BANNED USER: terrible poster who never improves
sliders1234
No bio...
User ID: 685
Banned by: @Amadan
And if Hamas still attacked Israel you would agree Europe can (and preferebly you useful) would help to remove Hamas completely if they attacked again?
I feel like you should have skin in the game if you proposed this peace plan.
Also, you completely avoided the fact that the Houthis are being funded by Iran who don’t give two shits about Israel but are trying to hurt Arab interests. If Biden went to Iran tomorrow and told them No military weapons will be sold to the Saudis for the next ten years the Houthi issue would disappear tomorrow.
For that deal the Iranians would kick the Palestinians out of Israel for us and defeat the Houthis.
sliders1234
1yr ago
Can you explain to me how a 2-state solution would solve Israel’s issues in the Middle East. This all started because Palestine attacked Israel. Israel then counter-attacked. Iran wanted to mess with the Saudis and armed Houthis to attack Americans.
To be honest this war doesn’t even have anything to do with the Jews. It’s a Saudi-Iran proxy war.
And if we do a 2-state solution and Israel isn’t allowed to fight back what is your proposal?
I feel like you are not speaking clearly here since you completely ignored where should the Jews go if they aren’t allowed to defend themselves.
sliders1234
1yr ago
I do not think so either. I can’t convince Reddit that this opens the door to the 14th being used against any politician but it’s my belief it could be under the Colorado standard.
I think back to Roberts keeping Obamacare when he could have used the tax but to throw the whole thing out. He’s not going to want courts taking too much power and will find a way to squash this. Personally, I assume Roberts probably hates Trump but any personal opinions he has on Trump won’t keep him from seeing the precedence allowing Colorado’s ruling to go thru being a problem.
The big issue with going back to states legislatures pick their candidate would be it would be extremely unpopular. Many might not like the electoral college but Americans are still going to want the vote on this. Even if a good legal argument existed for this maneuver the court would still find a way to block it because of unpopularity.
sliders1234
1yr ago
Funny I read the Caplan piece I thought Caplan believed Milei would fail and then read the Cowen piece who claimed Caplan was more positive.
I guess it all comes down to what you can declare as victory.
My victory condition is he’s a modern day Pinochet that invites a bunch of University of Chicago dorks down to Argentina and sets the country on a path to be rich again.
Cowens seems to be he fixes enough to stop hyperinflation.
sliders1234
1yr ago
That would be my guess for the consensus here which tends to have an assumption Kagan is a real judge and Sotomoyer/Brown are just partisan votes.
Personally I’m hoping they step up here and vote with the conservatives.
sliders1234
1yr ago
Roberts is conservative in that he doesn’t want to trigger chaos. Even if he 100% agrees with the Colorado ruling he’s going to realize a self executing 14th amendment means that any State can just decide to not let a candidate on the ballot.
The end result would be selecting Presidents by the state legislature.
But there is a also a big gap between conservatives don’t like seeing rioting and deciding to agree that rioting is the same as insurrection. Words still need to have meaning.
I think a universal reversal with the Democrat judges voting with the conservatives to reverse is far more likely than the conservatives banning Trump.
sliders1234
1yr ago
Haley is dead politically. Too much of the base myself included don’t like her. There are plenty of Trump supporters who are fans of Desantis but I don’t know any that like Haley.
Desantis will have a chance in 2028 depending on what Trump Inc. decided to do. For now I would assume it’s Donald Trump Jr in 2028 but Desantis will have a fighting chance.
I don’t see Desantis taking a role in the Trump admin. And I think for the gop it’s better to keep him out of the admin in case Donald blows up some day. Which likely means you get Senator Desantis at some point.
I never heard of the Madagascar plan before but as an alt history that would be one of the more interesting things if it happened especially for the HBD crowd if 6 million Jews went there.
American Jews accomplished a lot but we never received anywhere close to that and they took over our elite institutions. Ashkenazi Jews were 15/20 of the biggest political donors in 2020 in America. Madagascar could have become one of the most powerful global civs on that timeline.
Best I can tell America received around 2 million Ashkenazi Jews by 1920. So a country counting for some natural population growth double the size of Americas Jewish population. That population has produced 30-40% of Nobels. The scientific output of Madagascar might rival the rest of the world.
sliders1234
1yr ago
This somewhat gets too the issue I have with the case at hand of a fisherman being forced to pay the salary of his regulator to be on the boat.
I don’t quite have an issue with the regulator being on the boat as I guess I can think of that situation being necessary for a public good. Which I’m this case overfishing leading to smaller fish catches is definitely a public good.
But I do feel like the person making that decision should be accountable to society and having congress make that decision has accountability even if it’s only a small accountability but having a bureaucrat make the decision feels like their is no accountability or process.
sliders1234
1yr ago
Yes I thought about that.
My opinion probably lies on the spectrum of the Chevron Deference shouldn’t exists or if it does be extremely limited. The power of the Presidency should be small.
Is it rational that if we get rid of these things that congress is capable of governing? Even if we need to increase its size?
sliders1234
1yr ago
True. The libertarian approach is likely how I think this should settle legally.
The administrative state would be severely limited if they needed explicit guidance. And since congress struggles to pass sufficient legislation it would mean a very limited state.
I did want to avoid ideological debates though I opened the door to it. Even in the case at hand for what the court will settle on I would not be completely against the state putting agents on private ships but I am against the state putting agents on ships without specific Democratic legislative intent and simply ordered by a bureaucrat. Someone elected should have a connection to it.
This is a decent summary of the case which I would assume you know. And Kagan’s quote I would completely disagree with.
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/17/1224939610/supreme-court-chevron-doctrine
Justice Elena Kagan threw tough hypothetical questions at the challengers' attorneys, asking if federal judges are really the best positioned to answer questions about whether a new cholesterol-lowering product would be a dietary supplement or a drug.
"And it's best to defer to people who do know, who have had long experience on the ground, who have seen a thousand of these kinds of situations," Kagan said, referring to agency experts. "And, you know, judges should know what they don't know."
A Democracy in my opinion still needs some process to decide what a government can do. The process of a mini-legislature won’t happen but we also aren’t going to have another system either.
Maybe it’s terrible idea. But when I think about the issue it feels like we are lacking what I would call a middle management legislature.
I wouldn’t advocate for direct election of “mini-legislatures”. Probably something like the mini-legislature has 46 people and any 10 congress people can join in a group to select 1 mini-legislature person. Basically 10 GOP congress people would decide whichever staff knows most about securities legislation and goes on the securities legislature congress. They have to color within the lines of larger bills and if anything they do is too radical a vote of 45% on big congress cancels it.
The alternative would be sunsetting and expecting congress to pass more bills but I just don’t see congress being capable of that.
The Chevron defense feels wrong to me with unelected administrators having too much power for my liking but if we get rid of governance like this it feels to me like a vacuum is left behind.
I think people on the left to often claim Congress doesn’t do anything so we have to do things thru Executive orders etc but I do think there could be a process for cleaning up legislation/more direction later when bills go from law to execution and issues arise.
How could we fix the Chevron defense?
I am not even sure this is culture war outside of the left tends to think they own the bureaucracy therefore the left has a preference for the Chevron defense.
I assume most have basic familiarity with the Chevron defense and may be aware that a case will soon appear before the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court is expected to weaken the Chevron defense.
Here is a basic Wikipedia summary
“The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference".[2] Chevron deference consists of a two-part test that is deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.
This has resulted in a situation where different administrations can interpret different laws completely differently. Which to me doesn’t feel much like a nation of laws.
The Chevron defense though does seem to solve a legitimate problem that the US legislature isn’t designed or doesn’t function well to deal with smaller issues/refinements/vagueness in writing laws. One issue here is congress liking to pass big bills in order to horse trade. A second issue is we have 435 congress people and I can’t expect each of them to know the details of manipulative order entry to buy IBM stock and the temperature that a nuclear plant could release waste water that would be too high and kill off the manatees which at some level a law is seeking to deal with.
The Chevron Defense exists because in my opinion someone does need to get the details right for the regulatory state and the regulatory state probably does need to exists (some libertarians will disagree but I think I’ve moved into something like State-Capacity Libertarianism)
Our current options are basically:
-
The Executive Branch/Bureaucracy gets to decide. With occasional pushbacks from the courts if they go too far. Student Loan forgiveness would be a recent example when the courts stepped in. Taken to the extreme you end up with a system where only one branch of government matters and it’s the Presidency and if you win that you control the meaning of words in everything.
-
The Courts get to decide the meaning of every word in every piece of legislation. Taken to the extreme if you win the SC you own the meaning of words in every piece of legislation. These people are indirectly elected. As someone on the right I tend to think conservative judges atleast use legal theories where they try to interpret meaning based on how the legislature intended. Thinking of the lefts “living constitution” I think that could become quickly a “living legislature” and then any law could just be interpreted by the current popular view on the left. The Judiciary could then become the true legislature.
-
The Legislature passes more laws and fine tunes their legislation. For our form of government I believe this is the best path; however I do not think our current system has the operational capabilities
My proposal. We should solve this. My best guess is we need to add mini-legislatures somehow. Congress finds a way to delegate rule-making to smaller focused legislatures that will retain the legitimacy of congress and being Democratic.
What will happen is the SC pushes back on the Chevron defense and takes more power for the courts and removes some power from the executive/bureaucracy. The complexity of the modern world leads me to believe we need to find a legislative solution and the vacuum is leading Courts/Executive doing things they shouldn’t be doing.
Edit: Should be deference as was noted.
sliders1234
1yr ago
Would a women rather have a best friend as a husband or one who produced attractive, well-educated , healthy children?
If you noticed in my prior comment I said nothing about his relationship with her. Evolutionary biology I would think says my model is the better husband.
sliders1234
1yr ago
That seems super restrictive. What are you defining as breeding? That would seem like any cell culture to me.
But yes agree the people with the power don’t have the incentive. Anyone who can tell a congressmen we shouldn’t do x,y,z and is capable of doing lab checks for x,y,z is probably too deep in to be incentivized to do it.
sliders1234
1yr ago
I also think it’s impossible to ban gain of functional research. The people capable of banning gain of function research would be people like Peter Daszak(and fauci) who maybe helped fund COVID development and whatever those guys are doing and getting money from the government are going to tell Congress that what they are doing is definitely not gain of function research.
Which makes me feel like the only choice is a complete ban on virus research (has its own issues) or GOF research is going to happen.
I always liked the Harrison Ford movie Clear and Present danger and in the movie Ford goes before congress (Ford is the boyscout) and tells congress non of the money is going towards troops to battle Narcos. Of course a different government official redirected the money to troops.
This is just a massive who watches the Watchman problem.
Are polygraphs good enough that if you just polygraph every bat lady once every three months that you would catch them?
sliders1234
1yr ago
I hate commenting twice on the same thing but Jamie Dimon basically steel-manned at WEF today and he always came off as corporatists Dem to me.
https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1747645227194855919?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ
Summary - Trump was right on everything (NATO, Immigration, tax cuts).
sliders1234
1yr ago
It’s not about the pardon. You also can’t let the other side bully your candidate selection process.
sliders1234
1yr ago
If you post the argument you made to Reddit you will get a lot of people wandering if you are being serious.
Looking back at his track record I believe he did a great job. He got things right I didn’t even think about then like immigration and China and both of those aged well. He also yelled at Powell in 2018 about hiking rates and for that environment (inflation sub 2%) Trump was absolutely correct Powell was making a mistake.
I do take issue with you calling him a bad husband. He did the most important thing a husband can do which is procreate and successfully raise functioning children.
sliders1234
1yr ago
As someone who preferred the other GOP candidates I do not feel like Ive had a choice on who to vote for in the primary.
Ever since lawfare began against Trump it has forced the right to vote for him. Simply put you can not allow members of your political coalition be bullied. You have to fight together or die alone.
Reason 2: Entertainment
sliders1234
1yr ago
Neo-liberal today means whatever Hillary Clinton says it means today as far as I can tell.
The term has lost any connection to Pinochet. Depending whatever decade you use authoritarian neoliberal I would be it or the enemy of it. In the modern 2020-2024 context I would associate the term with Clinton, Newman, Trudeau and COVID authoritarianism. In short the term almost has no meaning at this point.
That being said I do think modding has gotten high. And there is no functional differences between tone policing and content policing. People notice tone far less when it’s from a context they agree with but notice the smallest slight from their outgroup.
sliders1234
1yr ago
I can’t say I am an expert at all on what can be done but I can watch YouTube videos and see plenty of harvesting machines. Some do look like they could damage the plant.
It just seems like we get a lot of what about this industry responses for illegals. When it does appear we figure out more automation when the price of labor goes up.
sliders1234
1yr ago
Also think people are missing the elephant in the room for agricultural work. Isn’t this something AI solves? We already have fruit picking robots and I think it’s fair to say they will continue to improve.
If we didn’t have illegals we would in time just automate fruit picking. Prices would spike for a few years and then my guess would be lower fruit prices. Same thing as in 2008 when oil hit $150 we invented shale oil a few years later. Getting rid of illegals would just speed up the automation process and by 2030 my guess is a fully automated fruit picking system.
sliders1234
1yr ago
I tend to agree as my personal journey on the issue was pro-open borders. If we let the migrants in today then tomorrow they are more wealthy American citizens.
One thing to not is there is I believe a Milton Friedman type school of thought that illegal immigration is better than legal migration. Illegal provides a selection effect for the hungriest immigrants willing to do the work Americans don’t want to do. And from a selection effect the illegal immigrant today has more selection effect for the American characteristics (prior immigrant waves having a much harder journey so selects for entrepreneurship etc).
My journey on immigration likely went from a “Why Nation’s Fail” type mindset where the primary reasons some nations fail are bad institutions, lack of property rights, corruption etc. My guess is this is still the dominant elite view and therefore more immigration into a society with good institutions translates into a huge net positive for humanity. You then summarize into some sort of Yglesias thesis of “One Billion Americans” who I believe is considered slightly a center right writer.
The work of Garret Jones on national average IQ being the driving force of a national wealth drives my thinking much more, but George Masons Econ department sits outside elite consensus. Even at that school he can’t specifically make hbd arguments. If you want to explain why some countries always have poor institutions then you end up using Jones arguments.
In summary I completely agree it’s very tough in America to make strong anti-immigration arguments especially in elite circles. The very best you can do is find agreement that the border needs to be secure enough to limit the pace of illegal migration to allow our economy to have enough low-end work and public resources to turn migrants into American citizens.
Who cares?
Probably because the US has a need for Israel in the Middle East as basically the best army in the region. Perhaps not 100% capable of paying for their own bombs but extremely capable at using those bombs to modern military standards.
Also, America is a Democracy and I would like to remind you American Jews pay a hugely disproportionate amount of US taxes and are almost certainly net payers to the US treasury far above whatever aid we give to Israel.
More options
Context Copy link