ViperMan

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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."

☝️ 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.

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.

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%. https://gibill.custhelp.va.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1480

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agree, mostly because congress abdicates their responsibilities.

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.

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-religion-new-york.html https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-religion-california/u-s-supreme-court-sides-with-challenge-to-californias-covid-19-religious-service-curbs-idUSKBN28D2B2 Here are cases where governors restricted (arbitrarily) certain activities while preferencing others. Supreme court to the rescue.

11F. Generally, I think masks are a good idea. What are not good ideas? Limiting (actual) essential business hours - because it increases the density of people. Limiting entrances and exits to essential businesses - because it increases the density of people. Forcing people to take a vaccine - because it violates their rights. Having virus "passports" - because it violates their rights. Paying me and my co-workers (bros) stimulus money - because they don't need it. Paying airline pilots their full salaries - because they don't need it. 90%+ of the money spent/allocated on the latest stimulus - read it, if it doesn't piss you off, there is something wrong with you. What are good ideas? Temporarily shutting down non-essential businesses - this is most things - way more than what is currently allowed to operate (i.e. ALL restaurants, most big box stores). Continuing to funnel money to people, through their employers, to be able to barely make ends meet. Suspending bills/payments/etc until the worst of this is over. This meme is true, but only because our government is run by pussies who didn't have the courage to actually shut the m'fer down. That's me, because at this point, it is what we have collectively decided is the way forward, but it doesn't make it less ridiculous/kabuki theater.

It's not a silver bullet - it's part of an array of strategies that are supposed to help us manage the disease and mitigate its impact. Remember, once upon a time washing your hands was considered controversial, but now, no one disputes its value: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/03/handwashing-once-controversial-medical-advice/ https://www.history.com/news/hand-washing-disease-infection https://globalhandwashing.org/about-handwashing/history-of-handwashing/ Honestly, though I do see some aspect of theater in this, I don't get the hyper-fretting over mask-wearing. But I see where a bit of the noise is coming from. That said, mask-wearing's role in helping diminish COVID's R-value is completely uncontroversial.

In fairness, I will point out that the signature above his belongs to his civilian boss - remember, just because he's a four-star doesn't mean he answers to no one... Personally, I'm just looking forward to seeing what gets classified as "inappropriate" this time around. Should provide good fodder for roll-calls (when they come back). Last round, dudes had to take down pictures of their family's beach vacation because their wife happened to be wearing a bikini. I shit you not.

God I would love to see the Thunderbirds have to change their mascot because of shit like this...GD that would be funny.