ViperMan
-
Posts
652 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by ViperMan
-
-
1 hour ago, jazzdude said:
Social security already penalizes you if you don't work, assuming you qualify. Your entitlement is based off an average of your 35 highest earning years. If you have years where you don't work, that $0 for those years significantly pulls down that average, reducing your benefit. So in your example, 8 years of $0 is really going to hurt that social security payment, and delaying their already reduced payment penalizes them a second time for the same gap in work. Putting numbers to your example, someone earning $70k per year (a decent job in many areas in the country) for 35 years would have a benefit based on their average income of $70k/year. But if they are out of work for 8 years, but earn $70k the rest of the years, their benefit is based on an average income of $54k.
And don't forget that a spouse that stays home to raise their kids, or someone who takes care of a family member full time, or someone that takes a sabbatical to do volunteer work full time while living off their savings are all unemployed for the purposes of social security, and may have their benefit reduced the same amount as someone who was lazy and just didn't want to work.If I were to refer to that as a penalty, I would use the adjective just. In actuality (IMO), it's simply a reasonable feature of the system. If you want the lesser time share, fine! Pay the lesser amount! Don't work. No skin off my back. I wouldn't call it a penalty to not have income if I didn't work, I'd call it a consequence.
Social security does actually penalize you, though, for a lot more than that, including:
- Beginning work early in your life - since you pay that tax early and get no interest credit for the time your payment has funded the system. Not to mention the fact that if you begin work earlier, it's notionally at a lower wage, granting you less credit than someone who paid into the system later, but at a higher wage rate.
- Having a lower life expectancy - since different groups (men) live shorter lives, they wind up getting less benefit - especially since this group (as a whole) pays a lot more into the system. The affects minority groups, as well.
In terms of the "spouse that stays home to raise the kids" being penalized, it's exactly the opposite. Lesser-earning working spouses wind up paying a 100% marginal tax rate in some cases due to the earning differences between spouses. Here's the math:
- Al and Alice make $70K and $20K a year, respectively. Because of dependent and survivor provisions, Alice is entitled to social security at the income level that Al paid out.
- Karl and Karen make $70K and $0K a year, respectively. Karen stays home raising the kids. Karen is entitled to Karl's level of social security based on the same provisions.
- Alice and Karen are entitled to the same amount of social security benefits.
Who's making out and who's losing in the above scenario? Karen is winning like a big dog, while poor Alice, slaving away during the night shift emptying bed pans is reducing her earned benefit by one dollar for every dollar she would receive based on Al's contributions to social security. Not to mention the added detriment that she's going to need to hire a baby sitter. Here, not working truly does pay off.
There are a lot of dynamics to taxation that aren't apparent on the surface, but which are absolutely real. Want to maximize your social security income? The best way to do it is to not work and be married to a high-earner. If you can't do that, the best way is to delay your payment into the system as long as humanly possible. Want to maximize your social security "penalty"? Get married to a high-earning spouse and work your ass off at a low paying job.
-
1
-
13 hours ago, jazzdude said:
Checking accounts are free, but often only if you maintain a certain amount of money in the account. If you're struggling to make ends meet and are living paycheck to paycheck, a checking account could be an extra expense you have to deal with. Same with ATM fees. Or buying checks. And this assumes you have a device with internet connectivity to check your balance instead of maintaining a checking ledger and going it adds up at the end of the month. And you may have to pay for paper statements.
I agree we're seeing a change due to technology, but I don't think it's so much a decentralization as it is a flattening of the system and eliminating the middlemen (which you've mentioned).
Better communications technologies and automation allows the end users more direct access to core businesses. This is great for both the consumer and for the business providing that core good or service.
However, so many businesses fill the middleman role, or employ a large portion of people acting as middlemen (just processing paperwork). What happens when those jobs are eliminated (or outsourced some where cheaper)? Where do they go to earn a living? A lot of outsourcing concerns have generally been to overseas, but the pandemic has shown US companies they can outsource within the US to cheaper cost of living areas and drive down personnel costs (much cheaper to hire an engineer living in Kansas than one in California). This can also drive significant changes in worker's lives, as they may be forced to move (without assistance) to compete for potentially their own job, or just suck up the hit on income and make it work. AI and machine learning is still in its infancy, but as those technologies mature, they risk eliminating creative work (like engineering, analysis, and design), further exacerbating technologies impact on the workforce.
The free market doesn't really care what happens to those people that are out of work due to automation or outsourcing, so long as there are consumers out there to but their products or services. And as long as the government protects the businesses from violence (though maintaining normal law and order), businesses don't have an incentive to care about what happens to their former workers or their impact on society. But desperate people will resort to desperate measures, so unless we as a society (either through government, or "ethical" employers) make changes to adapt to how technology is changing society, we probably will see more civil unrest in the future.What we probably need to do is implement some sort of "capital control" on people who make less than a certain amount of money. No shit. I get people need checking accounts, but if you're literally that thin, and can't ever get a leg up, you may need some "forced supervision" where X% of your paycheck is held in some form of escrow until you demonstrate proficiency at bill paying and checkbook balancing.
Sorry, I intended to draw a parallel (not a distinction) between decentralization and the elimination of middlemen - those things are synonymous in my vernacular. What happens when we get rid of middlemen? Good things in the long term. Entire new industries crop up. New shit gets invented. Economic "rent" disappears. Things people never even imagined get built and created and delivered to you. Short term? Pain. It's difficult to re-invent yourself in the midst of radical upheaval or later in life. I get the gravity of the challenge, but we're not going to side-step it.
One truth about all this technology: the level of control we (in the US) think we can place on the course of technology doesn't matter one bit. Not one little bit. If we "hold back" and think we're going to "slow roll" the transition to "whatever" in the name of preserving some other industry or group of workers because "justice," we are going to be kicked square between the legs when some other group of people (China) goes and does it anyway because they DGAF about our internal problems and have no problem leaving us in the dirt while they colonize the solar system.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Negatory said:
I think this is a poor representation of the problem, because I’m certain if that “homeboy” doesn’t have money, he’s trying to find a way to get some. Every human in American society has to spend money on food and shelter or else they become destitute. It’s not a “choice” to engage in the American economy for all but the most privileged of people.
While I think I see your theme, and it wasn't my intent to paint all recipients of relief as people who don't deserve or need it, there are plenty of people who fall into the category I identified. And that category is growing.
In any case, my original point was why does a pandemic justify paying someone who didn't have income in the first place? Operable phrase: "Why does the pandemic..." Not: "I wonder if this person who didn't have a job needs or would like government cheese."
So, why does the pandemic justify paying someone unemployment who didn't have income in the first place. If they qualified for unemployment, they should already be getting it. IMO, it's nothing more than a bribe.
1 hour ago, Negatory said:Maybe you could solve this problem by giving everyone money, but subtracting out the amount of benefits you are already receiving. E.g. if you get 20k in welfare and housing, you don’t get 20 more.
I think there are nuanced, not one size fits all, solutions that could address these issues.
The idea underlying this thought I could get behind. One idea would be to punt their social security collection X months/years into the future. "Oh, I see right here, Mr. Jones, that you needed 8 years of unemployment assistance to get by?" "Yes..." "Cool, well your social security check will start when you're 73...thanks."
Or, you want your social security to start on time? Sweet, then we'll enroll you in a "catch-up" plan to "re-fund" your "early withdrawal" and get you back in good standing.
We cannot continue to act as if there is infinite money. The rest of the world is only gonna let us get away with that for so long.
-
3
-
-
On 1/12/2021 at 9:16 PM, jazzdude said:
Been reading some interesting stuff online on wealth and morality in the US. Short version is we in the US, as a capitalistic and individualistic society, have tied being poor with being lazy and immorality. The corollary to that is that being rich means you worked hard to get rich, and must have shown great work ethic to get there, putting you in a position of moral superiority. In some cases, that's true. But if you have rich or well connected family, more opportunities come your way than if your family wasn't rich or well connected, which opens the door for more opportunities. So it makes it very easy to look down on people who are struggling or poor as being lazy, or for some other personal failing, when maybe they just need a hand to get back on their feet, or have an opportunity to prove themselves. On the flip side, the rich are looked up as role models, even though they may just be extremely lucky with their connections (the Kardashians, for example).
I think that's why many Americans, especially conservatives, have opposed direct payments. And Republicans are catering to businesses. Even the stimulus check we got were just that- spend money on the economy. Doesn't matter on what. It wasn't really pandemic relief for individuals, it was to keep the economic machine running since people typically start saving and cutting expenses when hard times come about.
Lastly, I agree with you that I, as an married FGO with no kids, probably shouldn't have gotten a stimulus check (and I'm pretty sure I'll have to pay it back anyways since my income in 2020 was significantly higher than my 2019 income used to determine eligibility for to a deployment)Check out the Pareto principle (not saying you're unfamiliar) - the idea behind the 80/20 rule. 80% (Crush 'em) of work is done by 20% of the employees; 80% of your productivity boils down to 20% of the "things" you have to do; etc, etc. It shows up in a very wide range of places...wealth distribution is one of them. I'm not against safety nets or providing honest help in situations with bonafide needs. I just think corollary to that is time-limited, strict, and conservative upper bounds on $$$ handed out.
Personally I opposed direct payments partly because I don't think a pandemic is reason to start paying people income who didn't have it in the first place. Homeboy wasn't working before there was a pandemic, he was cool with not having money? Cool. Why, now, does he need a check? The second reason I opposed them was because it keeps people tied to their jobs. Now, we have instances of people quitting because it's more lucrative to be unemployed. Translation: it's more lucrative for them to have other people work to pay their taxes and for them to sit home and collect that "extra" EOY money.
Agree on all of us getting checks. Ridiculous.
-
On 1/12/2021 at 8:13 PM, jazzdude said:
The other crazy thing in all of this is our election timelines. With faster modes of travel (or the ability to telecommute), modern communications, and technology to help speed up counting votes, why is our election so far from our from the actual inauguration?
I can see in the past needing time to:
- Manually count votes by hand
- Travel on foot or by horse to aggregate results at multiple levels
-Having electors gather and vote
-Having congressmen travel to deliver that vote to Congress
-Time to communicate the overall electoral votes and winner back to their home states and to the candidates
-Travel for the winning candidate to DC (if they aren't already there)
I can see why that took months originally, but maybe we should shorten it given modern technologies we enjoy now, versus keeping lame duck administrations who's only reason not to do something crazy in that time period is tradition (which arguably has now been broken).I see your point technically, but I do think there is good reason to hold the vote well in advance of the change-over of power. For one, it gives time to prepare for a swap out of the government. No surprises, plenty of time for the new team to plan while the old team is still in control. Also, it gives the country time to breathe and begin to adapt to their new reality.
On the topic of elections, though, one thing I do think we could move towards is what Negatory brought up earlier: ranked-choice voting, or at least some sort of voting scheme where it's not simple 1-on-1. Computerized voting systems eliminate the difficulty inherent in counting using such schemes and would be a welcome modification of our democratic process.
The current system breeds polarization and also drives "grouping" where it wouldn't otherwise take place (i.e. I'm not aligned with faction "A", but I'm more aligned with it than faction "B", so I'm with "A"). Having some version of a ranked-choice system would allow moderate voices to prevail, as the motivation to vote out of fear would evaporate (i.e. voting against the other guy - which was our last two elections, at least). Then the winner would be closest to center and if it wasn't your guy that won, the one that did would very likely be pretty close to what you wanted anyway, increasing your trust in government. All for a very simple adaptation to boot.
Instead, we get one clown show or another driving the bus. Personally, I love being in the back seat when numb nuts up front is going full-scale deflection one way or the other.
-
3
-
-
On 1/12/2021 at 7:17 PM, jazzdude said:
Makes two of us then. You're assessment is spot on.
It's been frustrating though seeing so many conservatives against net neutrality because they viewed it as anti business, and that the free market will self correct to deliver the "best" product or service, not realizing that regulations should be in place to stop exactly what is happening now with ISPs. That, or they just accept dealing with Comcast and their monopoly in many markets as a fact of life.
There are other tech issues that are interesting as well. I mentioned the shift to electronic banking earlier: should the government have some form of electronic banking not reliant on private banks or credit card companies to complete financial transactions? What about email and the servers to support it (after all, the federal government funds USPS for mail delivery, and email is much the modern letter)? It helps support our right to openly communicate. You could even argue that extend to social media platforms, though I'm not sure how that would be implemented (not sure how the government can regulate Facebook without giving Facebook a list of things people can't say, which would violate the spirit of the 1st amendment). I don't have the answers to these questions, and they are small issues, but they are interesting enough to merit more investigation/discussion on how technology changes our society, and what government needs to do to ensure our basic/fundamental rights are upheld.
Sure, some conservatives may chuck spears saying that's not the founder's intent, but times change and new technologies are being invented. It's just like when the left says the 2nd amendment only applies to firearms that existed in the founder's times: it's stupid, and misses the original intent of the founder's by being over simplistic and taking an overly literal interpretation of the constitution.Some interesting analysis, to be sure.
In a purely "capitalist" world, sure, let Comcast operate unchecked. Until then, though, they need gutter bumpers.
In regards to banking (et al), I could see good reason for lots of additional government services to be made available, the follow-up question then becomes "who would use it?" Checking accounts are already free...can't get cheaper than that unless you decide to pay someone to have a government checking account! My banking is already super convenient - I never even have to go to one. I have the service, but it's basically invisible to me.
Either way, I think we're witnessing the beginnings of the shift to broad decentralization of many technologies and services - banking is only one such instance. Reference Bitcoin, and all of the other digital currencies cropping up/gaining acceptance. Personally, I think if you can figure out what the societal/global impact of mass decentralization and removal of "middlemen" across the board is going to be, you'd be in a great place to predict the future.
-
2 hours ago, jazzdude said:
That's a foul, but legal based on the policies pushed by Republicans. An ISP should not have the power to unilaterally decide to block internet traffic.
But it's put Republicans in a weird spot: they don't want ISPs regulated or treated as common infrastructure, but that means that an ISP, as a business, can block whatever they want. They haven't really done so in the past because there hasn't been a business case for doing so (although streaming service can and do get throttled)
So the GOP (and the region served by that ISP) is reaping what the GOP sowed, and suddenly are surprised that their political platform has real consequences.
When you put all your faith in the free market, you are putting your faith in the market keeping the same values as you; otherwise, you can get screwed over real quick. And now conservatives (primarily on the far right) are getting screwed by the system they profess to love.
So it's internet access a right? Or is it a luxury? Because right now conservatives are screaming it's a right, and yet have blocked efforts for years to have internet treated as infrastructure, or to provide access to the poor ("Obama phone"), or to force ISPs to improve the physical internet infrastructure especially to rural areas.This one does.
I thought Ajit Pai was a total piece of shit. His is a prototypical example of the revolving door of lobbyists becoming a governing authority and then returning to industry after having had their impact.
The basic issue with not regulating it as common infrastructure is that the government has granted monopolies to ISPs and other utility companies to use public easements and rights-of-way to install their infrastructure. Not everyone has access to that. Not everyone is allowed to have access to that. So there are companies that have been given special privilege to conduct their business, and hence, should be regulated appropriately. That means Net Neutrality.
-
1
-
-
On 1/11/2021 at 8:34 AM, Swamp Yankee said:
I like Tulsi's stated positions on many issues, which are moderate and for the most part sensible. However, something isn't quite right. On Rogan and other podcasts she spends almost all her time railing against the left and virtually no time discussing/defending her political positions. My cynical side thinks that she is a "democrat" in order to stand apart from the crowd. Once her awareness grows beyond the IDW, she'll reposition herself as a republican and drop some of the more progressive positions she claims to have but never discusses. If true, it is deceptive, although I may still be in alignment with much of her platform.
It's because many of her positions are "Russia adjacent." I think she has some good qualities, but her foreign policy views are, frankly, extremely naive. Reference the buzz term she leans on during many of her interviews: "regime change wars." She dresses up her opinion with things that make sense (i.e. "military's mission is defense of America," etc.), but it is not at all coupled with the realpolitik of our modern world where smaller nations states fall into the orbits of larger ones.
She has some valid points, but her fundamental conclusion and orientation is wrong.
2 hours ago, FLEA said:Thinking about it further. I'm not even sure it matters. From Tulsi's point of view, I think the wider interest is we don't need to be policing every world dictator who gasses his people. Its certainly tragic and has a human costs, but shes clearly stated that the human costs of war should be bared by the US alone. Taken more holistically, and having looked up her remarks, I think she's quite clear her stance on international politics is one where we need to be willing to accept a few dictators in the world. I can't disagree with that.
I would agree with her in terms of we don't need to police the world, and I also think it's defensible to accept a few dictators in the world. IMO, our whole problem with AFG/IRQ (part 2), was how we fought. We went in full-bore when we should have gone in with extremely and narrowly tailored objectives; instead we went in trying to "take the cake."
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:
I was specific in what I said. Election fraud and the systemic persecution of black people in the new millennium were both false narratives.
19 unarmed black people were shot by police in 2019. Are you going to pretend like that was the narrative this summer? I can spend the time quoting the many public leftists who fanned the flames with a false premise, but maybe we're just misunderstanding each other's point?
If you think the protests over the summer were based on reality, spend the time and read the opposing side, you don't need me to Google it for you. Heather MacDonald has five great work on the subject. If you've done that and still buy the vision of a racist america in 2020, we'll just be stuck in different realities.
☝️ Reality.
Expect the more the left embraces, develops, and pushes a false reality, the further the polarization will become in our country.
What should happen is a frank, cultural discussion about what are, and are not the US's remaining racial challenges that need to be rectified. Systemic police violence against group 'X' is not on that list.
Unfortunately, what is on the table is demonstrably BS. Half of what's out there is information shaped to fit a narrative designed to drive policy decisions and law-making to serve a few of the chosen. The other half is desperately trying to maintain a grasp of reality.
-
6 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:
I generally agree with the above. The 5 points above would equally apply to Trump at the start of his term. In 2016, Trump won by the same electoral margin as Biden (and lost the popular vote, although officially that's not applicable) Thus, Trump should have followed the same principles. He didn't. Far from it.
Totally agree.
I wish Trump had been more mature during his tenure. I wish the media realized what/who they were dealing with and hadn't stooped to his level, but they did, and honestly, they do bear some of the responsibility for the current state of affairs.
In terms of the election being close, sorry, I was specifically referring to Georgia's Senate run-off, and the fact that it's now a 50/50 split. Trump wasn't really close in the presidential election. I give as much credence to voter fraud this time around as I did last time, which is to say, not much. I guess I should clarify: it happens, but not to a level that affects the outcome of elections (IMO, at least). Trump running with the trope that there was massive fraud that prevented his re-election is unironically pretty funny.
-
On 1/7/2021 at 12:53 PM, VMFA187 said:
Once I'm fully snapped in at my new position I'm going to start taking automotive classes across the street from Miramar so I can bank that $2,600/BAH for the Post-9/11 GI Bill!
Cranium's up, I think you need to be enrolled at greater than (or equal to) 50% of what is considered "full time" in order to collect any BAH, and then, you only collect the proportion that equates to your enrollment (i.e. 75% of a full time stud = 75% of BAH). For undergrad, that's usually 12 semester hours - so you need to be enrolled in 6 hrs. For grad school, it's usually 9 - so you need to be enrolled in 4.5. I'm not sure what formula is used for other types of school/training.
Edit: actually it's more than 50%.
-
59 minutes ago, HU&W said:
Looks like the far left propagandists of the media WANT this to be their Reichstag moment. They’re just as dangerous as the rioters from both fringes of the political spectrum who protest through violence. I sincerely hope there are enough moderates left, who don’t buy into the identity politics lie, to save us from continuing down the script of history. We are on a dark path.
...(pic)...
Edit to add: the propaganda I’m seeing out of the ‘conservative’ media is also idiotic and is furthering the identity politic divide.
Yep. There are dems licking their chops over this because it's a perfect excuse to govern from an extreme position (never let a crisis go to waste). Look for a themes of "we have to repair the damage done," "we have to help those who were destroyed by Trump," and "the republican party is a danger to democracy" to be in play over the next two years (minimum).
I don't admire Biden's position. I think he is (by far) inheriting the most difficult set of circumstances of any president since Vietnam. He's got a chance, though, because I do think he is an inherently good person.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, DosXX said:
Your characterization of the argument is disingenuous. Nobody here believes Trump is going to attempt, much less succeed, at using the military to attempt a coup. Only person who even used that word on here for the events that transpired today admitted it was too strong to use.
This is about the extensive and generational damage Trump's rhetoric continues to have on our institutions via his supporters, and about the very real danger it will pose when millions continue to believe there is a deep state conspiracy that removed Trump, not to mention the damage our adversaries will take advantage of. The 'force' to be cautious with here is not the military, it's tens of thousands of armed Americans rallied under cries of 1776 convinced by a vile nihilism that everything is corrupted. Of course it remains highly unlikely that all will decide to enact violence, but even the smallest percentage deciding to revolt is a credible danger to the lives of many. The voices are there and they are real and being heard.
Awesome! I'm glad we're all in agreement that it wasn't an attempted coup. I had been hearing differently in the social media sphere, the news, and was starting hear the same bleed over into this forum. It's best when we keep the hyperbole to a minimum.
I don't think you're thinking big enough. That is worrisome, to be sure, but what is worse is the continued divergence between the growing 'sectarian' realities that are continuing to find harbor in our country. That MAGA group yesterday is but one instance. The groups engaging in violence all summer long, were another. What I'm saying is that we're misidentifying the root causes and driving factors behind these events, but there is a way towards reconciliation. Honestly, the best thing we can do with Trump going forward, is to ignore him and let him fade into memory.
Like others have identified on this forum, the Democratic party has a real opportunity to take an honest leadership role here. There has been real damage done to the Republican party (by the Republican party), but the Dem's only way forward is to make their bicycle look less broken (which they are not doing). What should they do, IMO? For starters, all discussion that frames yesterday as an attempted coup, has to stop. That goes for both Chuck Schumer (who is a piece of shit) and for Ben Sasse (who I admire greatly). All it does is polarize more people and allows them to reinforce their dug-in positions. In the same vein, likening yesterday to Pearl Harbor also has to end.
Second, the Democrats need to step back and communicate to the American people a message that addresses the following:
- We (America) are obviously a divided nation.
- We (Democrats) won by the narrowest of margins.
- We (Democrats), unfortunately, have no "mandate" and we're not going to govern like we do.
- Any and all things we do in the next term will be from a position of true bi-partisanship.
- It's from this place that we'll reach out to Republicans to govern. Peace/truce.
If I heard a speech (or saw governing) that covered those points, 1) I'd breathe a sign of relief because it would finally be a truthful, adult response, and 2) it would be the first time in the last four years that I would see any amount of reality come from the democratic side of the isle.
But I'm not holding my breath for that. Reference all the coup talk, and the reference to a mandate from our friends at CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/georgia-election-wins-biden/index.html. We've got a mandate and we've got mounting expectations...awesome. I love being part of the 49.9% minority subject to the 50.1% majority. But yeah, mandate...keep your seat belts fastened.
-
2
-
44 minutes ago, Pooter said:
@ViperMan the capitol "seeing some action" from a few nut jobs isn't the problem. Of course that was never going to go anywhere.
The problem is those nut jobs were incited by a sitting president who has spewed falsehoods about an election he lost for over two months now. That is the concern. Over half of the republicans in the house opposed certifying the verified election results from Arizona earlier tonight based on absolutely no evidence. That is the coup attempt that could actually matter
You want to talk about eroding trust in institutions? How about a sitting president lobbing unsubstantiated claims on Twitter since nov 3rd that have been thrown out by courts at literally every level of government.. including by his own nominees. And he just keeps spewing the crap anyway.
...I'm opening "what-a-bouts" for this post.
Does no one remember four short years ago when there was a concerted effort to get faithless electors to "subvert democracy" and "vote their conscience"? WTH does everyone think would have happened four years ago had that effort succeeded? Surely it would have been a peaceful transition when faithless electors chose a different president. I'm sure that wouldn't have disenfranchised large swaths of our nation.
No, it wasn't endorsed by the sitting President, but why am I not surprised? Why does this just seem to 'fit' in with the rest of the other BS that's been going on?
And again, the 'coup' talk is disingenuous. Where is the force that is going to back-up any of this? Honestly it's disheartening to think that so many of my colleagues harbor an actual concern that this threatened our way of life, because it implies you think that the military at large would fall in line with blindly carrying out orders from Trump. Frankly, I trust everyone I work with way more than that. I feel like I'm the guy down range getting bitched at by chiefs for wearing the "CTFO" morale patch.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, jazzdude said:
While the obvious concern that our Capitol building has been overrun is bad, I think the concern goes much further.
Today we lost physical security of the Capitol building while Congress was conducting one of their most fundamental duties-certifying the election for president. Were explosives or traps left behind to target political opponents? I'm sure this is also a counterintelligence nightmare as well. Were recording devices left behind? Were computers and networks compromised (pictures were in the news of unlocked computer screens)? Access to classified? Was everyone rioting disgruntled Trump supporters, or is it possible foreign actors participated and took advantage of the situation?
So maybe it wasn't a coup attempt, but that doesn't mean severe damage wasn't done to our government, much less to our image to the rest of the world. And that image (which I posit truly began in WW2) has been important in our foreign policy, as it's given us the moral ground (as a champion of democracy) in the past to push our agenda and advance our interests. And this loss to our world image comes at a time when China and Russia are trying to expand their influence in the world. No matter how well our military fights, if we lose our legitimacy for conducting our operations, we've lost the war.I agree 100%, and that's a topic worth engaging on. Personally, I think it's a tactical/operational/strategic failure of whatever government agency is responsible for protecting the Capitol. Where were the fire hoses? Non-lethal crowd control measures? Hundreds or thousands of National Guard troops. It's not like we didn't know this thing was coming. There was no good way to slowly escalate the use of force, so as soon as a breach happened they had to use lethal force. I had heard of the event even though I'm fairly disengaged so no doubt it was on everyone's radar.
I'm also hugely concerned about China/Russia/Iran, but am also worried that even outside of external threat actors, we have our own internal struggles that remain.
-
1 minute ago, slackline said:
I'll admit coup is strong. But what term would you like to use? In your book a coup is only real if there is a legitimate shot at it working? Doesn't matter if the people who were doing it took it seriously, put Trump flags up instead of the American flag, took everything Trump said seriously? They would attack right now if Trump called for it. It would get crushed immediately, and have zero shot at working. Doesn't change that this is the first time since the Brits attacked that our Capitol has seen any action. Doesn't change that this was a disgusting attack on our way of life. That's not nothing.
Your ambivalent attitude about it is gross, and yes, I said gross. You'd be pissed if this happened due to a social justice action...
If we're having a national dialogue about a coup - defined by our major sources of news and other national leaders (senators) calling it one - then yes, there needs to have been a legitimate threat to our government/way of life. In our case however, it represents an opportunity for interested parties to cast it in a suitable way for future maneuvering. There was no danger to our way of life displayed today. When it's put forth in such hyperbolic terms, it further erodes trust in our institutions. In the last few years I have seen frighteningly few mature responses from nearly anyone in government.
That our Capitol saw action is disheartening and shameful, and no one said I'm not pissed. I'm as pissed as I was this summer. Why I may come off as ambivalent at this point, is that this is one additional piece of the puzzle that's been coming together for years. Yeah, I guess if I viewed it in isolation it might piss me off in a more acute manner. But today wasn't 9/11 and it wasn't December 7th. And while my attitude may be gross to you on this message board, it's not having a societal effect on our national consciousness and making further civil discourse even more difficult in the same way our national leaders and news media are.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, slackline said:
Oh, they don't fit your definition of conservative, so you don't own them.
People on here are rightly calling it. Furious at protests/riots this summer, but begrudgingly admitting that what happened today is bad. This is deeply disappointing.
Also, not just a small group in DC. State capitol buildings experienced the same things. That sounds like a coup. How some of you still aren't willing to admit this was a horrible attack on democracy is beyond me.
https://www.vox.com/2021/1/6/22217736/state-capitol-stop-the-steal-protests-rallies
Ehh. All this discussion of a coup attempt is gross overreaction, fear mongering, and ultimately, politicking. And yes, I do mean gross. Are people on this board seriously concerned that that small bunch represented an actual threat to the rule of this country? If so, how close did they come? If so, how close did you come to falling into lock step with your new rulers wearing MAGA hats and overalls? What New Yorker was going to wake up to the Times and just go "hmm, ok, well I guess this is what we got."
Any real coup has an authentic chance of co-opting large swaths of a previous government. Today was not that. Sorry, but it just wasn't. What it is, is an opportunity for political money-making. Wake me up on the 20th if he doesn't leave office and there are armed government employees refusing to depart the White House. Until then/that happens, this is just more ugly game-playing.
-
1
-
4
-
-
2 minutes ago, Prozac said:
We absolutely have been and should continue to be “above all this”. That is exactly what American Exceptionalism has always been about. The President (the fucking President....it boggles the mind) has done severe, maybe irreparable damage to that concept. Mayors and legislatures don’t symbolize freedom and democracy around the world. The office of the POTUS does. Or at least it did before today. If “we do have that here” now, it’s squarely because Donald Trump and his supporters decided to.
I agree we 'should' - but it's not a birthright to quote Fingers.
And I don't think the damage is irreparable. They fixed Hiroshima for God's sake.
I would say the idea of America symbolizes freedom around the world. We got rid of the idea about one person being the end-all be-all in 1776.
-
15 minutes ago, Prozac said:
Are you kidding? It ABSOLUTELY is quantitatively different when the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES incites seditious activity against the VERY GOVERNMENT that he is supposed to lead! This is the United States of America. We don’t fucking do that here! The leader of the free world is attacking his own country because he can’t adult. It’s shameful. It’s dangerous, and it’s tragic.
Like I said, it's but merely one instance of a great many failures we've seen over the last year. And apparently, we do do that here.
Your statement is indicative of another inherent problem many of us have: we think we're somehow above all this - we're not. It's the same attitude of "it can't happen to me."
See: Mayors and legislatures turning on their police departments.
Edit to add: I said "QUALitatively" - not sure that matters to your point.
-
1 hour ago, Negatory said:
Many of your guys' primary response to this f&#ed up day is to glaze your eyeballs over and just say "well, dems did bad things too, soooooooo." What was that Ghandi quote? An eye for an eye or something? Who cares, he was probably a lib.
Notice: this is how our GOVERNMENT functions right now. It's been like this for years. Some of us (me) see this as part and parcel of the same underlying issue - not about whether or not someone is wearing red, blue, or orange glasses. The issue, IMO, is who gets to define what reality is (i.e. we're flirting with themes from 1984). Notice how everything is about perspective and framing - what something is, and what it is not. We are arguing about what is real.
Don't forget, rioting (/peaceful protesting, depending on what frame you like to use) has been going on all summer long. Does it surprise you that there is finally a riot from the right? While it is shameful (perhaps a contender for the "most" shameful award) that it was apparently encouraged by Trump today, it is not qualitatively different than what has been going on all summer long from top to bottom, including mayors, governors, senators, congresspeople, business leaders, news organizations, social media, etc (please note, I am not justifying ANY bad behavior, from either side).
You name the thing, it has an agenda, a frame, a technological bubble to place you in, or an angle to push. And if you're me, what you've seen over the last four years is a ridiculous and hysterical obsession with how F'd up Trump is. You would think we're on the cusp of total collapse because of him. Frankly, it's been very petty, and in my view, it has been done intentionally and with design, because everyone knows that Trump is a little bit cranky and unpredictable...pester dad enough and he might lash out, which might work to your advantage...yes, I am that cynical about American politics and our media complex, which, let's not forget, are private companies (CNN = Time Warner, NBC = Comcast, ABC = The Walt Disney Company, CBS is a fusion of National Amusements, Paramount Pictures, and Viacom, Fox News = Fox, and so on...) whose ultimate motivation is profit, not rightfully informing you. Makes sense right? There's only so many different ways to dress up the truth.
Reflecting on 2020, I'd say the largest event was COVID-19. IMO, that is what actually led to the riots. You had people out of work, out of money, cooped up inside, told they can't travel, told to wear masks, being given conflicting information, no end in sight, watching "Tiger King" for the 69th time, etc, etc. Seems like a good root cause to me. But no, what caused the riots all summer long? Race, according to the "experts;" according to doctrine. But is that view justified, at all??? Has it been effectively defended or challenged? Was 2020 an outlier in regards to police "brutality"? Not likely. Yet here's the debrief: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/06/2020-not-1968/, https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2020/06/police-brutality-coronavirus-trump-protests-ongoing-summer-2020/, the theme being, "it was caused by systemic mistreatment of blacks"...really? That's our root cause from this mission? Nah.
Point being, we (America) have a split-view of reality. If you think only one side has scales on their eyes, I'm here to tell you the next four years are probably going to feel like the last four, and you'll still be wondering WTF if you think Trump is the root cause. Trump isn't the cancer, he's a symptom. This problem ain't going anywhere until we start discussing our problems from positions of good faith.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, jazzdude said:
Good articles, thanks.
And it's good to see our checks and balances within government are still healthy.
What makes all of this uncomfortable is several values we hold are in conflict with each other.
There's always the danger that an executive gains too much power, but we've been increasing their power over the last couple decades.Agree, mostly because congress abdicates their responsibilities.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:
Don't many put others at risk in some manner or another? It is a question of degrees or risk and willingness to accept it.
Driving on a public highway does put others at risk. You can choose to not accept that risk and not participate by not driving on the public highway, but you shouldn't be able to tell me that risk is too high for me to accept.
Yes, absolutely they do. What we have decided, however, is that some level of collective risk-management is appropriate (to moderate the degree of risk). This comes to us in the form of laws that we are all required to obey.
Your second point is also true - no one needs to go driving out on the highway if they feel the risk of driving 55 if too much for them - they can walk, take the bus, or drive on surface streets.
Your final comment re: "you shouldn't be able to tell me..." is a non-starter - it undermines all law.
-
5 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:
Dangerous to you and dangerous to me might mean completely different things.
Is it dangerous to potentially shorten the lives of .1 to .3% of people who catch covid? Especially when the vast majority of those people are nearing the end of their lives? You may say yes, I would say no.
Is it dangerous to fly 3' away from another aircraft? You may say yes, I would say no. 😆
You racing on a closed track is up to you. You speeding on a public highway is not up to you.
The distinction isn't whether or not you interpret it as dangerous. The distinction is whether or not your actions put other people at risk.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, jazzdude said:
Where are the lawsuits/legal cases challenging the mandates? We are a very litigious society, if it's clearly illegal and not within the powers granted to executives, it should be a straightforward legal case.
It's not illegal just because you don't like it or agree with it, or doesn't match your interpretation of the law. Non-compliance with established laws is what makes something illegal, and the arbiter of legalality lies within our judicial branches.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-religion-new-york.html
Here are cases where governors restricted (arbitrarily) certain activities while preferencing others. Supreme court to the rescue.
The Next President is...
in Squadron Bar
Posted
Agree wholeheartedly that our laws are woefully under-prepared to deal with much in the modern era. Too bad we don't have a legislature that seems very interested in ensuring they keep up.