The Next President is...

[kaputt]

6 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Pointing out the obvious to the oblivious since those that believe it so will just be reaffirmed and those that don't won't or will accept it since it supports their position(s):

 

Interesting that Project Veritas set up a CNN technical producer with, essentially, a honey trap and the poor schmuck, trying to get laid, 'fesses up to all the shenanigans that those on the right have been pointing out - deliberate, stated corporate policy to defeat Trump, deliberate hiding of stories facts detrimental to Democrats, hyping Kung Flu coverage for ratings (shocked, I tell you, shocked), deliberately only covering white on black crimes and not reporting on black on anybody else, especially Asian, crime since it "doesn't help BLM."

 

Twitter just banned both Project Veritas and O'Keefe personally.

We are starting to live in scary times. 
 

What is one supposed to do when the line between a private enterprise and government entity can no longer be discerned?

Big tech has become so powerful and so intertwined with the Democrat party that they are essentially a defacto arm of the party/government. The left of course loves this because they can censor, delete, or promote any speech they wish and then hide behind the guise of “It’s a private business, they can set their own terms of service”. 

[DosXX]

2 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

Forceable suppression of opposition is one of the hallmarks of fascism.  This is modern day fascism

Forcible suppression of opposition is one of the hallmarks of communism. This is modern day communism.

Wait 

[Prozac]

13 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

And by doing so, verified the accusations you listed.  It’s big tech/social media/MSM censoring the truth and opposing opinions.  Doubling down is really all they can do at this point.  

Forceable suppression of opposition is one of the hallmarks of fascism.  This is modern day fascism.  

Wait, wait. I thought one of the hallmarks of a Democratic and open society was freedom of speech, which the Supreme Court recently ruled most definitely applies to corporations. Do you think big tech/MSM/etc are doing any of this with regards to anything other than their bottom lines? Fascism? Hardly. This is un encumbered, free range capitalism doing what it does. I happen to agree that it’s not necessarily the best situation for our country. Repealing Citizens United would be a great first step towards improving things. 

[bfargin]

26 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Wait, wait. I thought one of the hallmarks of a Democratic and open society was freedom of speech, which the Supreme Court recently ruled most definitely applies to corporations. Do you think big tech/MSM/etc are doing any of this with regards to anything other than their bottom lines? Fascism? Hardly. This is un encumbered, free range capitalism doing what it does. I happen to agree that it’s not necessarily the best situation for our country. Repealing Citizens United would be a great first step towards improving things. 

Seriously? We don't have anything near "unencumbered, free range capitalism" in the US. Kickbacks, payoffs, power influencing, etc but not even close to capitalism.

[lloyd christmas]

12 hours ago, Prozac said:

Do you think big tech/MSM/etc are doing any of this with regards to anything other than their bottom lines? 

I absolutely believe big tech/MSM/etc are doing any number of things in concert with the power players in our government to shape, swing and direct public opinion in their favored direction.  Examples of this are literally everywhere. 

And yes, they do it for profit, ie their bottom line.  

[kaputt]

So is the plan to just pretend the southern border doesn’t exist for the next 4 years?

Because it seems like that is the plan. 

[Seriously]

On 4/15/2021 at 11:21 PM, kaputt said:

We are starting to live in scary times. 
 

What is one supposed to do when the line between a private enterprise and government entity can no longer be discerned?

Big tech has become so powerful and so intertwined with the Democrat party that they are essentially a defacto arm of the party/government. The left of course loves this because they can censor, delete, or promote any speech they wish and then hide behind the guise of “It’s a private business, they can set their own terms of service”. 

Remember when Republicans were against net neutrality?

[Seriously]

On 4/16/2021 at 12:40 PM, bfargin said:

Seriously? We don't have anything near "unencumbered, free range capitalism" in the US. Kickbacks, payoffs, power influencing, etc but not even close to capitalism.

Just like how Russia never had true Communism? 

Your argument is just a no true Scotsman fallacy. 

America is a capitalist society. 

[bfargin]

Never said it wasn't capitalism, just said it wasn't  unencumbered, free range as I quoted. Of course we live in a capitalistic society, it's just one where all of the government checks and balances have been corrupted and big money/corporate influence has overtaken any sense of a free market. When huge businesses get tax breaks and tax and other governmental privileges it's not free range capitalism at all, it's a marketplace bought and paid for with the government protecting the big players.

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, Seriously said:

Remember when Republicans were against net neutrality?

Net neutrality had zero to do with the threats we are dealing with from tech companies. But then most NN supporters didn't know any more about it than a few reddit memes.

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, bfargin said:

Never said it wasn't capitalism, just said it wasn't  unencumbered, free range as I quoted. Of course we live in a capitalistic society, it's just one where all of the government checks and balances have been corrupted and big money/corporate influence has overtaken any sense of a free market. When huge businesses get tax breaks and tax and other governmental privileges it's not free range capitalism at all, it's a marketplace bought and paid for with the government protecting the big players.

Shack.

It's absolutely insane that Amazon can hold a nationwide contest for which city can provide it the most tax breaks while any one of us would be laughed out of the room for asking for similar treatment of we started a small business.

As long as conservatives keep reflexively defending the globalization of American jobs and the asymmetrical treatment of immensely powerful corporations, millennials and Gen Zers will continue flocking to the bankrupt and dangerous philosophies of Marx/Bernie/progressives.

[jazzdude]

Never said it wasn't capitalism, just said it wasn't  unencumbered, free range as I quoted. Of course we live in a capitalistic society, it's just one where all of the government checks and balances have been corrupted and big money/corporate influence has overtaken any sense of a free market. When huge businesses get tax breaks and tax and other governmental privileges it's not free range capitalism at all, it's a marketplace bought and paid for with the government protecting the big players.

So what's your solution?

There's no such thing as a free and unencumbered market-something or someone will consolidate wealth and power and use that to influence both the market and the surrounding society that enables the market. That could be government (communism at the extreme) or individual actors (corporate monopolies or individuals), or anywhere between.

Since we don't live in a society that controls businesses directly, how does government incentivize the behaviors it wants to see? Attracting a large business to a city brings people, and if those people are paid well, it injects money into other industries and businesses in the city, as well as increased tax revenue in and screaming other businesses.

But there aren't many carrots a city has to attract an industry or business. It's mainly financial benefits, such as reduced taxes (whether it's on profits or on property taxes), or funding infrastructure for the business (like funding a stadium for a sports team, or public transportation like a metro stop).

If a business gets large enough, it gains influence through it's wealth, both directly and indirectly. It gives them negotiating power when dealing with government (particularly lower levels), particularly if their industry isn't dependent on location. Just like AF pilots, a business can vote with their feet to go somewhere they feel better appreciated.

If a business can influence government and laws, why shouldn't it do so to make conditions favorable for themselves to make more money? Arguably, for a publicly traded company, it's their fiduciary responsibility to do so.

So why is corporate influence on government bad? Is it because they might not be acting in the best interests of society at large?

So then what? Well, government can enact laws/regulation to curb certain actions or behaviors, but this often gets played as "attacking the free market" and/or being socialist/communist.

The only real way to reduce corporate influence in government is to reduce their ability to influence, which is through limiting how much wealth they can accumulate. And the way that's done it's through taxes.

However, this creates a danger with government overreach, especially if the ideals elected government officials hold do not match the people they represent. That tax money has to go to funding what society wants or needs, otherwise, the problem just gets shifted from undue business influence to some other segment of society having undue influence (like the 2 major political parties...).

[jazzdude]

Shack.
It's absolutely insane that Amazon can hold a nationwide contest for which city can provide it the most tax breaks while any one of us would be laughed out of the room for asking for similar treatment of we started a small business.
As long as conservatives keep reflexively defending the globalization of American jobs and the asymmetrical treatment of immensely powerful corporations, millennials and Gen Zers will continue flocking to the bankrupt and dangerous philosophies of Marx/Bernie/progressives.

That's because Amazon has enough money to influence outcomes and brings enough jobs that site selection can have significant impacts to that site. A small business bringing maybe 100-200 people won't have the same impact as Amazon bringing several thousand jobs.

Coincidentally, that's similar to why labor unions work: an individual worker can't negotiate as well as a large organization, unless they have unique/rare abilities. Same goes for businesses- a small business won't be able to negotiate with government as well as a large business, unless they possess something the government is interested in.

I'd bet younger people are flocking to the far left because there's no real middle ground when it comes to voting. I don't think younger people necessarily care if large businesses are treated better than small businesses, they care about making end meet and getting paid well enough to do the things they want. Republicans have doubled down on backing business interests, particularly when wages have been stagnant for so long when compared to productivity expected from workers.

So yeah, if you're in a position where you feel financially squeezed, you're going to vote for someone who will at least consider a minimum wage increase, or better worker protections like sick leave or access to healthcare. They're going to vote for someone who will help them meet basic needs, all the other politics don't really matter if you're struggling. And since Republicans won't even entertain any debate on those subjects (and use the "free market" as an excuse to not engage in meaningful debate, or to acknowledge that there might be a problem), of course they'll vote Democrat, even if they don't fully agree with their platform. The unfortunate byproduct of that is that it enables the far left to push their agenda on many other unrelated fronts.

[HeloDude]

Is Biden’s travel ban on India due to bigotry/racism?  Asking for a friend...

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-biden-set-ban-most-travel-us-india-limit-covid-19-spread-2021-04-30/

[busdriver]

16 hours ago, jazzdude said:

So what's your solution?

Reduce the power of the government.  Less ability for overreach and less ability/incentive to buy favor.

[jazzdude]

Reduce the power of the government.  Less ability for overreach and less ability/incentive to buy favor.

The challenge I see is that someone or some group will step in to fill that power gap, and they might not be accountable to the citizens.

Look at speech on the internet (facebook, twitter, get al). Government doesn't really have much in the way of laws or regulations here (there is some, but largely seems to be extensions of rules for older media rather than addressing unique qualities of social media). So largely it was left up to the tech companies to self regulate behavior. Their incentive to self regulate was to prevent actual laws being put on the books, which could hurt their business model. That was great, right up to the point where the tech companies started acting in their own interests based on their views of society.

This created a dilemma. On one hand, social media/tech companies are private organizations and should be free to censor whatever they want, since the first amendment only prevents government from restricting speech. On the other hand, since social media companies can have broad influence in controlling narratives and what gets promoted or seen, they can sway how people think and potentially vote, giving social media companies undue influence on our laws and social norms.

I doubt less regulation (reduction in scope of government power) would fix this particular problem. The challenge is, if laws or regulations are soght, the same large companies who are the cause for needing those new laws are also the same ones with money to lobby for their interests.

Basically, it all just comes down to "don't be a dick to other people." The difficult part is that statement encompasses a wide range of definitions for what constitutes acceptable behavior, which is amplified by how diverse our country is (and not just race/ethnicity, but also regional norms/beliefs, religions, and the wide range of upbringings). And there's only a few ways to deal with people/groups being dicks: laws and a system to enforce those laws (which consolidates authority/power in those who enforce the laws), social norms and unwritten standards enforced by shame and ridicule, or just straight up violence (power through strength).

[pawnman]

15 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Is Biden’s travel ban on India due to bigotry/racism?  Asking for a friend...

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-biden-set-ban-most-travel-us-india-limit-covid-19-spread-2021-04-30/

Life comes at you fast. 

 

[brickhistory]

17 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Is Biden’s travel ban on India due to bigotry/racism?  Asking for a friend...

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-biden-set-ban-most-travel-us-india-limit-covid-19-spread-2021-04-30/

Is spilling classified information to Iran still a federal crime?  Asking for another friend of this friend...

 

Is falsely attesting to drug use and flavor of military discharge on a Form 4473 when buying a gun still a felony?  Asking for the son of that first friend...

 

Is being orange now a felony?

[NKAWTG]

43 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Is spilling classified information to Iran still a federal crime?  Asking for another friend of this friend...

 

Is falsely attesting to drug use and flavor of military discharge on a Form 4473 when buying a gun still a felony?  Asking for the son of that first friend...

 

Is being orange now a felony?

Only if someone will hold them accountable.  Earliest would be 2023 that it could happen. 

[brickhistory]

2 hours ago, NKAWTG said:

Only if someone will hold them accountable.  Earliest would be 2023 that it could happen. 

It would be nice if this could be true, but Leviathan/Deep State/entrenched bureaucracy/good taxpayer-funded deals demonstrated pretty vividly from 2017-2021 that this isn't the case.

 

The IRS, among others, used its power to punish wrong-thinking Americans who held contrarian political views.  They hid/destroyed evidence, lied under oath about it.  Not one person was punished, charged, or lost a sweet government pension.

The FBI and at least parts of the Intelligence Community intentionally spied on a presidential candidate, a President, and willfully lied about it multiple times.  Those are now facts.  And the FISA courts said, "Tsk, tsk."  And recently appointed one of the key DOJ participants as one of the watchdogs.

Comey/Brennan/McCabe/Powers, et al did really heinous things against a President they didn't like.  One elected by the American people.  And not one person saw the inside of a jail.  One low-level lawyer pled down to a single charge and received a suspended sentence.  Didn't even lose his law license.

Cities are literally burning and it's called "mostly peaceful" and miscreants are either not charged or provided bail via elected officials.  

Protesters at the Capital are relentlessly pursued and charged with fairly minor crimes.  An Air Force veteran was shot and killed by a cop because of....?

All fun and political games until those powers are turned against us little guys because we believe/think/speak a different tune.

So Leviathan proved its power pretty clearly. 

[busdriver]

19 hours ago, jazzdude said:

The challenge I see is that someone or some group will step in to fill that power gap, and they might not be accountable to the citizens.

Of course "they" wouldn't be. 

If you're seriously looking for a nice tidy answer, there isn't one.  Everything is a compromise of trade-offs. 

[jazzdude]

Of course "they" wouldn't be. 
If you're seriously looking for a nice tidy answer, there isn't one.  Everything is a compromise of trade-offs. 

I agree. Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats don't want to compromise, and both sides are happy to fuel the fire and polarize politics, largely on single issues to try and get a majority and push things through unilaterally.

[busdriver]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

3 hours ago, busdriver said:

Of course "they" wouldn't be. 
If you're seriously looking for a nice tidy answer, there isn't one.  Everything is a compromise of trade-offs. 

I agree. Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats don't want to compromise, and both sides are happy to fuel the fire and polarize politics, largely on single issues to try and get a majority and push things through unilaterally.

Of course they're intransigent jerks.  The government has too much power.

My statement has nothing to do with political compromise.  The point is someone who views the government's role to make a better society will try to figure out which policy levers to pull to get closer to their vision of a better future without negative consequences.  That lever is a myth.  There are always negative consequences.

 

[NKAWTG]

20 hours ago, NKAWTG said:

Only if someone will hold them accountable.  Earliest would be 2023 that it could happen. 

To explain my snark a bit more, I don't believe any part of the executive branch will investigate any misconduct by someone with a (D) by their name.  So when it comes to Kerry selling out the Israelis, the media will turn a blind eye.  Doubtful Israel will share any intel on how many of their people were compromised/killed because of Kerry.  The only reasonable thing would be the House switching hands, and committees doing their own investigation.  As we saw during the Obama years, the committees will be high on rhetoric, and low on ability to compel testimony from the Justice Department and the IRS, to name a few.  

So where do go from here? I haven't a clue at this point. 

[jazzdude]

Of course they're intransigent jerks.  The government has too much power.
My statement has nothing to do with political compromise.  The point is someone who views the government's role to make a better society will try to figure out which policy levers to pull to get closer to their vision of a better future without negative consequences.  That lever is a myth.  There are always negative consequences.
 

Political compromise helps mitigate/resolve those negative consequences through facilitating debate from multiple viewpoints. And yes, for any policy/law there will likely be at least some negative consequences that affect someone. But that's just a fact of life with any form of government, at least with a representative government you get input into the process, and it's the price that's paid to live in the society being governed.

My point is the people that wanted to pull those government levers to effect a change will find other levers elsewhere within society to do so if that lever is removed from government. Those negative consequences don't go away just because a different organization is now controlling the lever.

Really, the only way to reduce government power (in a functioning representative government) on an issue is if we as a society agree on that issue and use informal (i.e. non-governmental) methods and power to enforce that norm or standard. However, this still creates negative consequences for people in the minority, and can leave them with no recourse except to appeal to government to protect them through laws if their basic rights are being violated.

So if you're in the majority in the country on an issue, removing government power has no effect on you, and may be a benefit since removing power removes the costs associated with enforcement of that power. But if you're in the minority and that government power was protecting you from the majority, you'll lose out. So the question becomes to what extent do we protect the rights of the minority from the majority? Otherwise, it just turns into mob rule, which negates any benefit of democracy or representative governments.