US Politics: Help Me Vladimir!!! Xi Wants Me to Lose!!!

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

I'm all for reigning in the police along a number of axes.  Arpaio was a long time whipping horse so not sure which travesty specifically you mean.  Is this a stop and frisk sort of thing?

Am in favor of more localized and less federalized police.  Certainly some assholes will abuse their power but at least if it's localized instead of national people have the last resort to vote with their feet.

Really, absent military conflict with another nation state, bottom up is generally the way to go. But collectivists have to collectivise.

Arpaio was specifically told by a federal court to stop violating the 4th amendment rights of latinos and refused to obey, got found in contempt of court and then got pardoned by Trump.

Anyway, most mainstream conservatives have little basis for lecturing everyone else about "freedom" since they so often support a "tough on crime" approach which often manifest itself by pissing all over things like due process rights, the 4th amendment rights, etc. And don't even get me started on all the horseshit that happened under Bush, like military tribunals etc., which conservatives supported.

Now more libertarian minded types will often protest these things, but when it comes to choosing between voting against things they claim they don't like such as interventionist wars, military tribunals, and excesses by the police and voting for tax cuts, it seems tax cuts wins every time.

[mcbigski]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Arpaio was specifically told by a federal court to stop violating the 4th amendment rights of latinos and refused to obey.

Anyway, most mainstream conservatives have little basis for lecturing everyone else about "freedom" since they so often support a "tough on crime" approach which often manifest itself by pissing all over things like due process rights, the 4th amendment rights, etc. And don't even get me started on all the horseshit that happened under Bush, like military tribunals etc., which conservatives supported.

No more libertarian minded types will often protest these things, but when it comes to choosing between voting against things they claim they don't like such as interventionist wars, military tribunals, and excesses by the police and voting for tax cuts, it seems tax cuts wins every time.

I want to rant about due process re kavanaugh v Biden but I drank more today than I've had in the previous ten days combined so if "classically liberal" is some sort of asshole, then yeah that's me.

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

I want to rant about due process re kavanaugh v Biden but I drank more today than I've had in the previous ten days combined so if "classically liberal" is some sort of asshole, then yeah that's me.

Well I think some people that claim to be "classically liberal" really are not. They don't seem to antagonize that much over who to vote for, when tax cuts are involved. They would vote for Mussolini if he promised a tax cut.

 

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

so if "classically liberal" is some sort of asshole, then yeah that's me.

Well, to be fair, Hobbes, Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Madison.  They all were pretty big assholes.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Lol, I’d hate to see the kind of Terror the US would descend into if there were a revolution now.

I think you can see what it looks like --because it never quite goes away if one is African American, particularly.  Lynching was rife, and there are constant reminders as threats of how people have no qualms about doing it now, with nooses left in prominent spots even in Harvard.  The burning of entire prosperous communities of black people  and their mass murder happened often in real life, not just in super hero graphic novels.

And if one is Native American ... even now as again their lands are being taken for the rich white people's exploitation.  Not to mention if one is Mexican descent and being hunted down for incarceration and deportation.

Yah, we have a really good idea of what the Terror here looks like.  More of what is already happening.

 

[mcbigski]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I think you can see what it looks like --because it never quite goes away if one is African American, particularly.  Lynching was rife, and there are constant reminders as threats of how people have no qualms about doing it now, with nooses left in prominent spots even in Harvard.  The burning of entire prosperous communities of black people  and their mass murder happened often in real life, not just in super hero graphic novels.

And if one is Native American ... even now as again their lands are being taken for the rich white people's exploitation.  Not to mention if one is Mexican descent and being hunted down for incarceration and deportation.

Yah, we have a really good idea of what the Terror here looks like.  More of what is already happening.

 

IDK I binged "Harvard noose" and Jeremy Lin was inexplicable the 8th response. (4th on duck duck go)  Are you thinking of one of those fake hate crimes that get memory holed once the instigator gets fingered, or is Bing leading me astray? None of the top seven seemed relevant to your point.  (Gates is clearly a Xi apologist these days so diminishing a hate crime to increase polarization wouldnt be totally outlandish.  Though sticking with the first order stuff would be more effective IMO.)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Really?  Trump isn't just sometime wrong, or even wrong more often than not, but antithetical to right think categorically?  Scot my impression is that the number of topics you are willing to hold your own opinion on has shrunk noticeably.

I cannot abide Donald Trump.  The man is a huckster of the first order.  He absolutely doesn’t believe in limited government given the way he minges and moans whenever he’s told he lacks the power to do anything. 

He is the worst person to hold the office of President in US history.

[Raja]

.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Given the evolution into “La Terreur” is the French Revolution really where you want to brag?

After all these years, you still think I'd be foolish enough to "brag" about such a thing? Jeez Scot, I'm almost hurt.

The French Revolution, not unlike the Russian Revolution, had far greater aspirations than the American Revolution. Both French and Russian Revolutions were quickly betrayed and failed dismally. History was then rewritten to hide what could have been, so that the masses wouldn't get any funny ideas, and now it often takes a bit of research to have even a vague idea of what these aspirations were.
By contrast, I think it'd be fair to say the American Revolution succeeded. Or it accomplished its main goals at least, which is undeniably something. Was egalitarianism really one of these goals though? That's actually a rather complicated question methinks. I'm sure everyone here knows enough to realize why one should be quite cautious about their answer.

31 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Trump has reduced (I wanted to say significantly, but lets be honest here Leviathan has inertia on its side) regulation.  More freedom. 

Regulations limit the freedoms of some people in order to protect the freedoms of other people. Eliminating them gives more freedom to some people and less to others.
The very idea that regulations are a problem was carefully constructed and nurtured over the last decades for extremely specific purposes. It's really not hard to guess, or simply observe, what these goals are.
In fact, the elimination of necessary regulations has led to such human tragedy that I'm really quite surprised anyone would still have the audacity to keep claiming they are a problem. You sir, are certainly a bold thinker, bravo!

[mcbigski]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 

He is the worst person to hold the office of President in US history.

OK that sounds like a roll back from your original position.  Is he really clearly worse than Buchanan (let's just punt this whole emancipation thing) or Wilson (Birth of a Nation in the White House)?  We all have different priorities...

[mcbigski]

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Regulations limit the freedoms of some people in order to protect the freedoms of other people. Eliminating them gives more freedom to some people and less to others.
The very idea that regulations are a problem was carefully constructed and nurtured over the last decades for extremely specific purposes. It's really not hard to guess, or simply observe, what these goals are.
In fact, the elimination of necessary regulations has led to such human tragedy that I'm really quite surprised anyone would still have the audacity to keep claiming they are a problem. You sir, are certainly a bold thinker, bravo!

Not sure what the process is over there, but here there is legislation and then there is regulation.  A lot of that is the fault of Congress in that they defer to the executive branch decisions that should be made legislatively.  Probably because they trust the bureaucrats to know from where the butter hits the bread, but also because it's safer to pass the buck.

Ideally regulation would be for the common good, but in practice, it's largely about who has the most generous lobbyists.  So I think too many regulations are about protecting the previous power holders rather than making a more level playing field.

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Probably because they trust the bureaucrats to know from where the butter hits the bread, but also because it's safer to pass the buck.

Well that is sometimes because the bureaucrats are the only ones that have the technical knowledge to devise the regulations. Members of congress just often don't have the technical expertise. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any accountability to congress, but the idea that your going to only have regulation done only by congress is fantasy.

[Rippounet]

3 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Ideally regulation would be for the common good, but in practice, it's largely about who has the most generous lobbyists.  So I think too many regulations are about protecting the previous power holders rather than making a more level playing field.

Your argument seems to boil down to saying things that don't work as they should might as well be eliminated.

Surely you can see that the real world doesn't work like that?

[OldGimletEye]

21 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Ideally regulation would be for the common good, but in practice, it's largely about who has the most generous lobbyists.  So I think too many regulations are about protecting the previous power holders rather than making a more level playing field.

Under your sink, do you have p-trap or an s-trap?

[OldGimletEye]

33 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The very idea that regulations are a problem was carefully constructed and nurtured over the last decades for extremely specific purposes. It's really not hard to guess, or simply observe, what these goals are.

Conservatives would have had a lot more credible argument if they went after specific regulations. Some are horseshit.

But, they didn't make very fine distinctions between types of regulations. And one thinks, that was done intentionally, in part, because rich people just don't like being told what to do, even if their conduct is socially harmful.

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Well, to be fair, Hobbes, Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Madison.  

Did the  you start thinking about the "invisible hand" when you learned about multiple nash equilibrium in game theory?

[Rippounet]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, they didn't make very fine distinctions between types of regulations. And one thinks, that was done intentionally, in part, because rich people just don't like being told what to do, even if their conduct is socially harmful.

I think we know for a fact that it was done intentionally. Or at least, you and I do. But that takes some idea about the greater picture, complete with historical perspective and some basic knowledge of economics, both of which are not as easy to find as they should be.

[ThinkerX]

hmm...

semi-positive accomplishments of President Donald Trump

1 - Did force NATO allies to cough up more for their own defense. 

2 - Did correctly identify US government bureaucracy was (and is) a bloated mostly nonfunctional mess - but went about fixing said issue in entirely the wrong way.

3 - Identified and tested multiple issues with the constitution - mostly from trying to exceed his authority.

4 - did successfully stack the courts with conservative appointees. (good if you are a conservative)

5 - tax cut that mostly benefited the 1% (plus for them, so-so or minus for everybody else)

Weighed against those points...

1 - trade war marked by regressive tariffs that crippled the economy

2 - semi-legal (at best) diversion of funds to build a vanity wall motivated by sheer racism

3 - promotion of racism in general

4 - refusal to acknowledge climate change, going so far as to suppress existing measures and promote destructive fossil fuel use 

plus rampant corruption, monumental incompetence, utter lack of empathy, 

 

[Rippounet]

5 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

plus rampant corruption, monumental incompetence, utter lack of empathy,

I would also add rapidly diminishing cognitive ability.

This could be seen as a partisan thing to say a couple of years ago, but I think by now even a Trump voter should be able to see that the man is getting worse. It's not that easy to see because he wasn't great to begin with, but it's obvious the man is senile.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Did the  you start thinking about the "invisible hand" when you learned about multiple nash equilibrium in game theory?

Pretty sure I was too preoccupied thinking about how Jennifer Connelly was way too hot to be playing a mathematician's wife.