The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[Clark Griswold]

I agree with your argument, but hopefully you realize that the way you wrote it was pretty one-sided. From the more liberal side, the perception of MAGA supporters is that they also are "indoctrinated and fed an information diet from a media owned and barking the propaganda of global corporations who are hell bent on paying everyone not in a corner office as little as possible." It's not just the enemies of Tucker Carlson that are indoctrinated - it's actually his viewers too.

I believe that a lot of what is wrong comes from the two-party system. Two-party systems all draw connections between issues that often shouldn't be formed at all, because VERY different people have to vote for the same party as the same entity. Simultaneously, which party you prefer indicates and influences your world view. E.g. Religious fundamentalists, anti-taxes folks, xenophobes, and gun rights activists are as uncomfortable a political marriage as socially progressive CEOs, marxists, and working class folks that feel like they can't get by, but that is totally normalized in the two party American system. And if you want to succeed, you typically have to compromise on a large portion of your values when you actually get to the voting booth in a lesser of two evils sort of way.

Democracy is founded on the essential value that societies ought to be run by people who live there. If not only for the sake that Leadership be legitimate. But moreover because every commonly held view, even within small minorities of people, has merit and ought be at least heard through, and in doing so Democracy would in fact function more effectively and effectiently.

Thus, representing as many people as possible in government ought be the goal of any democracy. And the US has a hell of a lot more than two political positions across its 360M. And the federal government needs to actually represent as many of its citizens as possibles and its citizens views actual views as much as possible. The struggle of government ought be the natural opposition of these views. But not structurally built in as we see in the 20th century US. I think you can improve American democracy.

I personally believe that the solution to this is an improvement to our democratic model: ranked choice voting with a mixed member congress model that allows for multiple groups (similar to NZ, UK, Germany). When there isn't a majority, coalition blocs have to work together to get things done. Additionally, when a party can get 5% of the vote, they may actually get representation, albeit a small amount. As opposed to the winner take all mentality that scares the shit out of people right now and forces polarization. It would encourage voting, enhance your voice, and reduce anxiety about losing everything as it's less likely.

The older I get, the more I think that it's constitutional amendment or bust. Whether Trump or Biden wins in 2020, I don't think the country becomes more united in the current system.

You make your point well and while I don’t agree with everything I agree we (on the right) carry political biases like those in the left

Concur on Constitutional fixes required as what we have now no longer functions well enough or is ultimately sustainable, I like the idea of a Brexit party for America - formed for one reason to call a Constitutional Convention or pass Amendments



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest nsplayr]

This was a good book I read as a young LT that makes you think about how our Constitution might be strengthened and modernized:

https://www.amazon.com/More-Perfect-Constitution-Revised-Generation/dp/0802716830

Edited July 6, 2020 by nsplayr

[Prozac]

6 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

 

You make your point well and while I don’t agree with everything I agree we (on the right) carry political biases like those in the left

Concur on Constitutional fixes required as what we have now no longer functions well enough or is ultimately sustainable, I like the idea of a Brexit party for America - formed for one reason to call a Constitutional Convention or pass Amendments



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And herein lies the rub. It seems to be turning into an us vs. them world, bit the “them” is always more nuanced than the talking heads would have us believe. The two party system is far from perfect but it’s worked for a long time. It does depend though on the fundamental assumption that our fellow Americans, regardless of party affiliation, are NOT the enemy. 

[bfargin]

The sad thing is many of our amendments that "better" or "fix" the constitution were/are terrible (and utter disasters when interpreted wrongly). So even with a difficult bar to get over, we still have some turds that made it.

Think 14th (somehow interpreted that if you illegally or just tourist visit the country (either one) and have a baby on US soil it is somehow a citizen. YGBSM the most ridiculous interpretation ever! Everyone knew the intent and that was solid, but comeon. Nobody can argue reasonably that is what that Amendment meant/means.

The 16th is unethical at best. Tax consumption, but for the government to tax/charge someone to work is completely unethical. Passive income might be game, but not a persons labor!

The 17th basically took away tons of state power and rights and pulled us slightly away from a representation democratic government and more towards the mob rule democracy. Our elected officials are supposed to be there for a short time and then come home to work again. The present system allows them to sit in DC for 8 years plus sucking gov teet and screwing us all. They are also supposed to show some restraint and wisdom with their decisions and not fall prey to the mob mentality (but that ain't happening either).

The 18th - yep it was a thing once

21 - because of 18

22 should have been a part of 20 and should have included all elected officials. I guess FDR did one thing right and made us realize we don't want numbnuts in office more than 2 terms

23 unnecessary. draw the district lines so that DC didn't have any residents but was just the land around the white house and capital buildings and have the white house residents assigned to one of the surrounding states for voting purposes.

Not convinced 24, 25 or 26 was needed but I guess interpretation/clarification might have been needed to prevent idiots from proposing laws that would restrict voting rights/access etc.

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by bfargin

[busdriver]

It does seem like something needs to change, but I'm not so sure a constitutional amendment is what needs to happen.  Our politicians are generally gross, and our national politic is so broken I don't really want them touching the constitution.  They'd likely make it worse.

At the end of the day, I think the root cause of the problem is the DNC/RNC.  Politicians are beholden to national tribal politics, and toeing the line on the national party platform.  There used to be a lot of room for argument within the parties; there were conservative democrats and liberal republicans 30 years ago.  Kill the power of the DNC/RNC and bring back earmarks to encourage cooperation.

I also tend to think both parties are headed for major change anyway, we're in the midst of a generational power transition.  

[SocialD]

A good start would be getting rid of the 24 hours new....err...entertainment media.  I'm all for the press, but the mainstream 24 hour media sensationalizing every little thing that happens, is where molehills are made into mountains.  

 

[Guest nsplayr]

Not new but still funny. This kind of entertainment media...I say we keep this.

[SocialD]

Agreed.  I found this one applicable as well.  Sadly, my city just lost a fine, young officer to a senseless shooting.  I can't believe that he didn't have a small hesitation due to the climate wrt cops right now...sadly it got him killed.  

 

 

[Sim]

Quote

Last week, Duckworth announced she would block Senate confirmation of 1,123 senior military officers until Defense Secretary Mark Esper confirmed in writing that he would not block Vindman’s promotion to colonel.

However, Vindman announced Wednesday he was retiring from the Army. Reuters reported that Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy had both approved him for promotion in a list that was “due to be sent to the White House in the coming days,” according to a senior U.S. defense official.

The official told Reuters that Esper approved the list on Monday with Vindman’s name.

Despite that, Vindman announced on Twitter he was retiring: “Today I officially requested retirement from the US Army, an organization I love. My family and I look forward to the next chapter of our lives.”

So much wokeness here. 

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/08/tammy-duckworth-to-keep-hold-on-1123-military-promotions-despite-vindmans-retirement/

[busdriver]

Not woke-ness.  Good old fashion partisan politics.

[waveshaper]

On ‎7‎/‎1‎/‎2020 at 1:30 PM, Clark Griswold said:

God bless the McCloskeys

 

Update/this sucks in so many ways: "Police Seize Gun From St. Louis Couple Threatened By Mob"

"Police seized the rifle seen in footage of the central west end duo, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, both personal injury attorneys. The couple told police that the pistol brandished by Mrs. McCloskey was in their lawyer’s possession."

 

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, waveshaper said:

Update/this sucks in so many ways: "Police Seize Gun From St. Louis Couple Threatened By Mob"
"Police seized the rifle seen in footage of the central west end duo, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, both personal injury attorneys. The couple told police that the pistol brandished by Mrs. McCloskey was in their lawyer’s possession."
 

What bullshit - guy is a man of means, go buy another and tell them to kiss his ass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited July 11, 2020 by Clark Griswold
Autocorrect can't curse

[gearhog]

6 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

What bulldhit - guy is a man of means, go buy another and tell them to kiss his ass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think the ability to purchase another rifle is the issue. Having your weapons confiscated is.

[Clark Griswold]

I don't think the ability to purchase another rifle is the issue. Having your weapons confiscated is.

I know but just your immediate actions in response to vindictive and corrupt persecution


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, waveshaper said:

Update/this sucks in so many ways: "Police Seize Gun From St. Louis Couple Threatened By Mob"

"Police seized the rifle seen in footage of the central west end duo, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, both personal injury attorneys. The couple told police that the pistol brandished by Mrs. McCloskey was in their lawyer’s possession."

 

 

[Lord Ratner]

On 6/25/2020 at 11:05 AM, brawnie said:

Baseops, like most military social circles, is an echo chamber of people who have never had their views confronted.

You ever sit back and just let the irony that you all live and work in a socialist paradise wash over you? Once you're in, your job is secure (you face no chance of an immediate layoff, and the VAST majority of people can make it to 20-40 years if they want to), your healthcare is paid for, you get an affordable housing allowance based on your status in the system (oh and it changes based on where you are in America), you have a perception that budget doesn't matter (who cares how much that FHP or those TVs costs, just fly it and buy it so we get more money next year), you get basically guaranteed promotions that are based more on timing than on merit, you're handed a ridiculous retirement package that requires no self-involvement or contributions, the worst workers are paid the same as the best, you get paid when a pandemic causes you not to work at all for weeks, you get regular wage increases that keep up with or exceed inflation, you have 30 days of paid leave a year. The military organization keeps hundreds of thousands of people on payroll (in a money bleeding way) just in case they need them, paying them way more than the value we get out of them (the vast majority of the military is a self-licking ice cream cone when we aren't at real war). The military system is the antithesis to self-reliance, meritocracy, accountability, ROI, or profitability. But it sure is nice to be in it right now when the system out there isn't taking care of people.

And the only reason it all works is the capitalist piggy bank keeps it running. The military is a necessary compromise, but it is also all the evidence you need to prove socialism isn't effective on a broader level.

[Clark Griswold]

14 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

And the only reason it all works is the capitalist piggy bank keeps it running. The military is a necessary compromise, but it is also all the evidence you need to prove socialism isn't effective on a broader level.

This

[Lord Ratner]

On 6/27/2020 at 2:27 PM, otsap said:

Now we could certainly move to that system, but we have to accept a lower level of progress in medical research breakthroughs.  This is an area I research and I haven't seen a way around that trade-off.  Maybe we're at a point where that's an acceptable policy; after all, medicine has come a long way and universal coverage could arguably be worth it.  On the other hand, the medical breakthrough that enables us to repair a damaged spinal cord and reverse a patient's paralysis, which is maybe 10 years away, will now be about 40-50 years away.  That's the trade-off, and it's kind of a crappy one to consider no matter which side you take.

.

The ultimate and foundational failing in modern progressive thought. Fixing today's problems without considering tomorrow.

 

I have never gotten a decent answer to this paradox, because most have never considered it. If providing universal health coverage guarantees that the cure for cancer is delayed 50 years, is it worth it? 25 years? 10? It is indisputable that there will be a delay, yet most won't even grant that.

 

The world's poor are *dramatically* better off due to the output of the United States over the past 100 years, and the output disparity between the US (fierce capitalism), Europe (blended capitalism), and the communist countries is a pretty clear demonstration of what we sacrifice with these changes.

[Breckey]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

If providing universal health coverage guarantees that the cure for cancer is delayed 50 years, is it worth it? 25 years? 10? It is indisputable that there will be a delay, yet most won't even grant that.

If universal health care saves more people through access to medical services in those 10 - 25 years then would have died from cancer is it worth it then? If universal health care decreases health costs because people aren't waiting until they're really sick to seek health care and instead focus on preventative medical services would it be worth it?

Medical costs in this country are out of control. If people stop using the ED as a easy button for having a cough or other non-urgent health care need because they have access to other services it would decrease the burden on the currently insured. I agree that there needs to be a period where the pharmaceutical companies but at some point, just like other patents, it needs to go into the public domain. This is especially true for companies that use Federal grant dollars to fund their research.

[busdriver]

Why does the healthcare discussion always revolve around public vs private funding of the same bill instead of figuring out how to lower the bill?

There is a missing root cause analysis discussion. All we hear are the simple 30s sound bites that conform to the party line.

[dream big]

12 hours ago, Breckey said:

If universal health care saves more people through access to medical services in those 10 - 25 years then would have died from cancer is it worth it then? If universal health care decreases health costs because people aren't waiting until they're really sick to seek health care and instead focus on preventative medical services would it be worth it?

Medical costs in this country are out of control. If people stop using the ED as a easy button for having a cough or other non-urgent health care need because they have access to other services it would decrease the burden on the currently insured. I agree that there needs to be a period where the pharmaceutical companies but at some point, just like other patents, it needs to go into the public domain. This is especially true for companies that use Federal grant dollars to fund their research.

We can all agree medical costs are high, and that’s a problem.  Part of the reason is that innovation and new medicines / technology (90% of which comes from the US) requires money.  Another reason is that pharma is anything but capitalist.  Heavy subsidies, large monopolies.  If we were a true free market then they would compete for a more competitive price.  Our healthcare issues aren’t due to capitalism, and no one who advocates for universal healthcare addresses the heavy costs transferred to the tax payer. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by dream big

[Guest nsplayr]

36 minutes ago, dream big said:

...and no one who advocates for universal healthcare addresses the heavy costs transferred to the tax payer. 

Literally every single serious healthcare reform plan includes measures to reduce or control costs, including those that would achieve universal coverage, because as you said above, we can all agree that medical costs are high.

[Lord Ratner]

12 hours ago, Breckey said:

If universal health care saves more people through access to medical services in those 10 - 25 years then would have died from cancer is it worth it then? If universal health care decreases health costs because people aren't waiting until they're really sick to seek health care and instead focus on preventative medical services would it be worth it?

Medical costs in this country are out of control. If people stop using the ED as a easy button for having a cough or other non-urgent health care need because they have access to other services it would decrease the burden on the currently insured. I agree that there needs to be a period where the pharmaceutical companies but at some point, just like other patents, it needs to go into the public domain. This is especially true for companies that use Federal grant dollars to fund their research.

It's not an "if." We have plenty of countries with what you seek. The US has better medicine, better research, and better outcomes. 

 

It's not like you're suggesting something new with a "what if it works better" as incentive. The left is pushing for what much of the world has already tried, and we know the trade-off. 

 

So, as I said, is it worth a 50 year delay to curing cancer? For the whole planet?...

[Guest nsplayr]

11 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's not an "if." We have plenty of countries with what you seek. The US has better medicine, better research, and better outcomes. 

 

It's not like you're suggesting something new with a "what if it works better" as incentive. The left is pushing for what much of the world has already tried, and we know the trade-off. 

 

So, as I said, is it worth a 50 year delay to curing cancer? For the whole planet?...

What you're proposing as a certainty (universal healthcare in the US = delay in curing cancer) is such a bizarre, unprovable hypothetical / red herring argument that I don't even know how to comment properly.

Re: what the rest of the (developed) world has...I mean better average outcomes and much, much lower costs no matter which model they use? That's what they have.

Some countries are almost entirely private-market, job-based systems, some are fully public for both payers and providers, and there's nearly everything in between. Some have rationed care and some have almost on-demand services. Some countries with good average outcomes spend a lot (well, not compared to us but still, a lot more than average), and some with equally good average outcomes spend very little comparatively. What they all, literally all, have is better average outcomes and lower costs than we enjoy in the U.S.

If having "better research" and being the world leader in healthcare innovation is somehow inextricably tied to failing to deliver good outcomes to all of our people, and I'd argue it's not, it's a bad trade off.

Great books to read: The Healing of America and Which Country Has The World's Best Health Care?

Also bravo to us all for making any and all political threads eventually circle back to the same issues we've been debating since approximately 1945. 🍺

Edited July 15, 2020 by nsplayr

[disgruntledemployee]

15 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

...

If providing universal health coverage guarantees that the cure for cancer is delayed 50 years, is it worth it? 25 years? 10? It is indisputable that there will be a delay, yet most won't even grant that.

If all the animals on the equator were capable of flattery, then Thanksgiving and Halloween would fall on the same date.  Is that worth it?