BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 1106 Pages +
  • « First
  • 536
  • 537
  • 538
  • 539
  • 540
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?

#10741 User is offline   rmnka447 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,366
  • Joined: 2012-March-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Bridge, Golf, Soccer

Posted 2018-August-07, 07:57

 Winstonm, on 2018-August-07, 06:39, said:

I appreciate the honest response. Once the ideal is agreed upon (not goals, but ideals), then we can have a rational discussion about whether or not those ideals should become goals. But you have to start somewhere. I see you are quite concerned about the implementation of these ideals, and that is OK. If you agree that these are worthwhile ideas, that is a start, because I, too, think they are worthwhile.

If we both think these are valid ideals, then why can't we discuss how or if we can move toward those goals.

See, this is where I came in - when I first became politically aware the country had Democrats and Republicans, and they came at problems from different viewpoints, but they worked out differences in policy by compromising in order to move the country forward.

People of different viewpoints can work together if they have common ideals - and the way to do that is through compromise. Holding the idea that fellow countrymen are enemies to be defeated is a prescription for collapse.


It becomes much harder to work with someone who calls you deplorable or thinks you are inherently racist, misogynistic, evil, or worse. But from a conservative viewpoint that is the state of mind and vocally expressed sentiments of progressives today. Unfortunately, that has hardened both sides attitudes toward each other and brought about an impasse.

Beyond that there are different viewpoints of the relationship between the government and its citizens. Conservatives view government with skepticism and believe in limited government. Progressives generally see government as a means of doing good and want more government. But the bigger government is, the more power it has over people's lives and the less actual freedom people have. OTOH, too little government essentially lets the "inmates run the prison". How do we find a workable intermediate point?

Our wise founding fathers, for all their faults, were more aligned with the current conservative viewpoint. That was because they had experienced the corruption and abuses of power of the British monarchy and wanted no part of anything like it in their new experiment in nationhood. Further, they had a healthy skepticism of human nature and sought in the Constitution to guard against the baser side of human nature while providing a workable, if slow means of governing the country. Not bad considering we're 242 years of operation and counting.
0

#10742 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,589
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-August-07, 10:52

 kenberg, on 2018-August-07, 04:51, said:

I have not yet gone back to look in detail att he data. But in a wat that illustrates my point. It has to be looked at with a bit of care to see how it could happen that fewer than 1% of the 1%ers become 1%ers. We start with the simple. If you give a math exam to 10,00 kis the no mater how well or how poorly the kids have been taught, 100 of the kids will end up in the top percentile. That's the way it is. But now if we examined the data and found that, say, 500 came from households with really smart parents and these kids had been sent to the best schools and had been given private tutoring, we would be surprised if only 5 of them scored, among the 10,000 in the top percentile.

Of course. Similarly, it would be extremely surprising if any of the 1%ers' children were poor. Like I said, I'll bet almost all of them are in the top 10%, but they're not all in the top 1%. Several people have pointed out that they can't inherit their parents' wealth until the parents die, and it will be split among multiple children and others.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have pledged to give most of their vast wealths to charity, although they're so wealthy that the remainder that their children inherit will be huge. Buffett's 3 children stand to inherit about $2 billion apiece. That will presumably make them 1%ers, but they won't be in the top 3 like their father. Buffett has said that the perfect amount is

Quote

enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.

https://www.bustle.c...thropists-33991 says:

Quote

Although Warren Buffett's children each have a hefty inheritance in their future, they've all displayed incredible work ethic and are clearly devoted to their philanthropic causes and careers.


#10743 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,589
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-August-07, 10:54

 johnu, on 2018-August-07, 01:45, said:

And then Dad (or Mom) will decide to retire and appoint you as president and CEO of their multi-million (or billion) dollar company. I'm sure the children worked very hard to be successful sons and daughters.

Aren't CEOs appointed by the Board of Directors? Unless it's a private company owned by the parent, they can't just appoint whoever they want.

#10744 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,375
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2018-August-07, 11:00

 rmnka447, on 2018-August-07, 07:57, said:

It becomes much harder to work with someone who calls you deplorable or thinks you are inherently racist, misogynistic, evil, or worse. But from a conservative viewpoint that is the state of mind and vocally expressed sentiments of progressives today. Unfortunately, that has hardened both sides attitudes toward each other and brought about an impasse.

Beyond that there are different viewpoints of the relationship between the government and its citizens. Conservatives view government with skepticism and believe in limited government. Progressives generally see government as a means of doing good and want more government. But the bigger government is, the more power it has over people's lives and the less actual freedom people have. OTOH, too little government essentially lets the "inmates run the prison". How do we find a workable intermediate point?

Our wise founding fathers, for all their faults, were more aligned with the current conservative viewpoint. That was because they had experienced the corruption and abuses of power of the British monarchy and wanted no part of anything like it in their new experiment in nationhood. Further, they had a healthy skepticism of human nature and sought in the Constitution to guard against the baser side of human nature while providing a workable, if slow means of governing the country. Not bad considering we're 242 years of operation and counting.


There are a few points here that seem wrong to me. First, while it is traditionally true that conservatives believe in limited government, I'm not sure that's true of modern Trump-style conservatives. You need a pretty big government to round up eleven million undocumented people, patrol the wall at the border, lock up millions of (mostly minority) citizens on drug possession charges, make sure that women can't abort unwanted fetuses, kick native tribes off their lands when an oil company wants to run a pipeline through it, enforce high tariffs on foreign-made goods, pay money to US industries to keep them in business when the tariffs would otherwise put them out of business, etc.

As for the founding fathers, they had a lot of disagreements amongst themselves. They certainly didn't want a theocracy and were very up front about generally deist beliefs (believe in God, but not organized religion) and accepting all faiths (including Muslims and Atheists)... again this seems very different from modern "conservatives." And while they were leery of a strong central government they were also very leery of strong corporations -- the revolutionary war was fought as much against the British East India Company as against the crown. Again, this differs from modern "conservatives" who seem very pro-corporation, supporting rulings equating corporations to people and money to speech.

Finally, it's worth keeping in mind that a largely rural and agrarian society with 18th century technology is very different from modern industrial and technological society where many people live in densely populated cities and hand-held weapons can massacre hundreds of people in minutes. So wise as they were, the founding fathers opinions may need to adjust with the times.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
3

#10745 User is offline   ldrews 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 880
  • Joined: 2014-February-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-August-07, 11:31

Obviously voting fraud does not exist:

https://www.mcclatch...e216056560.html
0

#10746 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,222
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2018-August-07, 11:37

I don't want to drag this out too long. Various explanations, bery reasonable ones, come to mind as to why often those who were born in 1980 to parents in the top percentile are not now themselves in the top percentile.
I was focusing on " The children born in 1980 in the richest 1 percent have only a 1 percent chance of themselves being in the top 1 percent".
Had it been

"The children born in 1980 in the richest 1 percent have only a 5 percent chance of themselves being in the top 1 percent" this would seem reasonable for all of the reasons given. My concern was that when it is 1%, rather than 5%, a first reading might be that having parents from the top percentile has no effect whatsoever on the chances of being in the top percentile. I seriously doubt that this is so, and my guess would be that the numbers would be different if we were to wait until 12040 when these youngsters turn 60. Or, if we are impatient, we could look at kids born in 1958 and see how those who were born to 1%ers have fared. I would expect that more than 1% of the 1958 group are now in the top percentile, and I would expect that in 2040 more than 1% of those from the 1980 1%ers will be iin the top percentile.

My theme is to be cautious about taking data at face value.

Here it was harmless. Let me shift to something different.

There have been several WaPo stories lately on school scandals in both Maryland and in DC. Here is roughly the sequence of events
There was an effort to evaluate schools and improve them
It was decided that the percentage of students graduating on time would be an important part of the evaluation.Graduation rates at some schools went up very sharply at some schools.These schools were highly praised.It was discovered that many of the kids who were graduating had not even been coming to class with any regularity.
School officials, in their best imitation of Louie from Casablanca, pronounced themselves shocked. They had no idea? How could they have any idea?
They were kidding, right? No, they weren't.

Anyone who has been even halfway around the block should be able to predict that if you tell principals that they will get a big bonus if graduation rates increase significantly then some graduation rates are going to increase significantly. [Importantly, many will play it straight. They will be very downhearted about watching some people get the big bucks while they are called in to explain their failure.] And then when the rates reach very great heights? No idea that something is going on? Apparently at one school where they were meeting to discuss how to get the rate up from the already very unprecedented 92% someone mentioned that he was really looking forward to when the rate got to 103%. I am not sure that the others realized that he was making a joke.

Often I think data is just carelessly reported, possible misleading, but lacking any bad intent. Other times it is clearly gimmicked. At any rate, care is needed.





Ken
0

#10747 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,283
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-August-07, 11:39

 rmnka447, on 2018-August-07, 07:57, said:

It becomes much harder to work with someone who calls you deplorable or thinks you are inherently racist, misogynistic, evil, or worse. But from a conservative viewpoint that is the state of mind and vocally expressed sentiments of progressives today. Unfortunately, that has hardened both sides attitudes toward each other and brought about an impasse.

Beyond that there are different viewpoints of the relationship between the government and its citizens. Conservatives view government with skepticism and believe in limited government. Progressives generally see government as a means of doing good and want more government. But the bigger government is, the more power it has over people's lives and the less actual freedom people have. OTOH, too little government essentially lets the "inmates run the prison". How do we find a workable intermediate point?

Our wise founding fathers, for all their faults, were more aligned with the current conservative viewpoint. That was because they had experienced the corruption and abuses of power of the British monarchy and wanted no part of anything like it in their new experiment in nationhood. Further, they had a healthy skepticism of human nature and sought in the Constitution to guard against the baser side of human nature while providing a workable, if slow means of governing the country. Not bad considering we're 242 years of operation and counting.


You may consider that beginning a conversation with "I'm on the correct side" is more the argument of the religious than the rational. Pointing fingers and trying to defend your own bias is not conducive to forward movement - I understand that you are biased, and so I am. From that starting point, how do we move forward toward those ideals with which we both agree are worthy, taking into account each other's biases?

I would think you would see a third side of this pyramid, too, that is that the solid base who supports this president is around 35%, which means that many conservatives do not support him. So on the question of this president, the question is not about right and left, conservative or liberal, but a question of rational versus unhinged.

Jennifer Rubins explains that last point:

Quote

Second, let’s not be surprised when 35 percent or so of voters consistently tell pollsters that the president is the victim of a witch hunt or that they agree with every policy position and action he takes. Trump fans’ politics is not the politics of rationality, considered judgment or empirical observation. Blind hatred and unthinking boorishness are not moderated by new facts or observable phenomena. We should stop marveling as his “success” in holding his base as if this were a reflection of his political skill, let alone the efficacy of his policies. Rather, the unbreakable and unblinking devotion of his unhinged base is confirmation that he now must rely on support from people oblivious to reality.


Supporting this president is not the same as supporting conservative positions. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. In order to receive the respect that the president's supporters claim they desire, the first order of business for them has to be a repudiation with no caveats of this man and his attacks on the rule of law, on minorities, on civility, and on democracy.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#10748 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,676
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2018-August-07, 19:14

Great piece from the March issue of The Atlantic: The Plot Against America

The entire article is fairly long for these days, but is well worth reading regardless of political persuasion. Here is an excerpt:

Quote

Decades before he ran the Trump campaign, Paul Manafort’s pursuit of foreign cash and shady deals laid the groundwork for the corruption of Washington.

III. The Firm

During the years that followed World War II, Washington’'s most effective lobbyists transcended the transactional nature of their profession. Men such as Abe Fortas, Clark Clifford, Bryce Harlow, and Thomas Corcoran were known not as grubby mercenaries but as elegant avatars of a permanent establishment, lauded as “wise men.” Lobbying hardly carried a stigma, because there was so little of it. When the legendary lawyer Tommy Boggs registered himself as a lobbyist, in 1967, his name was only 64th on the active list. Businesses simply didn'’t consider lobbying a necessity. Three leading political scientists had studied the profession in 1963 and concluded: “When we look at the typical lobby, we find its opportunities to maneuver are sharply limited, its staff mediocre, and its typical problem not the influencing of Congressional votes but finding the clients and contributors to enable it to survive at all.”

On the cusp of the Reagan era, Republican lobbyists were particularly enfeebled. Generations of Democratic majorities in Congress had been terrible for business. The scant tribe of Republican lobbyists working the cloakrooms included alumni of the Nixon and Ford administrations; operating under the shame-inducing cloud of Watergate, they were disinclined toward either ambition or aggression.

This was the world that brash novices like Manafort and Stone quickly came to dominate. The Reagan administration represented a break with the old Republican establishment. After the long expansion of the regulatory state, business finally had a political partner eager to dismantle it —which generated unprecedented demand for lobbyists. Manafort could convincingly claim to know the new administration better than anyone. During its transition to power, he was the personnel coordinator in the Office of Executive Management, which meant that he’'d stacked the incoming government with his people.* Along with Stone and Charlie Black, another veteran of the Young Republican wars, he set up a firm, Black, Manafort and Stone, which soon compiled an imposing client list: Bethlehem Steel, the Tobacco Institute, Johnson & Johnson, Trans World Airlines.

Whereas other firms had operated in specialized niches--lobbying, consulting, public relations--—Black, Manafort and Stone bundled all those services under one roof, a deceptively simple move that would eventually help transform Washington. Time magazine deemed the operation “the ultimate supermarket of influence peddling.” Fred Wertheimer, a good-government advocate, described this expansive approach as “institutionalized conflict of interest.”

The linkage of lobbying to political consulting—--the creation of what’ is now known as a double-breasted operation—--was the real breakthrough. Manafort’'s was the first lobbying firm to also house political consultants. (Legally, the two practices were divided into different companies, but they shared the same founding partners and the same office space.) One venture would run campaigns; the other would turn around and lobby the politicians whom their colleagues had helped elect. The consulting side hired the hard-edged operative Lee Atwater, notorious for pioneering race-baiting tactics on behalf of Strom Thurmond. “We’'re getting into servicing what we sell,” Atwater told his friends. Just as imagined, the firm’'s political clients (Jesse Helms, Phil Gramm, Arlen Specter) became reliable warhorses when the firm needed them to promote the agendas of its corporate clients. With this evolution of the profession, the effectiveness and influence of lobbying grew in tandem.

In 1984, the firm reached across the aisle. It made a partner of Peter Kelly, a former finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who had earned the loyalty of lawmakers by raising millions for their campaigns. Some members of the firm worked for Democratic Senate candidates in Louisiana, Vermont, and Florida, even as operatives down the hall worked for their Republican foes. “People said, ‘It’'s un-American,’ ” Kelly told me. “ ‘They can'’t lose. They have both sides.’ I kept saying, ‘How is it un-American to win?’ ” This sense of invincibility permeated the lobbying operation too. When Congress passed tax-reform legislation in 1986, the firm managed to get one special rule inserted that saved Chrysler-Mitsubishi $58 million; it wrangled another clause that reaped Johnson & Johnson $38 million in savings. Newsweek pronounced the firm “the hottest shop in town.”

Demand for its services rose to such heights that the firm engineered a virtual lock on the 1988 Republican primary. Atwater became the chief strategist for George H. W. Bush; Black worked with Bob Dole; Stone advised Jack Kemp. A congressional staffer joked to Time, “Why have primaries for the nomination? Why not have the candidates go over to Black, Manafort and Stone and argue it out?” Manafort cultivated this perception. In response to a questionnaire in The Washington Times, he declared Machiavelli the person he would most like to meet.

Despite his young age, Manafort projected the sort of confidence that inspires others to have confidence, a demeanor often likened to that of a news anchor. “He is authoritative, and you never see a chink in the armor,” one of his longtime deputies, Philip Griffin, told me. Manafort wrote well, especially in proposals to prospective clients, and excelled at thinking strategically. Name-dropping never substituted for concrete steps that would bolster a client. “If politics has done anything, it’'s taught us to treat everything as a campaign,” he once declared. He toiled for clients with unflagging intensity. His wife once quipped, according to the text messages, that Andrea was conceived between conference calls. He “hung up the phone, looked at his watch, and said, ‘Okay, we have 20 minutes until the next one,’ ” Andrea wrote to her then-fiancé.

The firm exuded the decadent spirit of the 1980s. Each year, it hosted a golf outing called Boodles, after the gin brand. “It would have to move almost every year, because we weren'’t invited back,” John Donaldson, an old friend of Manafort’'s who worked at the firm, says. “A couple of women in the firm complained that they weren'’t ever invited. I told them they didn'’t want to be.” As the head of the firm’'s “social committee,” Manafort would supply a theme for the annual gatherings. His masterwork was a three-year progression: “Excess,” followed by “Exceed Excess,” capped by “Excess Is Best.”

Partners at the firm let it be known to The Washington Post that they each intended to take home at least $450,000 in 1986 (a little more than $1 million today). “All of a sudden they came into a lot of money, and I don’'t think any of them were used to earning the money that we were earning,” Kelly said. Senior partners were given luxury cars and a membership to the country club of their choosing. Manafort would fly the Concorde to Europe and back as if it were the Acela to New York. “I must confess,” Atwater swooned to The Washington Post, “after four years on a government payroll, I’m delighted with my new life style.”

The firm hired kids straight out of college--—“wheel men” in the office vernacular--—to drive the partners around town. When Roger Stone’'s old hero, Richard Nixon, came to Washington, the wheel men would shuttle him about.

Many of these young associates would eventually climb the firm’'s ladder, and were often dispatched to manage campaigns on the firm’'s behalf. Climbing the ladder, however, in most cases required passing what came to be known as Manafort’'s “loyalty tests”—--challenging tasks that strayed outside the boundaries of standard professional commitment and demonstrated the control that Manafort expected to exert over the associates’ lives. At the last minute, he might ask a staffer to entertain his visiting law-school buddies, never mind that the staffer had never met them before. For one Saint Patrick’'s Day party, he gave two junior staffers 24 hours to track down a plausible impersonator of Billy Barty, the 3-foot-9-inch actor who made movies with Mickey Rooney and Chevy Chase—--which they did. “This was in the days before the internet,” one of them told me. “Can you imagine how hard that was?”

By the 1990s, the double-digit list of registered lobbyists that Tommy Boggs had joined back in 1967 had swelled to more than 10,000. Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly had greatly abetted that transformation, and stood to profit from the rising flood of corporate money into the capital.

With assorted criminals in DC today constantly trying to intimidate legitimate journalists by shouting "fake news" at anyone who tells the truth, it's heartening to read the honest words of those who refuse to buckle.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
1

#10749 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,222
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2018-August-07, 20:19

 PassedOut, on 2018-August-07, 19:14, said:

Great piece from the March issue of The Atlantic: The Plot Against America

The entire article is fairly long for these days, but is well worth reading regardless of political persuasion. Here is an excerpt:


With assorted criminals in DC today constantly trying to intimidate legitimate journalists by shouting "fake news" at anyone who tells the truth, it's heartening to read the honest words of those who refuse to buckle.



I have led such a dull life!

Ken
0

#10750 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,030
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-August-07, 20:23

 barmar, on 2018-August-07, 10:54, said:

Aren't CEOs appointed by the Board of Directors? Unless it's a private company owned by the parent, they can't just appoint whoever they want.


Only for very large public companies where the shares of the founders were diluted. For private companies or most small public companies, the original founders usually control a majority of the voting shares so basically they can control the Board if there is one. Plus, many boards are weak willed and do whatever they are told. For examples of this, look at the boards of the casinos that Dennison raided and drained dry of capital with self-dealing loans to himself.
0

#10751 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,222
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2018-August-08, 06:41

 PassedOut, on 2018-August-07, 19:14, said:

Great piece from the March issue of The Atlantic: The Plot Against America

The entire article is fairly long for these days, but is well worth reading regardless of political persuasion. Here is an excerpt:


With assorted criminals in DC today constantly trying to intimidate legitimate journalists by shouting "fake news" at anyone who tells the truth, it's heartening to read the honest words of those who refuse to buckle.


To go a little beyond my above flippant remark, it is worthwhile pointing out a crucial difference between Manafort and, say, the Koch brothers. No doubt the Koch brothers were interested in their profits, but I think they also believe/believed (one having died thus the /) in conservatism. Manafort? I don't think so. Money, power, expensive clothes, yes. Any political principal? Not interested. And of course the same can be said of the man he once worked for. Reagan had once been a liberal but became a conservative. He believed in it. Trump was once a D but became an R. But he believes in Trump, any thing else? Not interested. . This explains a lot, I think.
Ken
0

#10752 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,589
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-August-08, 08:59

 johnu, on 2018-August-07, 20:23, said:

Only for very large public companies where the shares of the founders were diluted. For private companies or most small public companies, the original founders usually control a majority of the voting shares so basically they can control the Board if there is one. Plus, many boards are weak willed and do whatever they are told. For examples of this, look at the boards of the casinos that Dennison raided and drained dry of capital with self-dealing loans to himself.

I was assuming that most of the 1% have become so by running large, public companies, like Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Musk. I think Trump is more of an exception than the rule (in many ways). But I could be wrong, maybe it's just true of the most well known ones.

#10753 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,589
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-August-08, 09:09

 ldrews, on 2018-August-07, 11:31, said:

Obviously voting fraud does not exist:

No one ever claims that it "does not exist". What we say is that it's not widespread or to the level that Trump claimed. There are no "busloads" of illegal immigrants casting fraudulent votes, there weren't 3 million illegal votes during the 2016 election.

And the article you linked to is not even about voter fraud, it's about technical problems with Georgia's voting infrastructure.

#10754 User is offline   ldrews 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 880
  • Joined: 2014-February-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-August-08, 10:58

 barmar, on 2018-August-08, 09:09, said:

No one ever claims that it "does not exist". What we say is that it's not widespread or to the level that Trump claimed. There are no "busloads" of illegal immigrants casting fraudulent votes, there weren't 3 million illegal votes during the 2016 election.

And the article you linked to is not even about voter fraud, it's about technical problems with Georgia's voting infrastructure.


Right! Sort of like strict gun control laws in Chicago have all but eliminated gun related shootings. Color me skeptical.
0

#10755 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,589
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-August-08, 11:32

 ldrews, on 2018-August-08, 10:58, said:

Right! Sort of like strict gun control laws in Chicago have all but eliminated gun related shootings. Color me skeptical.

The world is not black and white, there are few absolutes. The choices are not between "eliminate gun-related deaths" and "do nothing about gun violence". You can make things better even if the problem is not eliminated entirely.

BTW, today's XKCD is relevant to the article you linked to: https://xkcd.com/2030/

#10756 User is online   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,204
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2018-August-08, 12:02

 ldrews, on 2018-August-08, 10:58, said:

Right! Sort of like strict gun control laws in Chicago have all but eliminated gun related shootings. Color me skeptical.


If you'd had them since the start of Chicago, would have worked fine, too many guns out there now for it to be the miracle solution although it will slowly improve things, and also without the same laws in the rest of the country it's difficult.

Also the numbers on illegals voting are vanishingly small, the Republicans are using it to disenfranchise large numbers of Democrat voters.
0

#10757 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,283
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-August-08, 14:35

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-08, 12:02, said:

If you'd had them since the start of Chicago, would have worked fine, too many guns out there now for it to be the miracle solution although it will slowly improve things, and also without the same laws in the rest of the country it's difficult.

Also the numbers on illegals voting are vanishingly small, the Republicans are using it to disenfranchise large numbers of Democrat voters.


NPR had this about Chicago (Illinois) gun laws: (emphasis added)

Quote

Neither Wisconsin nor Indiana requires licenses or permits to purchase a gun, for example, nor do they require waiting periods. While Illinois has that B+ rating from the law center, Wisconsin has a C- and Indiana a D-.

And there's good evidence that being next-door to those states keeps Chicago criminals well-supplied with guns. A 2015 study of guns in Chicago, co-authored by Cook, found that more than 60 percent of new guns used in Chicago gang-related crimes and 31.6 percent used in non-gang-related crimes between 2009 and 2013 were bought in other states. Indiana was a particularly heavy supplier, providing nearly one-third of the gang guns and nearly one-fifth of the non-gang guns.

Other evidence corroborates this — a 2014 Chicago Police Department report found that Indiana accounted for 19 percent of all guns recovered by the department between 2009 and 2013.

New firearms trace data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives released last week likewise shows that Illinois as a whole faces a massive influx of guns. Of around 8,700 firearms recovered in Illinois and for which the bureau found a source state, more than half came from out of state — 1,366, nearly 16 percent, came from Indiana alone.

By comparison, 82 percent of guns recovered in Indiana and traced were from within Indiana, suggesting that criminals in that state don't have to cross state lines, like those in Illinois, to get their weapons.


But the real reason why pointing to Chicago as gun law failure is such a disingenuous argument is that there is no way to know what Chicago's death toll from guns would be if there were no laws governing firearms.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#10758 User is offline   jjbrr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,525
  • Joined: 2009-March-30
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-August-09, 06:16

devin nunes is the ldrews of actual politics. here's transcripts without any further comments:

Clip #1:

Quote

REP. NUNES (R-CA): “So therein lies, so it’s like your classic Catch-22 situation where we were at a – this puts us in such a tough spot. If Sessions won’t unrecuse and Mueller won’t clear the president, we’re the only ones. Which is really the danger. That’s why I keep, and thank you for saying it by the way, I mean we have to keep all these seats. We have to keep the majority. If we do not keep the majority, all of this goes away.”


Clip #2:

Quote

REP. NUNES (R-CA): “They know it’s ridiculous to go after the president for obstruction of justice. But if they tell a lie often enough and they put it out there and they say, ‘Oh, we’re looking at the tweets,’ cause you know you’ve got a mixed bag on the tweets, right? Like sometimes you love the president’s tweets, sometimes we cringe on the president’s tweets. But they’re trying to make a political, this is all political as to why that story ran in the New York Times on the tweets.”


Clip #3:

Quote

REP. NUNES (R-CA): “Now if somebody thinks that my campaign or Cathy’s campaign is colluding with the Chinese, or you name the country, hey, could happen, it would be a very bad thing if Cathy was getting secrets from the Portuguese, let’s say, just because I’m Portuguese, my family was. So Cathy was getting secret information from the Portuguese. You know, may or may not be unusual. But ultimately let’s say the Portuguese came and brought her some stolen emails. And she decided to release those. Okay, now we have a problem, right? Because somebody stole the emails, gave ‘em to Cathy, Cathy released ‘em. Well, if that’s the case, then that’s criminal.”


Clip #4:

Quote

AUDIENCE MEMBER: “But also, on things that came up in the House on Rosenstein impeachment thing. And it appears from an outsider that the Republicans were not supported.”

REP. NUNES (R-CA): “Yeah, well, so it’s a bit complicated, right? And I say that because you have to, so we only have so many months left, right? So if we actually vote to impeach, okay, what that does is that triggers the Senate then has to take it up. Well, and you have to decide what you want right now because the Senate only has so much time. Do you want them to drop everything and not confirm the Supreme Court justice, the new Supreme Court justice? So that’s part of why, I don’t think you have, you’re not getting from, and I’ve said publicly Rosenstein deserves to be impeached. I mean, so, I don’t think you’re gonna get any argument from most of our colleagues. The question is the timing of it right before the election.”

REP. MCMORRIS RODGERS (R-WA): “Also, the Senate has to start –”

REP. NUNES (R-CA): “The Senate would have to start, the Senate would have to drop everything they’re doing and start to, and start with impeachment on Rosenstein. And then take the risk of not getting Kavanaugh confirmed. So it’s not a matter that any of us like Rosenstein. It’s a matter of, it’s a matter of timing.”

OK
bed
0

#10759 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,283
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-August-09, 09:51

And away we go.

Quote

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) warns that Russian hackers already have gained access to election systems in some Florida counties and have the ability to interfere in the midterms.

Quote

Tampa Bay Times:

"They have already penetrated certain counties in the state and they now have free rein to move about," Nelson told the Tampa Bay Times.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#10760 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2018-August-09, 11:42

 kenberg, on 2018-August-08, 06:41, said:

To go a little beyond my above flippant remark, it is worthwhile pointing out a crucial difference between Manafort and, say, the Koch brothers. No doubt the Koch brothers were interested in their profits, but I think they also believe/believed (one having died thus the /) in conservatism. Manafort? I don't think so. Money, power, expensive clothes, yes. Any political principal? Not interested. And of course the same can be said of the man he once worked for. Reagan had once been a liberal but became a conservative. He believed in it. Trump was once a D but became an R. But he believes in Trump, any thing else? Not interested. . This explains a lot, I think.

Who supplied this three-year progression of themes for his firm's annual golf outings known as Boodles (after the gin brand): “Excess” followed by “Exceed Excess” capped by “Excess Is Best”?

I have nothing against anyone having a good time. I do think it's important to distinguish what makes for a fun golf outing from what makes for good governance.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

  • 1106 Pages +
  • « First
  • 536
  • 537
  • 538
  • 539
  • 540
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

86 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 86 guests, 0 anonymous users