US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[spudmunkey]

What I'm hearing is that people can't be trusted to self govern. Do you think that A.I. or some other form of automation of legislation could do a better job? It would absolutely be impartial since it would not be directly deriving power from the policy. It could absolutely do the job and would be much more financially efficient.

It would still have to have specific goals, and something tells me that those who write those requirements/goals will still benefit the most in the end.

 

[G_3_3_k_]

Not exactly how code or algorithms work. The tech industry tends towards individual equity and freedom. It would be a surprise to me if the challenge of seeing if it can be successfully written to be fair would be superseded by a desire for profit. You would have to intentionally code bias in at the outset. The idea with A.I. Is that it self corrects and writes its own updates based on predetermined parameters and input/output data. The best part, is that it can be run in a sandbox based on real world current events. We could thoroughly test it before releasing it into the wild so to speak. Unlike current policy.

 

[iamaom]

...but the problem with communism is the freeloader problem

Except that communism is about workers owning the means of production and not the government giving away free shit.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

I'd also like to argue against the idea that we "need" workers like we used to historically, after all machines to quite a bit of the work and could do even more (mcdonalds self order kiosks, etc.) if it wasn't for this bizarre idea that people HAVE to work, it's a crabs in a bucket mentality. The entire world throws out thousands of tons of food everyday because god forbid someone doesn't pay for them. Something is really messed up when the poor are blamed for being freeloaders for not doing manual labor while billionaires who inherited enough excess wealth get to play the stock markets and make money from nothing. We have entire entities like banks who make money off interest rates, sucking up wealth like a sponge, we have farmers producing corn unsuitable for consumption but for ethanol they lobbied to be put into gas, but yeah, some people not having an unnecessary minimum wage job are the ones who'd ruin it for society.

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

Jesus Christ. Run on sentences, much?

 

[Explorer]

I've been waiting for the DHS to provide the DOD with the list of locations where a wall would improve the effectiveness of the military troops there, along with the underlying data used to justify such evaluation.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...o-justify-moving-funds-for-trumps-border-wall

Such justification is legally required before reallocating military funds.

Considering Trump's publicly expressed that he either doesn't trust the CIA, the FBI, NASA, his top generals, most of his non-family-member advisors, or scientific consensus (or at least he believes he knows more than them), I wouldn't expect anything that comes from DOD or DHS to change his mind, anyway.

It's a given that Trump and many of his supporters ignore actual facts. Hilariously, even here a few Trump supporters complained about my pointing out their lack of rigorous fact-based thinking, and then refused to actually address facts again.

However, my question wasn't about Trump's views, but instead asking wall supporters here about the claimed facts.

My question to all those here who have been justifying the wall: If justifying wall construction is actually fact-based, why can't the DHS actually do so?

If such hard data isn't available, then that really deflates the pro-wall arguments being presented here as fact.

I'm not really expecting them to answer, but just wanting to point out how the actions of the DHS show that claimed hard data supporting the wall doesn't exist. If wall supporters come around because they have to acknowledge the mental gymnastics they engage in to deny reality, that's actually great, but I am also content knowing that they often choose silence because they at least unconsciously recognize that they can't rely on facts for support.

 

[G_3_3_k_]

It's a given that Trump and many of his supporters ignore actual facts. Hilariously, even here a few Trump supporters complained about my pointing out their lack of rigorous fact-based thinking, and then refused to actually address facts again.

However, my question wasn't about Trump's views, but instead asking wall supporters here about the claimed facts.



I'm not really expecting them to answer, but just wanting to point out how the actions of the DHS show that claimed hard data supporting the wall doesn't exist. If wall supporters come around because they have to acknowledge the mental gymnastics they engage in to deny reality, that's actually great, but I am also content knowing that they often choose silence because they at least unconsciously recognize that they can't rely on facts for support.

I would actually like to see a solid response to this. Nearly all the numbers I see are that around 80% of drugs come through monitored ports of entry. If we're talking illegal aliens, the vast majority are people who overstay their visa. I would like to understand how a wall from the pacific ocean to the gulf of mexico is going to fix this. Please cite your source.

 

[Drew]

Except that communism is about workers owning the means of production and not the government giving away free shit.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

I'd also like to argue against the idea that we "need" workers like we used to historically, after all machines to quite a bit of the work and could do even more (mcdonalds self order kiosks, etc.) if it wasn't for this bizarre idea that people HAVE to work, it's a crabs in a bucket mentality. The entire world throws out thousands of tons of food everyday because god forbid someone doesn't pay for them. Something is really messed up when the poor are blamed for being freeloaders for not doing manual labor while billionaires who inherited enough excess wealth get to play the stock markets and make money from nothing. We have entire entities like banks who make money off interest rates, sucking up wealth like a sponge, we have farmers producing corn unsuitable for consumption but for ethanol they lobbied to be put into gas, but yeah, some people not having an unnecessary minimum wage job are the ones who'd ruin it for society.

You guys! We found the communist!

 

[vilk]

Except that communism is about workers owning the means of production and not the government giving away free shit.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

I'd also like to argue against the idea that we "need" workers like we used to historically, after all machines to quite a bit of the work and could do even more (mcdonalds self order kiosks, etc.) if it wasn't for this bizarre idea that people HAVE to work, it's a crabs in a bucket mentality. The entire world throws out thousands of tons of food everyday because god forbid someone doesn't pay for them. Something is really messed up when the poor are blamed for being freeloaders for not doing manual labor while billionaires who inherited enough excess wealth get to play the stock markets and make money from nothing. We have entire entities like banks who make money off interest rates, sucking up wealth like a sponge, we have farmers producing corn unsuitable for consumption but for ethanol they lobbied to be put into gas, but yeah, some people not having an unnecessary minimum wage job are the ones who'd ruin it for society.

You (and everyone in this thread) should check out this podcast, very related to what you're talking about

http://www.cracked.com/podcast/what-america-cant-admit-about-millennial-generation/

Took me 20 goddamn minutes to find that because I was expecting the title to have to do with "automation" or "post-sufficiency society" or something, because that's what it's about more than it is about the "millennial generation"... well, as far as I can remember, back when I heard it in 2013

 

[jaxadam]

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

 

[BlackSG91]

Tim Apple.


;>)/

 

[spudmunkey]

Tim Apple's Hamberder Covfefe. Best lasting peaches in the United Schtates.

 

[Flappydoodle]

The quickest way to fix everything we're talking about is changing how politicians are allowed to get funds. Lobby groups, PACs, or any other organization shouldn't be allowed to donate to individuals running. This makes it very clear, that in order to get reelected, you have to pander to your campaign donors. Who are wealthy or are large businesses or special interest groups. I saw a statistic recently that basically, no matter how in line your wants as an individual are with the rest of the nation, the likelihood that congress will listen to you is about 30% across the board. Looking at the reverse, the likelihood that a PAC or special interest group having and idea for policy getting considered is roughly the remaining percentage. So, the people aren't being represented in congress. The people buying our elected officials are. However, we can change a lot of this, because cities and states are who controls how the election process works. Convert enough states to a reformed process and federal policy will follow suit. I guarantee we're about to see this happen with medical marijuana and eventually recreational. Focus on local politics.

I'm not convinced this works either. For example, the UK has incredibly strict rules about political donations. Lobbying is completely different to the US. Every single penny of political donation has to be accounted for. Every MP must publish online full details of their finances, every expense they claim etc. But we still hate our politicians, think they are out of touch, and they don't listen to us.

I've been waiting for the DHS to provide the DOD with the list of locations where a wall would improve the effectiveness of the military troops there, along with the underlying data used to justify such evaluation.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...o-justify-moving-funds-for-trumps-border-wall

Such justification is legally required before reallocating military funds.

My question to all those here who have been justifying the wall: If justifying wall construction is actually fact-based, why can't the DHS actually do so?

If such hard data isn't available, then that really deflates the pro-wall arguments being presented here as fact.

I'm not America, but how/why is this legally required?

As Commander in Chief, why can Trump not simply order the military to do so?

Does every president need to provide fact-based justifications for all military spending? Before spending $50M on a missile barrage to kill some dude 6,000 miles away, do they need to draw up documentation justifying it? (Genuine question)

Considering Trump's publicly expressed that he either doesn't trust the CIA, the FBI, NASA, his top generals, most of his non-family-member advisors, or scientific consensus (or at least he believes he knows more than them), I wouldn't expect anything that comes from DOD or DHS to change his mind, anyway.

In all fairness, the majority of those are not worth trusting. CIA, FBI, NSA pretty much openly hate him. And it's not like they have a history of being devious lying bastards...

What I'm hearing is that people can't be trusted to self govern. Do you think that A.I. or some other form of automation of legislation could do a better job? It would absolutely be impartial since it would not be directly deriving power from the policy. It could absolutely do the job and would be much more financially efficient. I'm not suggesting I agree with this path. Just asking the obvious questions.

It would be impartial, but it would need to be programmed with some sort of "humanity". Otherwise you'd have the "trolley problem" every time. You'd always be faced with making some group of people suffer in order to help another group.

For example, it would be more efficient to just execute people who will be a net negative effect on society (crime, creating lots of innocent victims, spending time in judicial system and jail). One criminal can cause $millions worth of cost to the system, as well as reducing quality of life for others.

It would be more logical to stop supporting people once they retire and no longer contribute to the economy. A system running purely on efficiency, we would cut every single benefit to old people and re-invest it all into kids.

Following pure logic, economics, and being impartial would immediately lead us to some incredibly uncomfortable decisions I think.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

I'm not America, but how/why is this legally required?

As Commander in Chief, why can Trump not simply order the military to do so?

Does every president need to provide fact-based justifications for all military spending? Before spending $50M on a missile barrage to kill some dude 6,000 miles away, do they need to draw up documentation justifying it? (Genuine question)

It's part of the checks and balances afforded to Congress. When they allocate the budget they specify where the funds are supposed to go.

For instance, there could be "x amount" earmarked for "bombing brown people" but not "y amount" for "fancy new Raytheon toy" and the President can't just swap "x" and "y" whenever.

If the President wants to allocate those funds to something different they need to justify that.

Which is why there's so much discussion over the White House's proposed budget. They want to allocate wall funding from the get go.

 

[G_3_3_k_]

I'm not convinced this works either. For example, the UK has incredibly strict rules about political donations. Lobbying is completely different to the US. Every single penny of political donation has to be accounted for. Every MP must publish online full details of their finances, every expense they claim etc. But we still hate our politicians, think they are out of touch, and they don't listen to us.



I'm not America, but how/why is this legally required?

As Commander in Chief, why can Trump not simply order the military to do so?

Does every president need to provide fact-based justifications for all military spending? Before spending $50M on a missile barrage to kill some dude 6,000 miles away, do they need to draw up documentation justifying it? (Genuine question)



In all fairness, the majority of those are not worth trusting. CIA, FBI, NSA pretty much openly hate him. And it's not like they have a history of being devious lying bastards...



It would be impartial, but it would need to be programmed with some sort of "humanity". Otherwise you'd have the "trolley problem" every time. You'd always be faced with making some group of people suffer in order to help another group.

For example, it would be more efficient to just execute people who will be a net negative effect on society (crime, creating lots of innocent victims, spending time in judicial system and jail). One criminal can cause $millions worth of cost to the system, as well as reducing quality of life for others.

It would be more logical to stop supporting people once they retire and no longer contribute to the economy. A system running purely on efficiency, we would cut every single benefit to old people and re-invest it all into kids.

Following pure logic, economics, and being impartial would immediately lead us to some incredibly uncomfortable decisions I think.

I absolutely agree. You would have to build in some counters to the efficiency process. Beneficial efficiency vs absolute efficiency.

On the topic of campaign funds, disclosure is a needed first step. But I think that there shouldn't be the ability for business to donate. I think every individual should get a tax break for donating a percentage of their income to some form of political candidate up to a certain dollar value not percentage of income. Or if we can't get business involved, then the businesses decide what they want to contribute, and divide that money equivalently to each employees and each employee decides where they want that money to go. I think that speeches/debates and things should only be on public channels. Or make it so that whatever network broadcasting it can't make ad revenue off of it. The way money is allocated in politics has to change so that votes actually matter again. Also, the DNC and RNC have to give up their totalitarian control over the process, and they need to have complete transparency about what they are doing and why.

 

[Drew]

I'm not America, but how/why is this legally required?

As Commander in Chief, why can Trump not simply order the military to do so?

Does every president need to provide fact-based justifications for all military spending? Before spending $50M on a missile barrage to kill some dude 6,000 miles away, do they need to draw up documentation justifying it? (Genuine question)

To specify a little further, this is the case because the president doesn't specify the amount or nature of military spending; congress does. The president always sends a budget to Congress by convention, but it's a mere political convention - the presidential budget is just a suggestion and Congress actually determines what and where the government spends money. Specifically, spending bills need to originate in the House of Representatives, which is a political feature of our government that's causing Trump a LOT of headaches.

What Trump is trying to do here is, since Congress refused to fund his border wall, declare a national emergency and use Presidential emergency powers to override Congress. He can't spend money that isn't in the budget, but he CAN re-allocate funding from other sources - in this case, disaster aid to Puerto Rico and California and money allocated for repairs and maintenance and construction on military bases - to build a border wall due to the national emergency. Which, whether or not he's able to call a national emergency because Congress wouldn't fund a political promise of his, doubly so because in his speech declaring the emergency he claimed he didn't need to, but was going to do it anyway because it was faster, is a question that will likely be settled in the Supreme Court. Already it's very likely that he'll have to make his first presidential veto to a bill that passed the House and is extremely likely to pass the Senate overturning his declaration of emergency, one of the checks and balances on presidential power also included in the constitution. It looks like the Senate has enough votes to pass, but not at present enough votes to override a veto.

Make any more sense? tl;dr - the President doesn't have "power of the purse," as it's known in American political parlance.

Technically the corporate world still is feudalism...

Missed this early - trust me, it really, really isn't. Employment at will works both ways.

 

[Ralyks]

And just to emphasize, he wants to take money that was meant to help everyone that suffered from the natural disasters in Puerto Rico and California to build his political promise.

Just felt that needed some emphasis.

While we're at it, wonder if he asked how Flint MI is doing

 

[Drew]

And just to emphasize, he wants to take money that was meant to help everyone that suffered from the natural disasters in Puerto Rico and California to build his political promise.

Just felt that needed some emphasis.

While we're at it, wonder if he asked how Flint MI is doing

But not from Alabama, where a fraction of the people were killed or left homeless, but where they're reliable red votes.

 

[G_3_3_k_]

Missed this early - trust me, it really, really isn't. Employment at will works both ways.

Sure, if you think that employment at will is descriptive of employment is required for survival unless independently wealthy. Sounds strangely like feudalism. Only the corporations are the feudal lords making their wealth on the backs of the peasants who do the real work.

 

[Drew]

Sure, if you think that employment at will is descriptive of employment is required for survival unless independently wealthy. Sounds strangely like feudalism. Only the corporations are the feudal lords making their wealth on the backs of the peasants who do the real work.

In that case I'd argue you don't understand feudalism. Serfs who decided they didn't want to work weren't left to starve, they were thrown in dungeons or executed.

Arguably, the same critique is true of communism - a side-effect of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" at least in Soviet practice was that if you're not pulling your weight according to your ability, then there are going to be repercussions there, as well.

Really, being "independently wealthy" is the exception and not the norm throughout human history, and again is a matter of having the resources to be a selfish asshole. I firmly believe that the problem with every single system of allocating scarce resources, or at a minimum a problem, is the fact that people are just inherently selfish if they are allowed to be.