Slashdot Mirror

>"All the outdoor parks and memorials will remain open because there's no need to close them. Trees keep growing, rivers keep flowing..."

Unless you are under the Obama administration and then close and ROPE/CONE OFF outdoor parks, monuments and/or parking, just to prove a point. So the shutdown won't pay for the operational aspects, but they somehow can pay rangers and police to force people to not enter parks, to park their cars, or get too close to monuments??

https://naturalresources.house...
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/...

I've always wondered how Obama managed to thrive in the Chicago political environment, rising through the ranks in Chicago from community organizer, to the State Senate (representing Chicago), then to the US Senate (and then of course on to President) and remain so squeaky clean.

He wasn't squeaky clean, the media protected him immensely. Negative things like his pastor being a racist, his pics with Louis Farrakhan, IRS targeting political opponents, and other scandals were brushed aside or buried. If the media had an axe to grind with him the way they did with either the president before or after him he would look less capable than Carter.

citations

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/... https://www.azquotes.com/autho... https://www.naturalnews.com/04...

I always chuckle when Krugman goes to his IS-LM graphs and equations, and I think, "You really believe those describe the entire system?"

Considering he always says it does not describe the entire system, that's a rather odd thing to say if you're actually reading what he writes.

Krugman's NYT column is called "The Conscience of a Liberal." Nate Silver and Krugman had a public dispute when Silver left the NYT to form FiveThirtyEight. Silver said, about Krugman, "Plenty of pundits have really high IQs, but they don’t have any discipline in how they look at the world, and so it leads to a lot of bullshit, basically,” Silver said in that interview."

Economic models are data fit to curves. See the 'Philips curve' and 'the breakdown of the Philips curve'. However, this data exists in the context of other systems. "All Models Are Wrong" of course, but it seems to me many economists don't appreciate the error in their models and are willing (and paid) to make grand pronouncements based on highly error-filled models. Often in support of one social narrative or another.

. The economy grows around those sources of money, which aren't geared towards addressing people's needs and wants. They wonder why productivity hasn't improved.

Except productivity has improved. The US, despite that whole "death of manufacturing" thing, is producing 3x the goods we made in the 1980s.....we're doing it with a lot less people because productivity has vastly improved, which is the one of the primary sources of that "death of manufacturing" thing.

Yes, it has since the 1980s, but it started stalling around 2005, and that is the point of curiosity. Here are other links. This is a basic, widely discussed topic.

I think going forward, there's a strong push towards socialist populism. Unless we can come up with a system that is again self-sustaining and self-organizing that allows people to create value and which fairly pays people for their labor. The view is dimming for the latter.

So, your first option is to invent a new economic system that will be highly stable because.....reasons.

No, not because 'reasons'. Because of its fairness and resistance to corruption, cronyism and favoritism. A system which is self-organizing and automatically rewards people based on their contribution would be fair; but then it could lead to vast swaths where people cannot contribute anything of value because offshore labor or machines can do it more cheaply and efficiently. That would be bad for humanitarian reasons and it can lead to social unrest.

Your second option is democratic socialism as practiced by most of Europe. Including Germany that you laud as successful in your post.

There's precisely zero reasons we can't do the latter in the US. The barrier has been the "Me Generation". And they're gonna die soon.

Don't conflate all of Europe as one.

We don't want to emulate France, Spain, Portugal. They have high unemployment and lower standards of living and more volatile economies. We're not like Norway in which we basically rely on vast oil deposits for our national wealth. Not in Europe but

https://www.google.com/search?...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/...

Now, Person #2. I can tell you later.

The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.

That didn't work. It was ruled 8-0 that he had to turn over the tapes to the special prosecutor (who was within the executive branch) and the federal district court. And the ruling granted limited executive privilege, but not as protection against criminal inquiry.

There's a reason why Kavanaugh was primarily arguing for presidential immunity in 2009 as policy matter to be taken up congress: because it didn't exist in the law as it was. Your position is not novel, it has been tried and failed, and Nixon quite clearly showed that impeachment was a more effective and proper check on Presidential criminality when aided by more than just Article I powers. Even Trey Gowdy, a fairly strong loyalist to Trump and the Republicans in the House of Representatives, said as roughly as much in April:

"I can't say what's in the universe of witnesses we have not talked to," he continued. "And I have always maintained I am awaiting the Mueller investigation. They get to use a grand jury. They have investigative tools that we don't have."

"Executive branch investigations are just better than congressional ones. So we found no evidence of collusion. Whether or not it exists or not, I can't speak to, because I haven't interviewed the full panoply of witnesses."

Uh, you do realize that the "Christian fundies" have been tracking abortion doctors already, right? Here's a story about them using license plate tracking. And there have already been multiple assassination attempts (and successful assassinations) on abortion doctors previously, so the violent innuendo has already been breached.

I'm not going to speak to the efficacy or wisdom of doxxing ICE agents, but you seem to be behind the times on the willingness and capability of the radical right wing to resort to political violence. It's going to get extremely ugly very quickly if both sides start regularly using violence for political ends.

Why not use something more universal, like 'Veritas'?

Because there's already a "Project Veritas", which is led by one of the few people who has actually been caught commiting voter fraud, and which been caught multiple times deceptively editing footage to make perfectly legal interactions seem nefarious, and in some cases to look like the exact opposite of what actually happened.

Fixed it for you.

"There's no vote fraud!"

Again, BULLSHIT. How can you tell if there's vote fraud if you don't ID the voter? You can't.

Republicans know there is voter fraud. In the first person. https://www.denverpost.com/201...

http://occupydemocrats.com/201...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=946...

http://nhpr.org/post/mancheste...

https://www.arktimes.com/arkan...

http://archive.jsonline.com/ne...

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/...

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...

Yesiree, Republicans know full well that there is voter fraud, and that is because so much Votter Fraud is performed by Republicans - highly ranked ones even - And your wet dream of a voter ID is going to do nothing, not one thing but eliminate a trite old chestnut of a talking point.

Personally, I'm in favor of voter ID - but given that Republicans bring it up every election cycle like it is the cure blessed by God himself for them thar godless commiecrats and their letting them chocolate people - who always commit fraud, amirite? - is just Bullshit - to use your term.

Phase it in, make it free ( hey, maybe we can get that Russian Oligarch who funnels money to Republicans through the NRA to chip in ) and start long before elections.

But how is that going to actually stop Republican election fraud? Or is that Okay because the Republican party has shown it has a lock on the moral high ground?

So when they turn on the microphone they somehow automagically can't hear at least his half of the conversations on the hardened phone, or all sides of in person meetings? I mean WTF they are just now banning personal phones in the west wing??!? Explain to me how he isn't a moron when you can't walk into half the companies in the US with one, but what the hell, why not have them in national security meetings.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l... will her account be suspended?

That's not a war on America. That's what America wants.

Media outlets live and die by ratings. They've tried appealing to people's logic before. Audiences tune it out.

Actually, this is a general metaphor for most of the modern world. Big bad "corporations" get blamed for the general preferences and assholishness of the general public. Want to know why all food is such cheap shit? McDs tries to sell salads, but nobody buys. Want to know why all the characters in horror movies are so stupid, and hit TV shows make fun of nerds? Most of the audience is stupider than a bag of rocks.

And politically -- and this also applies to intelligent people as well -- nobody wants information. All they want is validation. So that's what modern day media provides them. They have to, in this competitive landscape. The days of the big three forcing people to watch southerners brutalizing blacks because there was literally nothing else on TV, is long gone. They'll just switch to FOX, where no one even knows that Trump is in hock up to his eyeballs to Putin-connected billionaires.

So plainly the notion that money is the absolute determinant in politics is false.

Oh no, the Republican gerrymandering is also a significant factor.

North Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, Texas, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia all demonstrate the effectiveness of that manipulation.

Of course, they already lost in Arizona, so it won't be long before the people start taking back the power. Then what will they do?

Treason is the actual charge with which the FBI intended to charge Hillary Clinton. Whether it is a correct or incorrect use of the term lies with the agency, not with me. They did the very same thing they were investigating her for doing; therefore, to continue investigating her for that thing and risk having the act legally labeled as treason by way of a conviction against Clinton, the FBI would have been risking their own investigation and potential treason charges for those in charge of the Clinton investigation.

Again, I'm not the one who said "treason", that came from House Homeland Security Chairman Mike McCaul. That is what the FBI investigating Clinton for.

If McCaul and the FBI misunderstood the definition (notice how I'm not arguing over the legal definition here), that's on them, not me. It still doesn't change the fact that, and I'm purposely repeating myself to drive the point home, that is what they were investigating her for re: her email server while they were (and still are) doing the same thing, themselves re: the Tor exploit. That might indicate logical reasoning as to why they did not pursue the legal precedent of having such actions labelled as treason.

Of course, if could also be any number of other reasons, including the fact that liability for leaking any classified documents would fall on the individual(s) who sent them to Clinton's personal server knowing that her server was not vetted for such communications (e.g. the person(s) who actually leaked the communications). That, of course, is my opinion; I also feel that she may share in that liability if she requested such documents to be sent to that server and, especially so, if she misrepresented the status of that server in the course of any such requests.

Do I think she's innocent? I honestly don't know; it doesn't seem like she immediately deleted the emails and informed the sender not to send classified communications via that channel in the future, nor did she report and such breaches, though there were many of them. For that, I believe she bears liability to an extent. Treason? Perhaps not, but, again, I'm not the one who said it in the first place.

Do I think a large number of military, law enforcement, and intelligence agents and analysts, along with many members of Congress and a slew of other government officials would have burned had charges been brought? Definitely. That, also, may or may not have had anything to do with the FBI dropping their investigation. Just as likely, in fact, as their knowledge that they were putting classified communications at risk just as much as Clinton was, and that it would eventually come to light; thus they may not have wanted to set a legal precedent.

Please share the link where it's proved he "took money" from the Russians? Smells like a "fact" pulled from your ass.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/e...

http://www.reuters.com/article...

You could try repeating facts, or, you know, come up with more Fake News like him being "paid by the Russians".

Flynn Was Paid By Russia for 2015 Trip

Trump adviser Michael T. Flynn on his dinner with Putin

But don't let facts get in the way of calling everything "Fake News."

1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back

"Gov. Romney, I'm glad you recognize al-Qaeda is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what is the biggest geopolitical group facing America, you said Russia — not al-Qaeda. And the 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back — because the Cold War has been over for 20 years.

So, which is it?

In reality, however, we see that abortions are dropping.

The Little Sisters of the Poor were just picking a legal fight rather than admit they used the coverage let doing more to actually help the poor who they are supposed to serve. Apparently filling out paperwork is so onerous, they'd rather pay a bunch of lawyers. To waste time. Even the Supreme Court punted.

The GOP was given everything they had wanted in healthcare reform, yet refused to get behind their own plan. Now they're stuck with years of repeal calls, but they can't afford to deliver. And they have nothing to counter offer.

About time to leave your echo chamber and enter another one, where the MSM gave tons of free air time to Trump and the NYT is down on Hillary:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l...

Not exactly. Trade is a technical improvement as well.

Let's first talk about technological improvement, which you seem to understand. I just want to create the frame so we don't encounter an unpredicted communications issue.

Say you make 40 chairs in 40 hours. To buy a chair requires the payment of 1 hour's wage. Simple.

You find a new way to make chairs--maybe even just a new order of doing things with the same tools. That's technical progress (the economic term for development of new technology). You now make 40 chairs in 20 hours. To buy a chair requires the payment of 1/2 hour's wage.

So you still work 40 hours, you make 80 chairs. People don't need all these damned chairs. Using your technology, chair manufacture is revolutionized; 50% of all chairmakers become unemployed. (It's okay: they make up 0.1% of the workforce.)

Over time, the price of chairs falls. What I described above happens at different rates for different things; inflation makes it impossible to keep all costs relatively the same; and competition (not just chairs-against-chairs, but trying to sell things to a market with a limited amount of income from which to spend money--you're competing with *everything*, including the behavior of saving) drives prices down.

At this point, chairs are actually priced at half as much. Consumers have money left over to spend.

As it turns out, we can also make 40 cushions in 20 hours. Consumers have that 1/2 hour of wage left to spend. As a result, 40 hours now makes 40 chairs WITH CUSHIONS.

So that's technology: some people lost their job, costs came down, prices eventually followed, consumer buying power went up, bought more shit.

What about trade?

Let's say you can make 40 chairs in 40 hours; but China can make 40 chairs in 20 hours.

You can make 40 cushions in 20 hours; China can make 40 cushions in 40 hours.

So, you and China, each, can make 40 chairs with cushions in 60 hours.

You outsource all your chair manufacture to China; and China buys all their cushions from you. Now, together, you spend 40 hours making 40 chairs and 40 cushions. You just found a way to reduce the labor making 40 chairs with cushions from 60 hours to 40 hours.

That's technical progress. That's new technology.

While China is building all our shit, we're graduating doctors and IT professionals. We consume a lot, and have a lot of retail centers; and clothing, food, and the like cost a smaller proportion of our income. We're buying more and better products and services, including better healthcare.

The buying power per capita in the United States has increased thanks to shifting work into the hands of economies who have greater expertise and capability to do the work, and instead doing work at which we're more-efficient. That's new technology.

It looks different because you shifted 100 hours of work in the house doing everything yourself first to 80 hours of work spread across people in your local community, then to 60 hours of work spread across the region, then to 40 hours of work spread across the state, and now to even less spread around the world. A lot of it has moved out of sight.

The United States has a higher labor force participation rate than it did before 1970--and higher than other developed countries--and still has around 5% unemployment. We've had unemployment ups and downs constantly, even as far back as the 1890s. Between the 60s and 70s, we outsourced a lot to Japan; then Korea; about 20% of our outsource is to China now.

Sometimes, people try to compare unemployment to imports, to show one correlation or the other--for example, that unemployment falls as imports rise

It could very well be. From TPM: "As with any DDoS attack, there are lots of IP addresses, but the main ones are Russian, though that in itself does not prove anything," he wrote. "We are still investigating."

I dislike Trump but seriously just because he's the Republican candidate should not mean you are willing to overlook this kind of crap.

What kind of crap? Deleting emails? Without direct knowledge what was in those emails, you only have speculation as to why they were doing this. Where as with Trump, you have his own mouth to tell you that he doesn't respect your rights or the constitution and that he's a flaming racist and a hyper nationalist. Deleting emails seems trivial in that light.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l...

As of January 2016, unemployment is 4.9% UE3 and 5.6% UE4 (UE4 includes people who CAN take a job if you give it to them, WANT to take a job, but believe there is no job, so have given up). This seems to have improved since.

You're conflating labor force participation rate with unemployment. We are in a long-standing labor force bubble, and have not yet recovered to the pre-1960s stable level of 58%-60%. Other countries are better off, with lower rates of labor participation, allowing more leisure time and home life among the population.

The labor force participation rate argument assumes that every able-bodied man and woman must have a job, whether they need the income or not. Rather than staying home to raise a child, you would pay someone else to raise your child. This increases expenses; it does, however, concentrate child-raising (4 people raising 40 kids, rather than 40 mothers raising 20 kids), and allow for more production, thus total wealth.

You are basically being judgmental against people who chose to have single-income households rather than work. Families with $100,000/year incomes from a single earner, with one or two children, living in relatively-high luxury have no need for a second income; your assertion that the labor force participation rate is not fully-employed is an assertion that these people are lazy, irresponsible assholes and should get to work instead of staying home to tend house and maintain community social connections.

Let's deconstruct more of your deception.

The US has a population of 319 million, and only 151 million are employed

The United States has 319 million INCLUDING RETIREES AND MINORS. It has a civilian non-institutional population of 254 million, and a labor force of 159 million.

That's less than half the work force

The United States has a labor force of 159 million, 62.8% of its non-institutional population--more than half. It has 152 million employed in that labor force, or 95.1%.

Again: you demand every man and woman capable of doing anything go out and get a job. Wage slavery under a communist regime is the order of the day, I see.

Even if all the scandals she's been involved in were "made up bullshit", that would just mean that the public does not fancy her, which should be enough for her to lose the nomination.

You misspelled rightwing birther loons. And other assorted paranoid schizos who've been jerking off to Clintons since... forever.
Well, since the last millennium at least.

Would you look a that?
Some "people" simply can't stand the fact that "some people" are conspiracy theory rightwing birther loons who have been inventing conspiracy theories about Clintons since the early '90s at least.
And those same "people" like to present their own loony conspiracy theories as the views "of the people".

Hmm... where did I hear that kind of rhetoric recently... Calling personal political goals "the will of the people"? Oh that's right!
It's the guys running for office in order to shut down the government against the will of the ACTUAL people.
Imagine people like that also labeling as "trolls" anyone disagreeing with them. Naaaah... They wouldn't do THAT?

Completely back-assward. "Who hacked them" is way, way more interesting than "what's in them".

Put off the partisan goggles for a minute - just for a minute - and try to think about it dispassionately. Why would Putin (specifically, "the Russians" = "Putin personally to all intents and purposes") want to embarrass the Democrat party on the eve of its convention?

Possible answer. Or part of it, anyway.

Another possible answer.

Seriously, are you comfortable with a foreign supervillain meddling with the Presidential election?

Trump actually lobbied to change the Republican platform to favor Russia over the Ukraine -- one of seven strange Russia connections clearly documented by Josh Marshall.

"Post-bankruptcy Trump has been highly reliant on money from Russia, most of which has over the years become increasingly concentrated among oligarchs and sub-garchs close to Vladimir Putin," for example. And then there was the "secret financing" for a Soho real estate project from Russia and Kazakhstan. Even Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, "spent most of the last decade as top campaign and communications advisor for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian Ukrainian Prime Minister and then President whose ouster in 2014 led to the on-going crisis and proxy war in Ukraine."

I haven't been following Trump's campaign closely, but his ties to Russia are really clear.

I do know that thirteen investigations by a hostile Congress turned up no wrongdoing, and I find that pretty convincing.

None of the investigations had access to her emails because she had them on a private server. How do you do an investigation when you have no information to use to investigate?

As far as the email server went, which specific law did it break?

https://www.archives.gov/about...

I know it would be illegal now.

It was just as illegal back then.

Clinton had some classification authority, and telling her staff to send a classified document by unclassified channels strikes me as a judgment call she probably had the authority to make.

As a classification authority, she can't tell people to just remove classification markings (that others put there) and send unclassified since they are having problems with the classified fax machine. This is breaking the law.
Also, BECAUSE she is a classification authority, she should have been able to tell that the TS emails were not supposed to be emailed on the public internet. By the accounts I have seen, she received HUMINT, which is ALWAYS TS/HCS, not ever Unclassified.

You're also speculating here: "If she...". If you killed someone because they had different opinions of Clinton than you do, then you'd be a murderer.

As I am not a part of the investigation, and they haven't said if she sent emails that were classified or not, I can only speculate on that point. It isn't required for her to have broken laws, but it helps to pin that SHE sent classified emails, not one of her underlings.

You're also speculating on her intentions and what subpoenas actually do. If I were running an enterprise, and my emails for 2014 were subpoenaed, I'd hand over the ones for 2014.

The problem is, she sent over half the emails from 2014, claiming that the rest were personal email.

Also, the problem is:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l...

Look at the size of the piles, there is no reason that there should have been that much of a difference in the number of emails she sent like that. The only reason for that difference is that Hillary didn't hand over emails that were related because they made her look bad.

You don't even have to believe me, believe the inspector general of the state department about the email server:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

At this point, if you still see nothing wrong with what she did, as Trump put it, she could murder someone on main street, and you would still cheer her on. She HAS broken the law, there is no doubt about it, the doubt is whether she will be charged before November, and if she isn't, it has more to do with politics than guilt.

That's where you are wrong. And there is first class analysis available to back that up, because he has a remarkably unique style, that allows to identify the tweets penned by the 'master' himself:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/e...

This is just another example of Government for sale.

Having private industry write legislation would be a huge scandal in any other democracy I can think of, but it is almost unremarkable in the US.

This is interesting

I would argue that with the gerrymandering of electorates and the way money dictates outcomes in US politics, you really don't have a democracy anymore.

Agreed. Here we would never want people to die because they are overworked:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/greyhound-bus-crash-kills-2-injures-18-article-1.2501658
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/48bb2x/nyc_uber_driver_fell_asleep_at_the_wheel_and/
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2015/05/garbage_truck_crashes_into_west_new_york_building.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/nyc-engineer-apologizes-train-derailment

"don't understand the difference between what David Petraeus was indicted for and what Hillary Clinton, even by the most maximal interpretation, is accused of. What David Petraeus did was not mishandling classified information. No one ever suggested those were the facts of the case; it was lesser charge that grew out of a plea deal. David Petraeus was in a position of the highest military authority and knowingly shared the highest levels of classified information: secret code words, the identities of informants, war strategy among other things with his mistress, who unquestionably had no right to have access to the information. Even marital infidelity in itself is a serious matter in the military. The breach of trust, vulnerability to blackmail and dereliction of duty are all huge and knowing transgressions. Petraeus could have been indicted for a number of individual crimes. He was pled down to a mishandling charge. Comparing this to insufficiently protecting information that appears not to have even been explicitly classified at the time is silly. "

It's easy to fall into hoping that that the fascist buffoon Trump doesn't win the candidacy. But then when you get reminded of the policies of the rest of them, you realise there is no good alternative there.

The only real hope is that the Democrats win the presidency again.

Let's recall the summer of 2008, when Obama flip-flopped on telecom immunity, got more campaign contributions from the telecoms, was able to spend more on campaigning, and was able to win the presidency.

If the leader of your party can be that blatant, why should *anyone* vote for them?

You are falling into the false dilemma of R versus D. The real dilemma is "us" versus "them", or "people" versus the "elites".

The people are on one end of a long spectrum of political issues, and both the Republicans and Democrats are on the other. Arguing that D is better than R is pointless, neither represents the interests of the people.

Extreme rhetoric, which is what you're using (viz: fascist buffoon), is only relevant to that distant end of the spectrum. The elites make more or less contributions, depending on how much extreme rhetoric gets aimed at any candidate.

It's a game that only mainstream politicians play.

Both Donald and Bernie have populist views, their political positions would benefit the people.

Bernie is a mainstream politician, and is somewhat dependent on contributions from the elites. If he can overcome that burden and win the nomination, then he'd be one candidate to back.

Donald needs *no* contributions from the elites, so he's free to promise benefits to the people.

Right now Donald is our best hope for getting government on our side. He's not the only hope, Bernie is still in the game, but there's no hope in any of the other choices.

Or, to quote Charles Koch: "You’d Think We Could Have More Influence’ on 2016 Race".

IBut when is the last time the US elected a president who was not an obvious establishment sellout from long before election time? The last one I could possibly see as a possibility was JFK in 1960 - and he was debatable. One can have disagreement with various of Mr. Sanders' stands, but seeing him as a sellout is not credible.

Just because the electorate has chosen an endless series of sellouts, who were transparently obvious as sellouts at election time, is not a rational argument that all candidates would sell out if elected.

Don't you wonder why that is the case? The DNC and RNC only let establishment candidates win the nomination. The game is rigged, we lose.

I'm going to keep posting this because it's important:

A new political science study that's gone viral finds that majority-rule democracy exists only in theory in the United States -- not so much in practice. The government caters to the affluent few and organized interest groups, the researchers find, while the average citizen's influence on policy is "near zero."

"[T]he preferences of economic elites," conclude Princeton's Martin Gilens and Northwestern's Benjamin I. Page, who work with the nonprofit Scholars Strategy Network, "have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do." ...

One reason why I shy away from [the term oligarchy] is it brings to mind this image of a very small number of very wealthy people who are pulling strings behind the scenes to determine what government does. And I think it's more complicated than that. It's not only Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers or Bill Gates or George Soros who are shaping government policy-making. So that's my concern with what at least many people would understand oligarchy to mean. What "Economic Elite Domination" and "Biased Pluralism" mean is that rather than average citizens of moderate means having an important role in determining policy, ability to shape outcomes is restricted to people at the top of the income distribution and to organized groups that represent primarily -- although not exclusively -- business.

Theories of american politics

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-america-tpm-interview

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Big business and their lobbyists are for it, which is all that really matters in the US anymore. The voters don't really matter as far public policy in the US according to a study coming out of Princeton and Northwestern:

You say the United States is more like a system of "Economic Elite Domination" and "Biased Pluralism" as opposed to a majoritarian democracy. What do those terms mean? Is that not just a scholarly way of saying it's closer to oligarchy than democracy if not literally an oligarchy?

People mean different things by the term oligarchy. One reason why I shy away from it is it brings to mind this image of a very small number of very wealthy people who are pulling strings behind the scenes to determine what government does. And I think it's more complicated than that. It's not only Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers or Bill Gates or George Soros who are shaping government policy-making. So that's my concern with what at least many people would understand oligarchy to mean. What "Economic Elite Domination" and "Biased Pluralism" mean is that rather than average citizens of moderate means having an important role in determining policy, ability to shape outcomes is restricted to people at the top of the income distribution and to organized groups that represent primarily -- although not exclusively -- business.

Exactly, that's the problem. There are/were some Christians who believe that conservationism (/"stewardship") was part of their responsibility, and while I disagree with the theology, I really like and appreciate the sentiment, and also agree that we have a responsibility to take of this place, for multiple reasons. Even the Muslims seem to have this viewpoint now, so it's really sad and pathetic that most Christians in America basically seem to think the Earth is theirs to fuck up however they want.

Bernie Sanders? This Bernie Sanders? What's not to love?

Hillary is only lying to us, not the people who launder their money through campaign financing. If we are going reward her for it, why shouldn't she? In fact it would seem odd for her not to. The average voter wants to be lied to. You've seen what happens to people who tell the truth. And Bernie? Rattling off numbers like a damn robot. Let's just remember that he is serving the party.

It is repugnant to refer to anyone, but especially a judge that way. Recall the firestorm, that arouse, when a Congressman merely accused Barack Obama of lying. The "culprit" was admonished by the House and forced to apologize.

That he was correct — contrary to various denials — is besides the point, you don't talk to President that way.

So, of course, it is repugnant. But not illegal. I doubt, DOJ, are even hoping to win a conviction. But, being part of a rather vicious and vindictive Administration, they are aiming to harass these people and make their lives miserable. Kind of like a pig arresting you for "resisting arrest".

I agree. While the rest of the US thinks of us as hillbillies in a fly over state most here don't have banjos or corn fields. This won't get far because a lot of the big businesses in the city support rights movements.

The thing is there are still a lot of religious elderly voters and this is a traditionally red state - he's trying to appeal to what he thinks is his base for his no-chance-in-hell presidential run.

Here he is in 2010 joining with Michelle Bachmann's Tea Party Caucus.

That's probably all you need to know.

Look. I did my part. Climate Scientists of the 80's were telling me all about Global Cooling, and so I've been trying to prevent an ice age, and now you're upset. Well, big deal. You do your part to stop global warming, I'll do mine to stop global freezing. Deal?

Or... perhaps we shouldn't buy into "The end of the world is nigh!" scaremongering, like some sort of religious zealots. It's quite funny how much "climate change" true believers resemble ancient religions. Can't question it without being labeled "denier" (as if theirs were the word of undeniable truth), impending dooms-day scenario, "it's already too late", sins of the father, tithing (taxation to appease the climate), yep, it's the whole shebang. No wonder some people are all-in on this climate scare instead of being rational septics.

Just FYI: The models have all been wrong. Both the AGW and the Global Cooling scaremongering. Climate change happens, but I'm not convinced its something to fear for my grandchild's future over. If I'm wrong, and I have to face them, I'll point out this Princeton study that shows we live in a plutocracy or oligarchy not a democratic-republic, so it really wasn't our fault -- only the elites can do anything about it. IMO, climate change fear sounds a bit too much like manufacturing consent for the depopulationist agenda.

Nurse Quarantined By Christie Comes Back To Haunt Him On Vaccines

Parents Fighting Against Gov't. Vaccination Agenda - The John Birch Society

Scott Brown Rents Out Email List To Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theorist

And lets not forget the John Birch-er conspiracy theory that fluoridated drinking water is a government attempt at mind control (whether or not certain fluoride compounds cause problems, the conspiracy angle is irrational).

And lets not forget that, in general, denial of medical care on religious grounds is far and away dominated by right wing religious affiliation.

So, by eliding the nuclear and GMO issues with vaccines (or other medical care) you're trying to erect a rather disingenuous straw man. If anything seems to go hand-in-hand with anti-vaccination sentiment, its freemarket ideology among the "sovereign individuals" crowd. I think Rand Paul would agree.

Have a nice day.

The twitter dude was much funnier. But then of course, we all know who the republicans work for. All part of the show

Its selfish to not want to be told by someone else what to do?

It's called civilization. If I want to masturbate in public, or kill people, or be a pedophile, or be a cannibal. Or steal from my neighbors and sell their stuff on ebay, or force my neighbor's wife to have sex with me. I'm not allowed to do those things, It's an infringement upon my freedoms. I am not free to do any of those things without societal repercussions. And I agree with punishments for those things. People should not have the freedom to do those things.

We are a whole lot less "free" than some of us think.

It is the people that think they have an automatic right to tell others what to do that are selfish. This seems to be a common theme in politics today, where a group guilty of something like being selfish, label those that oppose them with what they themselves are actually guilty of.

Read this

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l...

Now let's discuss.

Okay, I am certain that washing hands after using the toilet is one of those selfish things that intrude upon freedom. It actually is a restriction. If I have to do something, I am not free from doing exactly as I wish. I am restricted from my freedom to get my coliform bacteria laden shit on people's food. And senator Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) agrees with that.

Do you? Is fundamental freeddom do whatever you feel like doing so sacrosanct that you would be willing to allow your child to die with their internal organs destroyed be a massive e coli infection just so someone doesn't have to wash their hands? Even if we're not in "Think of the Children mode", are you willing to die because an employee enjoys greater freedom to

He is fine with that. And his other bit of batshit crazy supidity was that he supported restaraunts having to put up a sign saying they didn't require employees to wash their hand after a steaming hot crap. if they don't want to require their employees to have to wash their hands.

Which of course is a regulation, and regulations are bad, and it infringes upon the freedoms of the owner of the restaurant. I is the final answer "Eat Shit and die, it's the way of freedom"?

This is the problem when Libertarianism gets married to Fundamentalist Republicanism. We end up making insane statements. Probably very few people want to eat fecal matter. It's been a known disease vector for a long long time. But when you decide that every law and regulation is an assault upon your freedom, and therefore evil, you get stuck in a potatofest of having to support insane ideas like a complete abandonment of basic hygiene, with Two Girls, One Cup notwithstanding.

It is not selfish to want to avoid other peoples tyranny. You dumb fuck.

Meh, Define that tyranny? Is it being required to wash your hands? Is it not allowing you to kill anyone you feel like killing? Not being allowed to have sex with your daughter? All are societal restrictions on your freedom. You would be much more free if you could do any of those things, without society judging or impeding you.

This is where all of the faux libertarian arguments fail. Everything a litmus test, and when hoist by your own petard, you end up having to make up things like requiring employers to put up sighns that only violate your own litmus tests. There is no civilization without restrictions on behavior. The faux libertarian world is nothing more than modern day crypto-anarchy.

And you calling me a "dumb fuck" is just illustrative of every conversation I have with faux libertarians. All insult, no content.

The "blogger" who posted that Mr. Scalise talked to a white nationalist group got the "story" from the son of the Democrat who ran against Scalise in Louisiana. They had this "info" during the campaign but didn't run it because they knew it to be a lie. Their supposed source, whom they won't name, supposedly had a photo of Scalise at the event, but oops - it got accidentally deleted! So, conveniently, there is no evidence of their libelous claim.

The blogger posted this lie in order to paint the new Republican majority as racist because Scalise he was going to be the House Majority Whip. Scalise wasn't there to talk to a white supremacist group, but spoke earlier in the day to a neighborhood association. The person who organized the EURO conference just also happened to be president of the neighborhood association and used the conference availability to set up a meeting of his neighborhood's association.

In short, this is a left-wing hit piece backed by no evidence.

Case in point too, Al Franken's personally defended the NSA before.

It doesn't matter what it is, Obama wants it under government control.

It's either the state, or it falls into the hands of a baronial overclass, pick your poison. Unless you'd propose radical syndicalist ownership of the Internet. Or maybe, in fact, there's actually a middle position where something is neither completely "under government control" nor completely laissez-faire. You know, a compromise where most everyone gets most of what they want.

Naturally this crankish false dichotomy between tyranny and freedom anticipates the obvious Republican rejoinder: Ted Cruz Calls Net Neutrality "Obamacare For The Internet". It's really beautiful how the nutball libertarian worldview of state power has so thoroughly permeated culture that all one needs to say is say something like "X is Obamacare for Y" and people instantly know what you're saying and that it's putatively bad.

"Well, it's the top of my list, but remember who's in the White House for two more years. Obviously, he's not going to sign a full repeal," McConnell said. "It would take 60 votes in the Senate. Nobody thinks we're going to have 60 Republicans. And it would take a president -- presidential signature. No one thinks we're going to get that."

That's probably because you are a conservative. As a liberal, I often get mailers pretending to be from the democratic party telling me to vote for conservative candidates and props.

If you were a liberal in Kentucky, you might have even gotten one of these: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/d...

That's simply not true.

https://action.citizen.org/p/d...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/d...

Or bleeding on the officer.

You jest, but... From: Sept 2009 in Ferguson, Mo: Ferguson Police Beat Up Wrong Suspect Then Charged Him For Getting Blood On Uniforms In 2009

...police officers allegedly slammed his head against the wall, hit him and kicking him in the head, .... Davis was eventually taken to the emergency room.

He was charged with property damage, ... with the charging documents stating that Davis "did transfer blood to the uniform."

The local prosecutor later dropped the property damage charges, ... because of conflicting reports from the officers involved.