Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 1003 1004 [1005] 1006 1007 ... 1293

Author Topic: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0  (Read 591610 times)

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #15060 on: December 02, 2016, 09:11:48 am »

That, and the reluctance of some Democrats to call a riot a riot.  Consider Baltimore last summer.  There were what, 3 days of rioting?  They stopped the minute the governor sent in the National Guard.
Eh, that's not really a party focused thing, tbh. Republicans are notably skittish about calling stuff like sports riots what they are (or just pointedly ignoring they existed) and pretty quick to downplay/attempt to reframe similar stuff that manifests differently (see that church shooting... a year or two ago? Something like that. Just as one example among many.).

... also very quick to call shit that very much isn't rioting that in order to discredit protesters. There's definitely all sorts of framing issues that have been plaguing american politics for years, now, basically. FTFE, et al.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #15061 on: December 02, 2016, 09:17:11 am »


Re, flint's water
Law of unintended consequences..

However, the danger of lead piping is not new, and the ancient romans knew about it.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html


Logged

Lord Shonus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Angle of Death
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #15062 on: December 02, 2016, 09:24:34 am »

Aye, that's why lead pipes were made illegal. It is just that nobody wanted to spend the vast amounts of money to rip the old ones out when the hazard was very small compared to other possible lead sources such as paint, pottery glazes, and gasoline. Fast forward decades after we stopped using the things, and most people didn't even realize there are any still around.
Logged
My new 3.5 D&D campaign. Now Recruiting!
Man, ninja'd by a potentially inebriated Lord Shonus. I was gonna say to burn it.

ChristianWeiseth

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #15063 on: December 02, 2016, 10:00:14 am »

A person who is both socially and fiscally conservative may assert that there is not actually a real problem, especially if it is for a social cause.

For example, giving money to single mothers is not something a social+fiscal conservative will really want to do. They would rather see that there are no single mothers, rather than give them social acceptance as a normal thing. As such, they would be more inclined to see that single mothers get temporary support, while they find another husband, etc-- and that such temporary support is indeed just temporary, with finite, fixed limits, and that it is exactly just barely enough to support them until they do so. They would be very concerned about changes in the incidence rate of this issue, as they would view it as a serious social ill in society that there are children not being raised in classic nuclear families. If the incidence rate goes up, they would be in a serious tizzy over it, not be looking for ways to hemorrhage more money to support them.

Throwing money at healthcare doesn't create better healthcare, it just gives bigger bonuses and salaries for the employees. Just as it does in almost every sector that doesn't have a feedback system between demand and supply.

I am a moderate, who is fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. I dont see a problem with single mothers, as long as they are able to properly provide for their children. Everyone falls on hard times, and having a social safety net is a good thing, but having people subsist entirely out of it is not acceptable. (For one, it takes money away from people who are just in a rough patch of road, which leads them to persistent poverty if they are not helped in a timely manner-- and two, enabling persistent populations supported by the state creates a persistent underclass which is deleterious to the society.) People getting government assistance should receive just enough to get by, and only for limited periods, and only recieve permanent assistance for VERY VERY special conditions, with strict requirements.

A social+fiscal liberal wants to accept every social choice as being valid, and wants to assure that everyone gets everything they want or need in a comfortable setting, regardless of price of impact to the rest of society.

Not sure how it is in the US but in Norway we have very serious problem with welfare spending.

I recommend the book "Michael Lipsky: Street Level Bureaucracies" as it explains why public directorates and institutions always "implode" over time.

For Example, in my country the single payer healthcare system capacity has reduced 67% whereas spending has increased 400% the last 30 years and even though we have three times as many doctors the amount of people waiting more than 6 months for operations/treatment has increased 64% and the price of each person in the system has increased by 70%. If we continue the current trend our healthcare system which is ranked best in the world by the UN will collapse.

Welfare is very nice, to not have to worry about poverty is relaxing, though I also see the problem with making people comfortably poor which makes people perpetual welfare dependent which limits social mobility over time.

What we end up is a strange mix of incentives to get people to work, get companies to hire unemployed by having government pay part of the salary etc all of which has consequences that creates new problems such as unfair advantage, corporations only hiring part time unemployed people on rotation to lower wage cost which requires new laws to prevent this which also limits companies ability to change in accordance to demand of services etc.

And with regards to the election I'm as a Norwegian is very happy Trump got elected even if he will force my country to contribute more to NATO because war with Russia is the biggest threat to welfare here in Europe and I hope it doesn't happen, though we do have warmongers here who want a war with Russia. Ironically in Norway both Communists and Conservatives are allied whereas the Socialist and Moderates want war... strange times.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2016, 10:03:55 am by ChristianWeiseth »
Logged

McTraveller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #15064 on: December 02, 2016, 11:35:45 am »

So it seems like my philosophy is kind of similar to that of @Wierd - maybe we should start a new party?  ;D
Logged

Shadowlord

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #15065 on: December 02, 2016, 11:57:34 am »

So it seems like my philosophy is kind of similar to that of @Wierd - maybe we should start a new party?  ;D

We can call it the Illuminati.
Logged
<Dakkan> There are human laws, and then there are laws of physics. I don't bike in the city because of the second.
Dwarf Fortress Map Archive

misko27

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lawful Neutral
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #15066 on: December 02, 2016, 12:18:06 pm »

So it seems like my philosophy is kind of similar to that of @Wierd - maybe we should start a new party?  ;D
Sure. Just get a couple of supremely wealthy backers and ideally at least a 100000000% increase in support and you are on your way to competing with the Libs and Greens for "Most entertaining waste of our time."
« Last Edit: December 02, 2016, 12:29:33 pm by misko27 »
Logged
The Age of Man is over. It is the Fire's turn now

PTTG??

  • Bay Watcher
  • Kringrus! Babak crulurg tingra!
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nowherepublishing.com
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #15067 on: December 02, 2016, 12:51:05 pm »

So it seems like my philosophy is kind of similar to that of @Wierd - maybe we should start a new party?  ;D
Sure. Just get a couple of supremely wealthy backers and ideally at least a 100000000% increase in support and you are on your way to competing with the Libs and Greens for "Most entertaining waste of our time."

If the people who didn't vote because they didn't like either major party had voted for a third party, then that third party would have won.

The idea that third parties is irrelevant is a very carefully constructed propaganda campaign created specifically to keep people from voting for them.
Logged
Space 'Murrica! United States of Space! (Stellaris Democratic Succession)

A thousand million pool balls made from precious metals, covered in beef stock.

BorkBorkGoesTheCode

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #15068 on: December 02, 2016, 01:19:08 pm »

Sig'd
Logged
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images

Believe nothing you hear. Or everything. Have fun. Love when?

I frequently use PMs to contact people if I think they would miss a post in the deluge.

Shadowlord

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #15069 on: December 02, 2016, 01:21:49 pm »

Except that would never happen because people have issues getting to the polls and having the time to stay for hours if there's a line (and dealing with other voter suppression tactics).
Logged
<Dakkan> There are human laws, and then there are laws of physics. I don't bike in the city because of the second.
Dwarf Fortress Map Archive

Sergarr

  • Bay Watcher
  • (9) airheaded baka (9)
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #15070 on: December 02, 2016, 01:30:54 pm »

So it seems like my philosophy is kind of similar to that of @Wierd - maybe we should start a new party?  ;D
Sure. Just get a couple of supremely wealthy backers and ideally at least a 100000000% increase in support and you are on your way to competing with the Libs and Greens for "Most entertaining waste of our time."

If the people who didn't vote because they didn't like either major party had voted for a third party, then that third party would have won.

The idea that third parties is irrelevant is a very carefully constructed propaganda campaign created specifically to keep people from voting for them.
That's assuming a nearly 100% turnout and no vote splitting in third-party vote. If third-parties had someone like Theodore Roosevelt level of charismatic figure on their side, then maybe yes, otherwise, yeah they don't matter.

Or rather, they do matter - it's just that the real effective third parties (i.e. Radical Populists, like Donald Trump, and Socialists, like Bernie Sanders) join the main two and subvert them from within.

In other news, shit in EC is slowly getting more real. Previously, I would say that it would be a bad idea if the result gets overturned... but given what massive garbage Trump has hired for administration, and the climate change funding disaster that they've already announced, yyyyeah I better hope they flip it. Sorry Obama, Trump is just that bad.
Logged
._.

Rockphed

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #15071 on: December 02, 2016, 01:34:54 pm »

you need to incentivize employment, via an effective and rational minimum wage.

By necessity, government assistance needs to be below this amount, or the perverse anti-incentive manifests.

The true minimum wage always has been, and always will be, 0.  In other words, companies can always choose not to hire people who aren't worth paying the minimum wage.  Getting people able to support themselves is a very complicated problem that the right and left have diametrically opposed views on how to fix.

And, at present, government assistance is high enough that marginal "tax" rates are over 100% for above the table work.  And people on government assistance are still, generally, stuck far enough below that poverty line that they are unlikely to ever get out.

Have you been to Detroit recently?  How about Chicago?  How about Flint?  All three, and many more hard-hit inner cities have been safely Democrat for the last 2 - 3 generations.  You could probably point out problems with large cities that have been reliably republican for similar time frames, but I don't think any exist.  No, you do not want a single party to hold the reigns for too long without competent competition.  Competition keeps the people in power sharp.

Flint's water problems arose as a direct result of republican Governor Rick Snyder and other state officials' actions. Citation is wall street journal.

Flint's water problems arose as a result of the city going bankrupt and the state stepping in to take over.  The guy assigned to fix the city's finances just happened to also be, apparently, incompetent when it came to public works (he tried to cut a corner that should not have been cut).  Why Flint and Detroit went bankrupt (and the state of Michigan had to step in to fix their finances), is a much more complicated problem with roots in the race riots of the 60s and factory movement of the NAFTA era.

And I maintain that the nanny-state mentality of many Democrats leads directly to job-movement and lost opportunity.  That, and the reluctance of some Democrats to call a riot a riot.  Consider Baltimore last summer.  There were what, 3 days of rioting?  They stopped the minute the governor sent in the National Guard.

It would probably help to go over what happened in Flint in more detail, just so that everyone's on the same page of the conversation.

For a long time, Flint was getting water from the City of Detroit, which is an unusually expensive water system. After Republicans took power in that state, the state gained the power to place any municipal government under a special governor if that government is in a financial crisis. Flint was placed under such a governor who decided that another water system in the region would be just as good and significantly cheaper, and arranged for a switch. When Detroit turned off the flow, the other system wasn't ready to supply, and it was decided that water would be drawn from the Flint River (which had been an emergency backup for decades) as a temporary solution, and certain chemicals (mainly dissolved road salt) were not properly filtered out. While these chemicals would not normally be a major health hazard at the quantities present, much of Flint still has lead piping. Normally, lead pipes form a scale on the inside relatively quickly that prevents lead from contaminating the water - this is why there hasn't been nearly as great a push to remove them as there has been with lead paint and glazes. Unfortunately, the deposits in the Flint River happen to be very, very good at dissolving this scale, rendering the plumbing highly toxic.

Well, the state had the power to place municipalities under state control even when Granholm was governor.  (Detroit Public Schools has been in and out of emergency managers for the last 10 - 20 years.)  It wasn't the Republicans   And the Detroit Water System isn't super expensive inherently, it is just expensive for Flint, which is some 60 - 90 miles from Detroit.

When the switch happened, they were supposed to add anti-corrosives to the water but failed to do so.  They also made the water more corrosive by adding lots of chemicals to kill off the e-coli that they were having problems with.  And, to top it all off, the people who were supposed to make sure it didn't happen either didn't care to push it up the chain or were ignored by the governor's office.  And then the Republican legislature, not being keen on throwing good money after bad, took forever to put forward the money to fix the problems.
Logged
Only vaguely. Made of the same substance and put to the same use, but a bit like comparing a castle and a doublewide trailer.

misko27

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lawful Neutral
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #15072 on: December 02, 2016, 01:53:18 pm »

If the people who didn't vote because they didn't like either major party had voted for a third party, then that third party would have won.
And if they had all voted for me then I would have won! Hypotheticals are fun. Can you show me the slightest bit of evidence that all these poor, oppressed voters are going to vote the same way as each other? My point was that the Third Party of wierd and McTraveller ain't winning the votes of, say, my mother. And if they don't command huge support, they are merely, in the immortal words of Monty Python, "splitters". I don't need evidence that the number of people disappointed in the two main parties is very large, I want evidence stating they share common denominators other than distaste for the main parties that elevate them above "irrelevant." The Libertarians and the Greens would do a lot better if they were won party according to your logic, but that's equally silly to say because they also oppose each other just as fervently.

Quote
The idea that third parties is irrelevant is a very carefully constructed propaganda campaign created specifically to keep people from voting for them.
That fact does not, in and of itself, mean that third parties aren't irrelevant, because they are. It merely means that hypothetically that need not be the case, but hypotheticals are just hypotheticals. You could hypothetically become President of the United States, but I'm not going to sit here and discuss the implications of a PTTG?? presidency because I don't see it happening anytime soon (well at least not until I'm more bored and have fewer projects to complete; we'll see then).

My point is third parties in the US are screwed fundamentally because they are all loaded with fringe-groups, unrespectable, poorly-funded, and derive most of their electoral support not on the basis of their platform but on the basest form of "we aren't those guys," and you can argue about cause and effect (propaganda doesn't work if there ain't a seed of truth) here all day but the fact is that that is how they are now and that is where inertia keeps them. They are like moons: they don't have any light of their own, they merely reflect the light of the main parties. And the most damning thing about them is that anyone who sees the state of third parties does not think "let's take an existing third party and do the hard and unforgiving work of making it more legitimate", but "I'm going to make my own party, with blackjack, and hookers!" It's self-limiting. This election cycle was the best opportunity in a long time for a third party to challenge the dynamic and how did they do? Better than before, but "better" != "good enough", and "good enough" is the only thing that matters.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2016, 01:55:40 pm by misko27 »
Logged
The Age of Man is over. It is the Fire's turn now

BorkBorkGoesTheCode

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #15073 on: December 02, 2016, 02:03:09 pm »


Quote
The idea that third parties is irrelevant is a very carefully constructed propaganda campaign created specifically to keep people from voting for them.
My point is third parties in the US are screwed fundamentally because they are all loaded with fringe-groups, unrespectable, poorly-funded, and derive most of their electoral support not on the basis of their platform but on the basest form of "we aren't those guys," and you can argue about cause and effect (propaganda doesn't work if there ain't a seed of truth) here all day but the fact is that that is how they are now and that is where inertia keeps them. They are like moons: they don't have any light of their own, they merely reflect the light of the main parties. And the most damning thing about them is that anyone who sees the state of third parties does not think "let's take an existing third party and do the hard and unforgiving work of making it more legitimate", but "I'm going to make my own party, with blackjack, and hookers!" It's self-limiting. This election cycle was the best opportunity in a long time for a third party to challenge the dynamic and how did they do? Better than before, but "better" != "good enough", and "good enough" is the only thing that matters.
How is this different from the main parties?
Logged
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images

Believe nothing you hear. Or everything. Have fun. Love when?

I frequently use PMs to contact people if I think they would miss a post in the deluge.

Rockphed

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #15074 on: December 02, 2016, 02:13:58 pm »


Quote
The idea that third parties is irrelevant is a very carefully constructed propaganda campaign created specifically to keep people from voting for them.
My point is third parties in the US are screwed fundamentally because they are all loaded with fringe-groups, unrespectable, poorly-funded, and derive most of their electoral support not on the basis of their platform but on the basest form of "we aren't those guys," and you can argue about cause and effect (propaganda doesn't work if there ain't a seed of truth) here all day but the fact is that that is how they are now and that is where inertia keeps them. They are like moons: they don't have any light of their own, they merely reflect the light of the main parties. And the most damning thing about them is that anyone who sees the state of third parties does not think "let's take an existing third party and do the hard and unforgiving work of making it more legitimate", but "I'm going to make my own party, with blackjack, and hookers!" It's self-limiting. This election cycle was the best opportunity in a long time for a third party to challenge the dynamic and how did they do? Better than before, but "better" != "good enough", and "good enough" is the only thing that matters.
How is this different from the main parties?

This was the perfect year for third parties!  Both major parties nominated someone who approached the presidency as if it were their right.  The best performing third party was Evan Mcmullin, and he didn't even come in second in Utah.  Every other third party peaked between 1 and 2 percent of the vote.  Johnson failed because he engages in the fallacy of the middle and was somewhat unserious about global issues.  Stein failed because she was just too far left for the average American.
Logged
Only vaguely. Made of the same substance and put to the same use, but a bit like comparing a castle and a doublewide trailer.
Pages: 1 ... 1003 1004 [1005] 1006 1007 ... 1293