992 election, but the spending cuts were--in GOP eyes, anyway--less than what had been agreed upon.
Since then, it has been accepted wisdom within the Republican Party that Democrats cannot be trusted on a revenue-and-spending compromise. (And maybe the Democrats have some other lesson from that experience, I don't know.) That was back when there was much less polarization than there is now. It's hard now to see such a deal being passed, signed into law, and carried into completion.
Poll... How many of us have actually read the Citizen's United decision cover to cover?I read it about 6 years ago at a teacher workshop sponsored by the Bill of Rights Institute.
(Just me?)
We absolutely know we can raise our tax rate and increase tax revenue, because we are nowhere near the peak of the laffer curve. Especially given our progressive tax structure.To be explicit, lower taxes correlate with worse income inequality. It's pretty clear.
Everyone knows what needs to be done, but nobody wants to actually say it out loud. GB1 was a good man, he made a tough call, but it was the right one. His son promptly cut those taxes and we've been running a deficit ever since.
OK, so now it's a different topic. You're talking racism. Yes, that was different in some places. The guy in charge now is not black, but is hated by most blacks and browns, and 40 percent of whites. In many, it runs very deep. That I see in Chicago and other big cities like it.I wasn't really talking racism, but I guess...I was? I wasn't really thinking about it that way.
Certainly in Chicago, 44 was revered by "his" people, who he did absolutely nothing for, by the way. Ask any local Rep from the South and West sides and they don't talk fondly of the man.
So, anyway, the Chicago Machine went to Washington.
It seems to me that it just clarified freedom of the press to include institutions other than corporate media conglomerates.I took it a little differently. I think the critical aspect was this:
Freedom of the press was written into the 1st Amendment to protect the right to publish criticism of the government. That freedom belongs to everyone, not just The New York Times or Fox News.
If you want to rein in the influence of money in elections, you're going to have to do it some other way than abridging the freedoms of speech and press.
Most of the other teachers there disagreed with that interpretation. But then most of them--as teachers--were Democrats and therefore supportive of Hillary Clinton, who was the target of the media criticism produced by the non-profit organization Citizens United.Motivated reasoning at its best, right?
"Not my president", "endless investigations", and "resist" all happened under Obama, too. With a vocal minority, the anger was very real. Donald Trump's campaign cultivated that anger. "Make American Great Again." It was enough to get him the republican nomination.I hope that your hope comes true.
I don't think that Trump is a typical Republican, and I'm really curious where the party will be going after he's gone. I'm hoping they go back to the civility of McCain, Romney, and Kasich. Pipe dream?
We absolutely know we can raise our tax rate and increase tax revenue, because we are nowhere near the peak of the laffer curve. Especially given our progressive tax structure.I was careful NOT to say that we could not raise our tax rate from where it is today without having revenues decrease. My point was that at some tax rate, further raises reduce revenues. Our tax system is so complicated, that it's hard to predict what can happen as a result of any change to tax policy. And the fact that tax policy influences economic growth makes results even harder to predict.
Everyone knows what needs to be done, but nobody wants to actually say it out loud. GB1 was a good man, he made a tough call, but it was the right one. His son promptly cut those taxes and we've been running a deficit ever since.
So it's not so clear that G.W. Bush's tax cuts caused a drop in revenue. The revenue as a share of GDP dropped in 2000, before Bush 43 was even elected, much less before his tax reductions went into effect.The sharp revenue rise of the late 1990s goes to one thing--the Dot Com boom.
I was careful NOT to say that we could not raise our tax rate from where it is today without having revenues decrease. My point was that at some tax rate, further raises reduce revenues. Our tax system is so complicated, that it's hard to predict what can happen as a result of any change to tax policy. And the fact that tax policy influences economic growth makes results even harder to predict.The CBO predicted that GW's tax cuts would cost the US about $500B in revenue annually. And...that's exactly what happened. I like those CBO guys, they area almost always spot on.
This chart is interesting.
(https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/styles/original_optimized/public/3.1.1_-_figure_2.png?itok=20amsJX5)
Here's one that breaks down revenue sources.
(https://i.insider.com/4ec4ea2ceab8eaa632000013?width=700&format=gif)
So it's not so clear that G.W. Bush's tax cuts caused a drop in revenue. The revenue as a share of GDP dropped in 2000, before Bush 43 was even elected, much less before his tax reductions went into effect.
The CBO predicted that GW's tax cuts would cost the US about $500B in revenue annually. And...that's exactly what happened. I like those CBO guys, they area almost always spot on.Were the CBO guys predicting the 9/11 attacks and the economic damage that would cause?
Were the CBO guys predicting the 9/11 attacks and the economic damage that would cause?No, but recessions happen and that was figured in. In reality it has been more than $500B annually.
No, but recessions happen and that was figured in. In reality it has been more than $500B annually.Actually, I don't think the CBO would have figured a recession into their calculations. I believe that their own rules require them to use a "static" model of the economy.
If I treated people the way I want to be treated .... They'd hate me.Why do you want to be treated poorly?
We need planned corrections and purposeful direction to our evolving society. The combination of our economy and government types freely evolving organically isn't good, long-term.Could you explain what your second sentence means, and then provide an example of a planned correction or purposeful direction you would endorse?
You mean things like "resist", "not my president", kids being put through hell for wearing red hats, and endless investigations?I recall some "not my president," one endless investigation of a political rival and another, well a campaign by a future president for an investigation. Obviously hats weren't a thing at that point. A "resist" part seems not exactly analogous to the Tea Party push, but some of the fiery sentiments echo.
Stuff like that?
:67:
(no need to answer... we are just really f'd up right now.)
All the primaries should be held on the same day, and "calls" should not be made until ALL the votes come in. This way, there is more incentive to vote.Interestingly, this works against the "small states matter" approach to the EC.
Also, no "calls" on election day. Hawaii be like "Why bother. _______ already won." That's f'd up.
Wow, you guys sure abandoned the "no politics" in a hurry.Need football back ASAP
Could you explain what your second sentence means, and then provide an example of a planned correction or purposeful direction you would endorse?Like how Jefferson suggested constitutional revisions every 20 years or so. Wide-scope corrections/improvements...basically building on what is learned over time, instead of waiting for a certain party (or special interest) to gain or lose control.
Wow, you guys sure abandoned the "no politics" in a hurry.Trying to keep it about election and process but it can veer a bit. Also trying to keep current/recent names out of it.
On the election thing from earlier - I've found it odd since childhood that they're releasing presidential election results before all states are finished voting. I still don't understand how it's a thing. How did it even begin to be a thing???It is public information, right? The media will report on it. They don't report an individual state until its polls have closed.
To me, much of the tone was brought to light though the last campaign.I tend to agree with this.
I tend to agree with this.So the linked thing is the sort of thing that at one point was considered a liability. And the world has changed and suddenly it might not be, on either side.
Or, by stuff like this:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congresswoman-rashida-tlaib-trump-profanity-curse-says-impeach-the-motherf-twitter-video/
I remember a prominent US Rep from Cali called for impeachment before 45 even took office, or shortly thereafter.
This kind of stuff is divisive, and sad, and we need to find a way to end it and come together as Americans.
I tend to agree with this.both parties encourage this stuff and use it to deflect from doing anything good for the country as a whole
Or, by stuff like this:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congresswoman-rashida-tlaib-trump-profanity-curse-says-impeach-the-motherf-twitter-video/
I remember a prominent US Rep from Cali called for impeachment before 45 even took office, or shortly thereafter.
This kind of stuff is divisive, and sad, and we need to find a way to end it and come together as Americans.
both parties encourage this stuff and use it to deflect from doing anything good for the country as a wholeThere is to be some committee to review whatever at some point. I view nearly everything that happens in DC as politically oriented. Any "fact finding" committee is just to throw dirt on the other side, not to find any real facts.
whatever happened to Pelosi's investigation of Trump for failing to stem the pandemic? Just talk and BS???
The NASDAQ is now positive for the year.That's a little surprising to me, but not a HUGE surprise.
That's a little surprising to me, but not a HUGE surprise.
Obviously in the dot com boom, my industry [tech] was the fuel for the boom and thus got hammered in the bust. But it was a bubble that was formed on a rising tide, and all the factors that created it were real and have only expanded since.
In the Great Recession, tech was largely unaffected. It was mostly a financial / blue collar impact that hit the mortgage industry (expanded into banking) and the construction industry. While it might have dampened the overall economy, it didn't directly impact or affect tech.
This is much the same. It's hammering retail/service industries hard, because those businesses have been forcibly shut down. Communications & Information Technology is largely considered an essential industry, and high tech is one of the industries that transitions easily to WFH. Construction is considered an essential industry, and while it's not easy to do WFH, they're still going to work building things.
The biggest potential hit to tech is if consumers can't buy things, either because the stores are closed or because they're on unemployment and don't want to spend if they don't have to. Mobile phones have been hammered during this for a combination of those two reasons. But tech in general is booming. Work from home and distance learning created an immediate new demand on tech infrastructure for those who are still working, and for kids. For those people and everyone else, the retreat inside our homes meant that most of our communication and entertainment is now electronic--social media and Netflix. So someone who might normally have gone and met friends for happy hour on a Tuesday night after work is now sitting at home on the couch watching streaming video. Huge boom there.
So while I wasn't sure whether the downturn in retail or the upturn in the rest of tech would be a net plus or net minus for tech, I knew it wasn't all negative news. I'm not at all surprised that the NASDAQ is up.
Like how Jefferson suggested constitutional revisions every 20 years or so. Wide-scope corrections/improvements...basically building on what is learned over time, instead of waiting for a certain party (or special interest) to gain or lose control.You're writing as if we are still living with the Constitution of 1787.
Examples that come to mind are probably social equality issues that could have been taken care of decades earlier. Speaking more broadly, that would be tough, because it'd be time-sensitive.
Everybody loves the constitution and it's great and all, but there are many out there who treat it like it was carved into stone by the baby jesus from on-high. It's not perfect. It can be improved/edited. Why not improve/edit it?
You're writing as if we are still living with the Constitution of 1787.There's a third process... The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution changes over time.
We're not. There's a process for improving/editing it. It has been applied 27 times. Sometimes the change has been for the better, other times for the worse. That process is still available for us to use.
Actually, two processes, one we've successfully (in terms of getting the change applied) used 27 times and the other (Article V convention of states) that has not been tried.
So, again, what particular changes would you like to see?
The Department of Justice is dropping the criminal case against President Donald Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, abandoning a prosecution that became a rallying cry for Trump and his supporters in attacking the FBI's Russia investigation.They should've dropped the case on Flynn. What they actually need to do is bring up charges on the FBI and Comey.
I recall some "not my president," one endless investigation of a political rival and another, well a campaign by a future president for an investigation. Obviously hats weren't a thing at that point. A "resist" part seems not exactly analogous to the Tea Party push, but some of the fiery sentiments echo.So, if I read you right, you're saying that "liberals" have been ham-fisted assholes while "conservatives" have been sharp, elegant assholes?
To me, much of the tone was brought to light though the last campaign. We'd been brewing elements of all this for a while. Words had been heated from the left through the W era, but were mostly taken at pearl clutching and such. Through the 2008-16 run, I think a certain extra level of extreme tone was burbling, more effectively from the party not controlling the executive (we talked about a "war on Christmas" and people seemed endlessly triggered by "happy holidays"). Different sides employed different brass knuckled approaches, with some hard-edged realpolitik to grind things to a halt and then try to slow them down.
And then in all this, you had a looming specter of a party that had held the executive for so long in seemingly better shape on that front. The other side's field was weak. There was talk of demographic changes putting the squeeze on that side. And it allowed a crack for a person with nothing to lose to harness that extreme tone. That tone had always been powerful, but had been kept as the quiet part. Suddenly it was loud. Historically, that brashness created missteps and missteps were costly. But it turned out that tone was quite powerful. It bundled with the game theory that keeps us at two parties, that at a point, people have to put something aside for something else they want. And in the dark parts of ourselves, I think there's some satisfaction in indulging in that kind of extreme tone. The right use of that tone, the right appeal in certain sectors and the natural coming home phenomenon allowed for a big swing.
And when the electoral outcome fell, it made that tone not the impediment it once was, but made clear it's the source of strength it has slowly grown into. The left has long been more hamfisted in trying to harness such a tone. The right, more elegant and sharp, like a boxer tight in its movements. And we find ourselves in this spot, at least until someone can capture electoral wins with a different sort of rhetoric.
yup, but againyup.
nothing will happen, just headlines and bullsh!t
The Department of Justice is dropping the criminal case against President Donald Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, abandoning a prosecution that became a rallying cry for Trump and his supporters in attacking the FBI's Russia investigation.What criminal case is this? Flynn pled guilty 2 (?) years ago and was convicted. He has lately said that he wants to withdraw his agreement to the plea-bargain because he was misled by the FBI and poorly represented by his lawyers. Is his conviction being overturned?
will be the same with the insider trading of the Senators
oh, this is a big deal, we are going to punish the offenders!
then nothing, it goes away after a few months of wasting time and money
the rich politicians do not punish themselves
the impeachment proceedings probably the same deal. Much ado about nuttin
So, if I read you right, you're saying that "liberals" have been ham-fisted assholes while "conservatives" have been sharp, elegant assholes?
As someone who was very unhappy about the election of Barack Obama, I think I can safely say that some of the opposition to him was based on racism. It wasn't my objection--there were several black conservatives whom I gladly would have supported, as well as others whom I have supported in the past--but it surely was the main objective of some.
That was a bad thing for many reasons, one of which is that it allowed "liberals" to delegitimize all opposition to the Obama administration as being based on nothing more than bigotry.
But there was no riot (preplanned or spontaneous) on Inauguration Day in 2009 or 2013. Nor was there a follow-on "March" that blocked access to the monuments and museums for all the visitors and tourists. I was there that weekend, leading a student group. (I had agreed to do it a year earlier, before anyone knew who the nominees would be, much less the general election winner.) It was awful. Our trip (for which each student had paid over $1,000) was ruined. There was nothing like that to spoil the two previous inaugurations. (I'll add that the incoming POTUS' hugely self-referential inaugural address added to the spoilification.)
Bottom line for me: Things were bad in early 2009 in terms of the losing side refusing to graciously accept defeat and they were even worse--much worse--in early 2017. And, the way we're headed, they might be worse still in early 2021, regardless of whose turd of a candidate wins.
As someone who was very unhappy about the election of Barack Obama, I think I can safely say that some of the opposition to him was based on racism. It wasn't my objection--there were several black conservatives whom I gladly would have supported, as well as others whom I have supported in the past--but it surely was the main objective of some.can I ask why you were so unhappy? Was it the hope and change rhetoric? Did you think he was actually a progressive or liberal?
Completely agree. Unless Biden ends up winning and is considered just so milquetoast that he doesn't generate the same kind of scorn that, say, Hillary would have.If Biden wins, which I highly doubt- he will be out of the white house and in a nursing home by the time his 4 years are up. He is seriously losing it. It's hard to watch. It wouldn't be so funny if the entire system wasn't so corrupt.
Because if you loved W., you had to have liked Obama. He was almost the same guy in terms of policy, just came in very different packaging.I tend to think the only reliable reason to vote for a President is court appointments. A President really has limited powers otherwise. I also like Presidents who don't get us into conflicts, which was my one hope with Trump, maybe.
There's a third process... The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution changes over time.Yeah, but that one is not available to "We the People."
They should've dropped the case on Flynn. What they actually need to do is bring up charges on the FBI and Comey.Flynn violated the law.
can I ask why you were so unhappy? Was it the hope and change rhetoric? Did you think he was actually a progressive or liberal?I've gathered that CWSooner, like me, is a libertarian. Whether he's "big-L" or "little-l" libertarian is TBD.
Because if you loved W., you had to have liked Obama. He was almost the same guy in terms of policy, just came in very different packaging.
can I ask why you were so unhappy? Was it the hope and change rhetoric? Did you think he was actually a progressive or liberal?Obama's rhetoric and voting record (slim as it was) tagged him as the most left-wing president we had had. And there was a certain "there's not much about America to love" about him as well. That's why I was unhappy that he was elected.
Because if you loved W., you had to have liked Obama. He was almost the same guy in terms of policy, just came in very different packaging.
I've gathered that CWSooner, like me, is a libertarian. Whether he's "big-L" or "little-l" libertarian is TBD.I'm more of a "conservatarian," Bwarb.
I came into the 2008 election thinking that most of Obama's policies would probably not be things I would support, as he was a Democrat. I was REALLY hoping that he'd live up to the civil liberties noises he'd made through his campaign, as that was a huge portion of why I didn't like W. I was disappointed after seeing his administration, but was at least hopeful on election night.
Yeah, only a Democrat like Romney would ever advance something like Obamacare ....Romney's defense of that was politically weak, but it was constitutionally sound. There are things that are appropriate and constitutional for states to do that are not so for the federal government. (I thought RomneyCare was bad policy anyway.)
What criminal case is this? Flynn pled guilty 2 (?) years ago and was convicted. He has lately said that he wants to withdraw his agreement to the plea-bargain because he was misled by the FBI and poorly represented by his lawyers. Is his conviction being overturned?US dropped all charges today. Heads are rolling in the DOJ and soon in the FBI. Trouble is brewing.
It is public information, right? The media will report on it. They don't report an individual state until its polls have closed.Right.....but it's a NATIONAL election, and if it looks like it's going a certain way, that's going to influence results in the west.
Our elections are run by the states (within some limits).
Flynn violated the law.QuoteQuoteIf you think that Hillary should have been prosecuted, as I do, then you have to accept that the prosecution of Flynn was justified.
I just wish everybody had to play by the same set of rules.
Right.....but it's a NATIONAL election, and if it looks like it's going a certain way, that's going to influence results in the west.The Presidential election technically is NOT a national election at all. It's all run by the states (within certain national "limits").
It seems like an obvious conflict that's easily fixed. Just wait a couple of hours.
Ok. I'm 100% with you there.Yeah, Flynn pled guilty to the least of his crimes and the feds dropped the more serious stuff. Now he wants to retract his guilty plea. I have little sympathy for the guy.
But Flynn made a plea deal to a single charge- lying to the FBI about a telephone conversation. That's it. All of the documents and information that have been released showed the FBI entrapped him. It was some really sneaky BS and abuse of FBI power. It absolutely, 100% should've been dismissed and I am glad that it was.
If they want to throw a charge at him for violation of the FARA act for not registering as a foreign agent that was lobbying on behalf of a foreign government and for trying to register it after the fact- go ahead be my guest. All signs point to him being guilty as sin there. But I'm guessing that is a whole can of worms the elite in DC do not want to open. My guess is a lot of them are guilty as sin in this regard.
The Presidential election technically is NOT a national election at all. It's all run by the states (within certain national "limits").That, IMO, would be a probably-technically constitutional way to completely violate the spirit of the Constitution. There's no way that the Framers could have imagined that someday the people of some states would determine their electoral votes by seeing how people in other states voted.
The state legislatures are allowed to select Electors anyway they wish. They could use Clucko to pick them if they wanted. They could pick them at random from the voting lists (which might be more effective). They might even be able to select electors not based on what their state outcome is but on the NATIONAL popular vote.
The Presidential election technically is NOT a national election at all. It's all run by the states (within certain national "limits").You're arguing something I'm not addressing on purpose. I get all of that, BUT - no state should release its results until all states are finished voting. Virginia can start counting and finish, but hold onto the results until the other states' voting are closed.
The state legislatures are allowed to select Electors anyway they wish. They could use Clucko to pick them if they wanted. They could pick them at random from the voting lists (which might be more effective). They might even be able to select electors not based on what their state outcome is but on the NATIONAL popular vote.
You're arguing something I'm not addressing on purpose. I get all of that, BUT - no state should release its results until all states are finished voting. Virginia can start counting and finish, but hold onto the results until the other states' voting are closed.I don't see any harm in that either, although I haven't thought it through.
I don't see any harm in that and kind of can't believe why it isn't that way.
Yeah, Flynn pled guilty to the least of his crimes and the feds dropped the more serious stuff. Now he wants to retract his guilty plea. I have little sympathy for the guy.Well a significant portion of the Trump administration has done the exact same thing Hillary did. They have all been caught using private servers to avoid FOIA. That's not political, that's a fact.
However, I'll always believe that if I as an Army officer had disclosed the classified information that Hillary did before, during, and after her tenure as Secretary of State I would have been court-martialed, convicted, and sent to Leavenworth for the Long Tour. I was in three different assignments that required me to have a TS-plus clearance, so I've had some experience dealing with classified material. As we operated when I was an air cavalry squadron S-2 (intelligence and security officer), my team would not disclose information from open sources if we knew that it was classified. So, even if TIME magazine had a story that included information in it that we knew to be classified, we would not use that information in a non-classified briefing. Hillary, at the opposite end of the carefulness spectrum, figured that if she just deleted the classification markings from a document, it was OK to deal with it as if it came out of TIME magazine.
I saw an analysis of what the FBI did and it did not meet the definition of entrapment. Entrapment is when you trick the other party into committing a crime, not when you trick him into admitting that he committed it.
I don't think the FBI has clean hands in all its dealings with Trump associates, subordinates, and hangers-on, but that doesn't mean that Flynn should not suffer punishment for his crimes.