Political Discussion

Joe Mac said:
This is just obscene. The levels of inequity that allow this are the single biggest block on any progressive agenda. It’s just so depressing.
Click to expand...

I just read an article this week in the November issue ( yes, i´m behind in my reading) of scientific american called "the inescapable casiono" where physicists and mathematicians did statistical models on trading situations that Show taht even if fair transactions between individuals with the same starting conditons are given, the concentration of all Wealth in few hands is inevitable. They then introduced a parameter introducing redistribution from rich to poor (Taxes for the rich, . Benefits for the poor) and a Parameter that represenst biases towards thje richer Party in deals and were able to model real life wealth distributions quite well. It´s quite an interesting article, that is on their Website without a Paywall now ( see link below)

www.scientificamerican.com

Is Inequality Inevitable?

Wealth naturally trickles up in free-market economies, model suggests
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com
 
Joe Mac said:
This is just obscene. The levels of inequity that allow this are the single biggest block on any progressive agenda. It’s just so depressing.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile the bottom half of Americans saw their income decline 7% over the past 15 years.

That's just unacceptable. Costs of housing/rent are skyrocketing. Then you have inflation, health insurance and what not going up. It's just not sustainable.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Meanwhile the bottom half of Americans saw their income decline 7% over the past 15 years.
Click to expand...

If you look an a global scale it’s even worse...

It’s a horrible cycle as well with moguls now monopolising the ownership of media outlets so choosing the hue in which the narrative is framed. Not good. Not good at all.
 
Joe Mac said:
If you look an a global scale it’s even worse...

It’s a horrible cycle as well with moguls now monopolising the ownership of media outlets so choosing the hue in which the narrative is framed. Not good. Not good at all.
Click to expand...

Yup. @Indymisanthrope asked me awhile back why I'm certain Bernie would have gotten anything done should he have won in 2016. I'm not. Because the media very may well have gone full force to undermine him.

My lack of response had to do with a new job / the holidays, but either way... to me this is about taking a stand and saying that this level of inequality, the dismissal of climate change as an existential threat, for-profit wars and the ways in which they are linked to money in politics is completely unacceptable. It's about furthering momentum for a movement and pushing corporate whoring Dems out of office. It's about preventing bad decisions as much as it is pushing through necessary reforms.

And on that note-

www.google.com

Trump’s conflict with Iran exposed the real difference between Biden and Sanders

Sanders wants a new Democratic vision for foreign policy. Biden is running on a return to normalcy.
www.google.com www.google.com
 
Last edited:
DownIsTheNewUp said:
... to me this is about taking a stand and saying that this level of inequality, the dismissal of climate change as an existential threat, for-profit wars and the ways in which they are linked to money in politics is completely unacceptable.
Click to expand...
I like and agree with the principle. The more pragmatic side of my brain inevitably starts asking, though, what's better: a purist who gets undermined at every turn but demonstrates a moral stand, or someone who, product of the system though he/she/they may be, might be able to make incremental progress by continuing to chip away at the monolith of conservatism?

And then the voice in the back of my head starts screaming that it's way too late for incrementalism and what are we all even doing since this is so obviously a lose-lose scenario.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
I like and agree with the principle. The more pragmatic side of my brain inevitably starts asking, though, what's better: a purist who gets undermined at every turn but demonstrates a moral stand, or someone who, product of the system though he/she/they may be, might be able to make incremental progress by continuing to chip away at the monolith of conservatism?

And then the voice in the back of my head starts screaming that it's way too late for incrementalism and what are we all even doing since this is so obviously a lose-lose scenario.
Click to expand...

I struggle with this constantly and couldn't agree more.

I'm employed by a government entity. My job is fundamentally about helping people and communities. I've seen some things happen and maybe even some things get done (maybe) BUT it is extremely incremental. There are many reasons for the incrementalism that are perhaps best left for a separate discussion, but i would summarize by saying that some of it is logical and useful and some of it isn't. Regardless of the usefulness or lack-thereof their is little choice other than to navigate it. Still I spend a significant amount of emotional energy fighting to make the bigger and more immediate changers that are so so obvious.

I'm currently debating with myself how much effort I put into some activities because I know that they are the right thing to do, but I will ultimately be crushed by politics, fears, and perceptions about those things. In the end, I almost always just continue to navigate all of the roadblocks equating to more incrementalism.

In terms of the 2020 presidential election, I don't really have an opinion as to what approach is best or if there is really a difference in approach between the people I might (be able) to vote for. In my mind it seems incredibly unlikely that anyone is going to be able to come in and completely reset the system despite their best intentions to do so.

November is a long way off in news cycle-terms and the ability of the current power structure to control and manipulate the messaging can not be underestimated.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
Also this:

www.businessinsider.com

GOP Sen. Mike Lee furious after an 'insulting' Senate briefing on Trump's Iran strike: 'The worst briefing ... on a military issue I've seen in 9 years'

GOP Sen. Mike Lee told reporters the briefing was so "demeaning" that he changed his mind on a resolution to limit Trump's power to attack Iran.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
Click to expand...

But not all GOP members are on board with that mindset.

For example, House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy slammed the Democrats today over "Iran War Powers resolution".

House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy criticized Democrats over their Iran War Powers resolution that will get a floor vote later today.

He called it a “meaningless vote that only sends the wrong message that the House Democrats would rather stand with the socialist base than stand against Iran.”

McCarthy also criticized House Democrats over their response to President Trump’s conflict with Iran, accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of defending Iranian general Qasem Soleimani who was killed in a US airstrike.

“I never thought there would be a moment in time that the Speaker of the House of Representatives would actually be defending Soleimani … that they would be defending Iran," he said.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Meanwhile the bottom half of Americans saw their income decline 7% over the past 15 years.

That's just unacceptable. Costs of housing/rent are skyrocketing. Then you have inflation, health insurance and what not going up. It's just not sustainable.
Click to expand...
The rich don't need it to be sustainable. They just need it to last as long as they're alive to spend their money .
 
Lock her up chants are still going strong in 2020 at Trump rallies including last night.

Speaking of 2020, I believe there is a debate next week.

I have heard some reports that Warren will focus her attention on debt and attack Biden over the debit bill from the 2000s.

Her focus will be on making it easier for people to file for Bankruptcy, where current laws designed to protect the financial institution at the expense of the consumer.

Things she wants to do away with from that Bill that Biden was a big part of pushing through

  • Ban on filling for bankruptcy on virtually all student loan debt.
  • The requirement to seek and undergo financial counseling for mismanaging your finances before being eligible to file for bankruptcy
  • The excessive fees/penalties for filling for bankruptcy.
  • The bureaucracy that makes it a long and confusing process that in terms make people give up from going through the process.
A lot of people are in debt not due to financial mismanagement, but rather because so many Americans are just getting by now. One unexpected expense such as a medical emergency can destroy someone financially.
 
On the positive I think we’ve all been saved from World War III because Iran is actually insanely enough run by competing interests to allow it to shoot down a Ukrainian passenger plane and to arrest the UK ambassador...
 
Joe Mac said:
On the positive I think we’ve all been saved from World War III because Iran is actually insanely enough run by competing interests to allow it to shoot down a Ukrainian passenger plane and to arrest the UK ambassador...
Click to expand...
Not the most graceful blessing but I"ll take what I can get.
 
techcrunch.com

A billion medical images exposed, but doctors ignore warnings

Despite warnings from security researchers, the number of exposed images has risen.
techcrunch.com techcrunch.com

Databreaches are happening at an obscene rate.

In the one above, a decades old system that is widely used by every doctor and medical facility to share medical images is not secure. And even when warned about it most have done nothing. The amount of medial images appearing on the web is soaring. And these often include cover sheets that have your name, address, SSN, insurance information and so on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top