Tiber727
7mo ago
They had to categorize dozens of boxes of papers, and made a dumb mistake. We still have Trump admitting on recording that he was showing documents to a guest that he didn't declassify.
Tiber727
7mo ago
Because I have no interest in defending Hillary. She could be prosecuted for it and I wouldn't shed a tear. I voted Bernie until I was largely forced to hold my nose and vote Hillary. In either case, her guilt or innocence has nothing to do with Trump's. And Trump's guilt when it comes to classified documents is so cut and dried the only thing anyone can do is whatabout Hillary or cast aspersions on the motive on anyone who would hold him accountable.
Tiber727
7mo ago
To you and @Cirrus
Is there? Here's the way I see it. I know the elite are screwing me over. I don't like it, but I try to find the one who might do some good in some way that doesn't conflict with their own power. Trump comes along and says "We are absolutely screwing you over and I'm going to keep doing it!" And then he gathers a bunch of people who cheer as he screws them over. The honesty is something, but at the end of the day he's still doing it and actively gloating about it! Why would I be anything but repulsed by that?
Different forms of corruption are easier or harder to get rid of. Trump is to me the guy who snorts coke right in front of the cop and then the cop says that why should I arrest him when other people manage to get away with it? Okay, they probably shouldn't get away with it, but come on, he's right there!
Tiber727
7mo ago
Democrat here.
I actually mostly agree with you that Trump would spend the majority of the time doing nothing and passing whatever Republicans put in front of him. From a D perspective that's bad of course, but not unexpected. Though expected or not, his court nominations have had lasting consequences. I think a lot of it is his propensity for impulsive or poor decisions, such as trying to pull out of NATO.
I think a lot of it is his norm-shattering ability to be a complete and utter hypocrite and/or corrupt and for it to be excused. He's a "Christian" that cheats on his wife and no one cares. He calls for locking up Hillary over emails, then has a bathroom full of classified documents and no one cares. Hunter must be punished over corruptly using family connections, but Trump businesses getting a bunch of business and business deals in other countries is a nothingburger. Let's also not forget Jared Kushner.
I expect to see counters about how the entire government is corrupt, and I don't even disagree with all of it. But he is so incredibly blatant about it that he doesn't even try to create plausible deniability.
I think his false elector scheme was a massive attempt at overturning democracy. I don't know how he could do it again since a two-term limit doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room. But I also don't want to give power to the kind of person who seems to love trying to see how he can lawyer his way out of anything, especially when Republicans seem to go out of their way to excuse him.
Tiber727
7mo ago
I'm hardly an economics professor myself, but I do know some things. Inflation happens because demand is higher than supply.
For examples of good inflation, if the economy is doing well, people have money to spare. They literally don't value $1 as much because they have so many of them, and businesses are able to get away with higher prices. Another example: when you hire a person, you are hiring a person to make them not do anything else. In other words, if in a given population everyone has the necessary education to go into astrophysics, if you want someone to flip burgers for you, you have to pay them a salary high enough that they don't go into astrophysics instead.
The bad reasons for inflation are obvious: Supply drops to lower than demand.
Deflation happens when supply is high but demand is low. Supply being high is good, but if demand is low for a long period of time that generally means something is wrong. Either you predicted demand poorly or customers turned frugal.
As unintuitive as it may seem, I think you generally always want inflation, but inflation for the good reasons. That should be slow enough that a loaf of bread costing a million dollars would happen, but maybe 10,000 years in the future. You've lived your entire life to where a penny is not really even worth the time it takes to pick up, but it wasn't that way from the beginning. Inflation is bad when your income doesn't keep up with it.
If a loaf of bread ever got to the point where it was a million bucks and you wanted to stop it, the only relatively reasonable way to do that would be a currency exchange. You print some nuBucks, force the economy to use nuBucks after 2 years, but they can trade $1,000 old dollars for 1 nuBuck. That's still a major hassle that most would want to avoid.
Tiber727
7mo ago
Fair. My fault for not checking. But to but you and @KMC , the original comment did say to actively reduce prices. If this quick source is correct the last time we had deflation was 1954. And generally speaking, deflation means the economy is in a very bad condition.
Tiber727
7mo ago
You didn't ask for a candidate to "keep prices stable." You asked for a candidate to actively bring the price of products down. That's a much bigger ask, and much closer to the realm of price controls.
Tiber727
7mo ago
If such a candidate existed you wouldn't vote for him anyway. At least I don't think so, because I don't think communists are well-received here.
Tiber727
7mo ago
That doesn't seem to conflict with what he said. The anger from the base has been there in various forms for years. What Trump managed to do was convert that anger into support for him specifically, and for that support to reach a level where Trump can force others to toe the line.
The point isn't that anger will go away, just that it won't converge in a single direction. DeSantis for instance seemed poised to play himself as Trump 2.0, and that didn't work out for him.
Tiber727
7mo ago
Fair. I actually did add most of that in an edit, because I do want to make sure I have my numbers right.
Still, I'm aware Kamala is not liked here, and I'm not that impressed by her either. But it seems a bit much to act like anyone at barely above average intelligence should be able to go to law school and pass the bar on the first try, when half of law school students couldn't.
The California Bar pass rate is about 1/3, including repeat testers.
Edit: Some other sites are giving me different numbers, about 50% here. But still I would argue knowing the general pass rate is important context.
Tiber727
8mo ago
Barrett I overall respect, which is odd to me considering how she came into office. Jackson is in a similar vein as Sotomayor and Kagan, but she is somewhat more of a process person and informed by her experience as a defense attorney. Earlier I might have agreed with you on Roberts, but based on his actions lately and some leaks I'm beginning to think that he can be ideological as the others, just not as straight Dem/Rep.
I got their intention in Trump v. United States, but A, I think they went too far (the evidence ruling, plus ruling that communications can not be investigated), and B, it was a perfect example of all the judicial activism oft-complained about. No immunity would be the originalist ruling, as the Constitution says nothing to suggest immunity.
Tiber727
8mo ago
I will probably never vote Republican because Republican policies I generally strongly dislike outside of maybe a couple of them. But as far as Democrats go, I will likely not vote at all for a candidate I dislike or have not researched. But I dislike Trump strongly enough, particularly his allegations of election fraud, that it would take a very detestable Democrat for me to not vote against Trump.
Tiber727
8mo ago
Obviously in the long run the market will usually point in the right direction. But not every actor in a system is a rational one. I'm not interested in micromanaging every possible behavior. I'm more interested in, when you can point to a situation that is clearly far out of bounds of reasonable, forbid it for the sake of if someone ends up in that situation they have recourse. To that end, the limits should be high enough that it doesn't come up often. It shouldn't need too much enforcement. Just allow it to be sued over and with penalties that would dissuade it.
Tiber727
8mo ago
I just mean that Trump seems to mean what he's saying policy-wise a little more.
My subjective experience is the opposite, but then I don't really pay much attention to her. I fully admit I am voting for generic Democrat and against Trump, not out of any like for her as a candidate. I also meant that if Kamala hypothetically says:
A. I am not going to go after guns.
B. I am going to increase social security
C. I am going to improve relations with [country].
D. I am going to create jobs.
etc.
I could reasonably guess she might be lying about A, B and C could be true, and D is a blanket statement every candidate makes. With Trump, for any values of A-Z, I honestly wouldn't know which he would be lying on or would do a 180 because A) He has that "used car salesman" vibe, B) He talks a lot and has no filter, C) He is very mercurial, and D) He seems very manipulable if you stroke his ego.
Frankly, it's a bit crazy to me that you'd support the No Kings Act.
Actually, on second reading I'd walk that back. I speed-read and missed important parts. I do support that a President should be criminally accountable for crimes, but I missed the jurisdiction stripping. I don't know. I think the Supreme Court is, if not actively protecting a Republican President, at a minimum passively allowing a partisan figure to be functionally immune out of some impossible ideal of non-partisanship (that they only seem to care about at selective times). But the No Kings Act does go too far in the opposite direction. I could accept Barrett's conclusion of Trump v. United States, but that's moot since it was part of the dissent.
Tiber727
8mo ago
Is your agreement required for something to be reasonable?
No? It was an introductory statement which I laid out my reasons for.
Counting votes in advanced of election day provides increased opportunity and incentive to compromise election security [...]
That all assumes that voter fraud is reasonably achievable and the only issue is needing more time to adequately prepare. That premise has yet to be established and even if it were, the reaction to that knowledge should be change the process such that they cannot achieve that regardless of having an extra few days.
This smuggles in the assumption that a photo ID is sufficient to establish a valid identity. [...]
This is a neat trick of dismissing an opposing argument while missing that it detracts from your own argument. Your argument is that you need to do 2 things in order to vote:
-
Establish an identity
-
Establish that the identity is able to vote
Your argument following that is that doing 1 does not do 2. Okay, but the fact that you still need to do 2 has nothing to do with whether or not you've done step 1. They already do check that your name and credentials is registered, so 2 is covered. And even if it weren't, changing which IDs can be used to establish 1 does not change how step 2 is performed according to you. If your argument is that step 2 is insecure, then if the N.C. legislature were truly trying to increase security and not disenfranchise voters it seems like they should have focused on that, no?
This assumes the only reason to create a fake ID production or dissemination process is to cast 1 extra vote [1], or that 1 fake ID only enables 1 extra vote [2], or that a fake ID is required for a fraudulent vote [3], or that 1 extra vote is in a context of 100 million [4]. This would be incorrect, on all ends.
To pick just one example- if you automatically enroll people with driver's licenses to vote, but also issue driver's licenses to non-eligible persons (as Oregon did), then a real ID of a real person would flag as a valid voter no matter how many fraudulent voter IDs were issued.
You do a bit of a gish-gallop here. I put numbers above to show the 4 arguments, but you only respond to 1.
-
Doesn't sound like North Carolina is enrolling all drivers to vote, so probably not relevant. And even if it were, automatically registering people when they get a driver's license != registering everyone just because they got a license and not checking eligibility.
-
Why would it not? And even if not, then the problem isn't with checking the ID.
-
As with 2, if they aren't even using an ID, then messing with the requirements to use an ID won't fix this.
-
I threw a semi-random number out there because most people talk about election fraud in the context of Presidential elections. While election fraud should still be caught, election fraud only really has consequences if it changes who/what wins, which it takes way, way more than a single vote to do. You have to commit it at scale for it to achieve anything at all.
This is not an argument of disenfranchisement, this is an argument that non-standardized partisan-correlated voting IDs like student IDs should be used in the first place.
What? If the reason it was disallowed was because it was most used by one party, then it absolutely was an attempt at disenfranchisement. That's tautological. Either you can vote or you cannot, and the ID proves your identity or it does not. If a form of ID previously was good enough to prove a person's identity, then I would say the onus is on the people removing it to argue that it's not secure.
If your voting station marks down that you voted via a tally mark on a piece of paper, it does nothing to check for double voting unless there's someone else, sometime later, who actually puts it into a system to check against other databases.
Then you'll be happy to know that they literally do go back and check. And they sometimes prosecute people for it if they believe it was intentional.
I am always happy to find a new mind reader in the American populace, unless you happened to have some other evidence that the distinction was driven by racism rather than something else.
It was North Carolina BTW. And what you sardonically refer to as mind-reading was the N.C. court of appeals looking at all the actions performed and all the actions NOT performed at the same time, and taking into consideration that the legislature had the data they could use to disenfranchise. They came to the conclusion that their actions lined up too strongly with what a biased actor would do to reasonably assume a coincidence.
Tiber727
8mo ago
Sincere on what though? Trump contradicts himself and makes impulsive decisions so often that I cannot take anything he says seriously. And from the view of someone who leans Democrat, I wouldn't want many of the things he proposes if he were sincere.
Yes, China is a major polluter, but that attitude doesn't solve anything. In fact it makes it worse. It's like saying I should break the law because other people break the law more, which the only result of that philosophy is more net crime. I would support nuclear, but I don't see Republicans taking any tangible action to support nuclear either.
I would absolutely support the No Kings Act. I think the Supreme Court has been making extremely political decisions while pretending they're above it all, and Trump v. United States invented several claims that are not supported by the Constitution at all.
When it comes to firing for unfair reasons, I'm not talking about a heavy hand. For instance, it is only illegal to fire someone for refusing to commit a crime in most but not all states. One of the most common repeat threads in /r/legaladvice is employers telling employees they cannot discuss wages, which is blatantly illegal but it seems like nothing is really done unless an employee actually gets fired and sues over it.
Tiber727
8mo ago
I don't pretend my policies are 100% free, but even something like a minimum 2 sick days a year, or mandating that someone cannot be made to work > 24 hours straight do not strike me as onerous enough to have a noticeable impact on price. It wouldn't result in any change 99% of the time in any case, it's there for the few times it would apply.
How do you expect to stop the extremely entrenched practice of outsourcing to the cheapest bidder?
I don't think you can. Labor is like a tenth of the price in other countries, if that. Best thing to do is invest in more high-tech industry.
Tiber727
8mo ago
I don't agree with that.
Early voting would give more time to count votes, thus increasing election security.
Photo ID = either it's the person or it's not. There's no reason to be any more restrictive than is necessary to establish identity. Creating a fake ID to cast 1 extra vote out of 100 million would already be a large waste of time. Also, when I said they only disallowed SOME forms of ID, I mean only the forms of ID democrats would use, like student IDs.
Same day registration I don't see as a problem to verify.
Provisional voting I could see being used for fraud, but that also make it trivially easy to check provisional votes for double votes.
Pre-registration I see literally no way to use for fraud.
If anything, mail-in votes would be the most likely way to commit fraud, and they were untouched by North Carolina after they found whites used them.
Tiber727
8mo ago
I do generally support labor over capital I would say. But I would also say that I think more restrictions should be placed on Mergers & Acquisitions for large companies. I believe in harsher penalties for companies that break laws, and harsher penalties for labor violations and retaliation. I would support a mandatory minimum number of sick days and maximum consecutive work hours. I would support more scrutiny over independent contractor status and using salary to avoid unpaid overtime.
As for Trump's tariffs talks, I don't think much of them. Labor in other countries costs pennies on the dollar. I think the tariffs necessary to dissuade that would cripple the economy. Well, that and I don't trust anything Trump says, and that goes double for Trump campaigning.
Tiber727
8mo ago
I think Nate's beliefs are a little different though.
Right, I got a little sidetracked there. I haven't paid much attention to Nate Silver to know his specific policies. I was more making the general point that there are valid reasons for a Democrat to express more frustration with Democrats, or Republicans with Republicans, than them simply having dismissed the idea of switching parties prematurely.
Tiber727
8mo ago
I also can't say I agree with that. It's election year, and I think both Kamala and Trump are making populist policy claims that seem completely contradictory to past claims. I have 0 reason to trust that they will stick.
I believe we need to do more for pollution control and managing climate change, and Republicans have and will oppose efforts to do that. Especially Conservative Supreme Court
I generally believe in protections for workers being fired for unfair reasons, and Republicans oppose that.
I support taxation used to provide poverty reduction programs, and Republicans oppose that.
I agree with Democrats on maybe 75% of things. Republicans would take active efforts to not just oppose new efforts but reverse direction on that 75%. That does not make sense to me as a strategy to oppose the 25% I disagree with.
Tiber727
8mo ago
I don't agree with that. I'm a Centrist, anti-woke Democrat, and as such I spend a lot of time criticizing Democrats. But switching parties is unthinkable to me both due to greater distaste of Trump and fundamentally irreconcilable policy differences. The reason I spend more time criticizing Democrats is because people who have some commonality with me are both more persuadable and more frustrating when not persuadable. Also they are my only viable option when trying to enact change.
Tiber727
8mo ago
Can anyone of the "Most Secure Election in History" persuasion steelman the argument against increasing election integrity? Isn't it in everyone's best interest to increase confidence in the electoral process, even if you think 2020 election deniers are kooks, as it will improve the legitimacy of whoever wins and diminish avenues of sympathy for the deniers?
The argument is that the actions Republicans take do not increase election integrity, and are instead aimed at adding hoops to jump through that may reduce voter turnout among groups that typically vote Democrat. For example, North Carolina in 2016 had a law overturned combating voter fraud. For important context, the legislature had requested an received demographic information about how voters vote, by race. That is, whether they use provisional voting, early voting, mail-in ballots, etc. The day after the Supreme Court rolled back provisions of the Voting Rights Act the legislature moved forward with a bill over "election security." Said law:
-
Reduced early voting.
-
Disallowed SOME but not all forms of alternate photo ID
-
Removed same-day registration
-
Removed provisional voting if a voter showed up at the wrong polling place within the same county
-
Removed pre-registration which allowed teenagers who were below voting age to register, provided they would be eligible to vote on election day
-
Did NOT require mail-in voters to show ID.
Based on the above bullet points, can you guess which forms of registering/voting were most used by blacks, and which were most used by whites? Hint - the ones which were used primarily by whites were untouched.
Democrats believe that Republican leaders are borrowing a similar playbook in Republican controlled areas, and that "election security" is simply plausible deniability. I agree with that, but I'd add that as a project manager, my philosophy is that a process should be only as complex and restrictive as it needs to be to perform its function, and no more. In other words, something like photo ID is a burden on the process of voting, and justifiable only if it stops a fraudulent vote. If it does not, then the time spent is a waste and should be cut with prejudice. Likewise, if a form of ID is enough to reasonably establish someone's identity, include it.
I generally believe incompetence over maliciousness.
What's more likely?
An impulsive braggart with a tendency to think he can do anything grabbed some docs as personal trophies or to win arguments?
Or...
Trump normally keeps stacked up boxes of documents in bathrooms and the FBI throws in cover sheets to make Trump look guilty? And the judge is going to accept they they are classified based on this cover sheet and not check? Oh, and also they trick Trump into saying these exact words?
More options
Context Copy link