US politics: Heil to the Chief :(

[Commodore]

2 hours ago, Stannistician said:

But I would point out to @Commodore that the first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."  This has been construed by the courts to mean any state action, which would include disciplining government employees.  So by the "letter of the law", or whatever the strict constructionists are calling it these days, employees being disciplined for the content of emails would not be protected by the 1st amendment.  Nor would the state's rights people (who are usually strict constructionists) get their precious sovereign immunity by looking at the plain text of the document. 

(1) we're talking about a priori abridgements on the ability (the freedom) to speak that is forbidden by the 1st Amendment . It does not mean there can be no legal consequences for the nature of that speech after the fact (inciting a panic with speech for example is punishable, but if you say the same words when no one is around, that would not be).

(2) a government employee voluntarily consents to work-related restrictions, and the punishment would be for violating those terms and conditions

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Citation needed, as this doesn't make a fucking bit of sense. The perception is that they don't meet the needs,  The reality is that they do.

What president was Quimby? 

The 70% number comes from an actual study done. And no, it is not based on small things while missing big ones. It's based on hitting big and small things, period. 

What do you base your "reality" on? Studies by people who (at best!) barely grasp the idea of a systematic uncertainty?

Quimby is the mayor from the Simpsons whom I borrowed to illustrate an example of how one might get 70% based on trivialities. Your link provides a different example: they base their calculation not on instances of successfully addressing a problem, but on attempts to address it (even if these attempts actually make things worse).

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

This is nonsense. It's true that we are perhaps in a state of disequilibrium as technology replaces labor jobs. But usually, in the long run, higher capital creates more labor productivity. Labor and capital are complementary. That is how we usually think about it. I don't think that is going to change.

It has already started changing. These are not laws of nature; they may work for a very long time... and then suddenly stop. It's difficult to predict so of course I could be wrong, but I believe my way of thinking is more rational.

[SkynJay]

Stein will do the dirty work for Clinton; its talking about requesting a recount in three states.

Ill be honest.  As much as I despise Trump I am even more scared that our election process could have been so seemingly screwed with.  I will therefore be hoping that after a recount (if it happens) no major evidence of hacking is shown.

[Dr. Pepper]

Any chance she could raise the needed funds by the deadlines?

[Stannistician]

@Commodore

I agree with you about point number 2.  As I pointed out earlier, the punishment would have to be about violating the prohibition against the use of email that was agreed to and not the content of the speech because 1st Amendment restrictions do apply depending on what was said. 

 For point number 1:  Yes, certain forms of speech are protected, while others are not.  If an employee sent an email to a third party about how they want to kill their boss - that is not protected speech.  But speaking about Obama care for example, would likely be protected depending on what is said.  It sounds like we agree on this point. 

The point I was trying to make was to relate back to earlier posts that you made regarding strictly construing the constitution as it related to the case in Wisconsin and what Justice Kennedy has said regarding the Equal Protection Clause applying in these situations.  Then later, you stated that the 1st Amendment would apply to government emails (which is true depending on the nature of the speech). 

The point I am making is that strictly construing the constitution in the manner that you suggested should apply to the case in Wisconsin, if applied to your correct observation that 1st Amendment applies to government employee emails, would leave no free speech protections for any actions that the government can take except for laws made by Congress, and that therefore it would never cover a situation where government employees were disciplined for speech. In other words, strict construction would have ridiculous results.  Can't have it both ways. 

[OldGimletEye]

21 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It has already started changing. These are not laws of nature; they may work for a very long time... and then suddenly stop. It's difficult to predict so of course I could be wrong, but I believe my way of thinking is more rational.

More "rational" Okay. It just goes against about at least 100 years of economic theory. And it goes against historical experience.

Technological innovation is the key driver in productivity gains. And there is no reason to presume that labor released from certain task because of technological change will not be able to find employment elsewhere eventually.

Not that we should be indifferent to the plight of people that have lost their jobs because of technological change or free trade. We should. One of the failures of conservatism with regard to these people is to do nothing more than start reading Ayn Rand.

[Commodore]

13 minutes ago, Stannistician said:

@Commodore

The point I am making is that strictly construing the constitution in the manner that you suggested should apply to the case in Wisconsin, if applied to your correct observation that 1st Amendment applies to government employee emails, would leave no free speech protections for any actions that the government can take except for laws made by Congress, and that therefore it would never cover a situation where government employees were disciplined for speech. In other words, strict construction would have ridiculous results.  Can't have it both ways. 

This goes way beyond strictly construing. This is making stuff up out of whole cloth to achieve a personal preference.

The ludicrous claim that the 14th amendment requires there be an equal number of overflow votes in congressional races for each party across a state is a made up metric with no connection to the Constitution. Judges have no right to impose it by decree.

There's no guarantee that geographic proximity based districts would achieve such an outcome. Are those now also unconstitutional?

[SkynJay]

30 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Any chance she could raise the needed funds by the deadlines?

I'd assume so because it would be Hillary who would win if something actually happened.  as such I'd assume lots of her supporters would donate.

[Mudguard]

9 minutes ago, SkynJay said:

I'd assume so because it would be Hillary who would win if something actually happened.  as such I'd assume lots of her supporters would donate.

Seems like a waste of time and money, but if people want to waste their own money, it's their right.  There's been no evidence of hacking.  Apparently, the argument is that the voting machines could potentially be hacked, so why not do a recount to make sure, even though they've found no evidence of hacking or any voting irregularities.

Quote

But in a Medium post on Wednesday, Halderman said the New York article “includes some incorrect numbers” and misrepresented his argument for recounts. He laid out an argument based not on any specific suspicious vote counts but on evidence that voting machines could be hacked, and that using paper ballots as a reference point could help determine if there were hacks. “Examining the physical evidence in these states — even if it finds nothing amiss — will help allay doubt and give voters justified confidence that the results are accurate,” Halderman wrote.

Using this argument, you may as well do a recount every time a voting machine was used, just to make sure.  Moronic.

[SkynJay]

To be clear I don't think there was hacking, and I doubt Clinton would have touched this either.  But if Stein wants to do the dirty work here I'll watch from afar;  and I doubt she would have a lack of backers.

[Happy Ent]

9 hours ago, Mudguard said:

Using this argument, you may as well do a recount every time a voting machine was used, just to make sure.  Moronic.

Halderman is not a moron, and his argument is not moronic. I don’t think there is anybody on the planet who I trust more in e-voting questions than Alex. (Also, nice guy.)

Voting machines are a bad idea because they are very easy to manipulate. (Alex himself has demonstrated that many time.) Recounts are a good idea because they increase trust in the electoral process, which is the most important aspect of the voting system.

(There is a mini-course in political philosophy and democratic theory here, which I won’t bore you with.)

Many democracies have routine recounts built into the process. (As opposed to recounts that are triggered by a formal protest, like the US.) This is a good idea. Many countries eschew voting machines (mechanical or electronic) and use paper ballots and transparent hand-counting. This is a good idea. These systems enjoy very high trust. 

The US is currently experiencing a (completely correct, predictable, and democratically healthy) decrease of trust in the voting process, to some extent motivated by the increase of opaque (machine-based) voting processes that are not routinely audited. This problem can be addressed exactly in the way that Alex (and many other experts in voting systems, including me) advocate. Risk-minimsing audits are a tiny step in the right direction (and very far from the systems routinely employed in many other countries).

This is not a principled criticism of US democracy, but a correct, constructive, and highly welcome suggestion of an incremental change toward a somewhat better system.

[The guy from the Vale]

I'm in favor of the recount. I don't expect it to change anything because the discrepancies can be explained by demographic differences. But in an election during which hacking played a significant role, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

[Future Null Infinity]

Trump's son went to Paris to talk about Russia's role in Syria, organized by pro-Bashar group endorsed by Kremlin

http://usa.liveuamap.com/en/2016/24-november-trumps-son-went-to-paris-to-talk-about-russias

It's official, Trump and Putin are the best homies 

[Free Northman Reborn]

27 minutes ago, Future Null Infinity said:

Trump's son went to Paris to talk about Russia's role in Syria, organized by pro-Bashar group endorsed by Kremlin

http://usa.liveuamap.com/en/2016/24-november-trumps-son-went-to-paris-to-talk-about-russias

It's official, Trump and Putin are the best homies 

Why is this a surprise?

More importantly, why is this of concern, from a US point of view? If anything, it should be celebrated as the dawn of a new era of co-operation between the world's two great Nuclear Powers, and 2 of the 5 Security Council members. And after Brexit and Le Pen's rise in France, this could be the start of closer ties between all four of these Security Council members.

 

[Future Null Infinity]

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Why is this a surprise?

More importantly, why is this of concern, from a US point of view? If anything, it should be celebrated as the dawn of a new era of co-operation between the world's two great Nuclear Powers, and 2 of the 5 Security Council members. And after Brexit and Le Pen's rise in France, this could be the start of closer ties between all four of these Security Council members.

 

I'm not surprised and I'm not concerned, it's a good thing because too much time was wasted for nothing in the diplomatic war between Obama and Putin

[mormont]

15 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Why is this a surprise?

More importantly, why is this of concern, from a US point of view? If anything, it should be celebrated as the dawn of a new era of co-operation between the world's two great Nuclear Powers, and 2 of the 5 Security Council members. And after Brexit and Le Pen's rise in France, this could be the start of closer ties between all four of these Security Council members.

It's almost as if it were some sort of new world order.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

It's almost as if it were some sort of new world order.

Except that this New World Order is based primarily on respecting the distinct and separate interests of each nation state first rather than blurring the lines between nations in pursuit of some borderless global village.

[Martell Spy]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/22/13641654/paul-ryan-trump-poverty-safety-net
The War on the Poor: Donald Trump's win opens the door to Paul Ryan's vision for America

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/138955/happens-trumps-populism-collides-ryans-austerity
What Happens When Trump’s Populism Collides with Ryan’s Austerity?
A battle over infrastructure could be the start of a big, bloody, intraparty

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/court-opens-door-to-restrictions-on-partisan-gerrymandering.html

Federal Court Opens the Door to Restrictions on Partisan Gerrymandering

 

 

[mormont]

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Except that this New World Order is based primarily on respecting the distinct and separate interests of each nation state first rather than blurring the lines between nations in pursuit of some borderless global village.

My tongue was firmly in my cheek there, for the avoidance of doubt.

But Putin has no ideological interest in any of the above, he's just playing Trump. Theresa May, meanwhile, much as I dislike her politics, isn't really cut from the same cloth as any of the rest, and Le Pen hasn't won anything yet. There's no new world order here. Not yet.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

49 minutes ago, Future Null Infinity said:

I'm not surprised and I'm not concerned, it's a good thing because too much time was wasted for nothing in the diplomatic war between Obama and Putin

It was wasted because Putin did a much better job of it.