2020 US election - It Came from Washington DC

[GethN7]

Regarding Trump being a egomaniacal douche.

That, for me, is inherently a disqualifying trait for leadership, and especially high level leadership. The way Trump has been reacting to minorities or even political opponents with violence and brutality first, foremost, forever, and only shows why. He isn't sending officers of the peace to restore order and enforce the law, he's sending occupying forces to stomp out dissent and who cares who dies.

I don't like Trump's politics, and I probably won't like Biden's politics either much like how I didn't like Obama's. But their politics can be worked with, whereas whenever Trump gets involved every plan falls apart, including the plans of his own administration.

I'd like to point out a bit of historical irony.

Trump was a former Democrat. Traditionally, Democrats have had a history of being brutal to opponents and minorities, such as:

Andrew Jackson: Trail of Tears, anyone? Was willing to defy Congress and the Supreme Court due to his own ego issues.
Andrew Johnson: Southern sympathizer who tried to ruin Reconstruction for black people.
Woodrow Wilson: Notorious bigot who was unironically racist to anyone who was not white. Egomaniacal about how he thought he knew best for the world to the point even many fellow Democrats had issues with him.
FDR: Japanese internment.

And Biden was VP during Obama, who drone struck a lot of people and that "kids in cages" crap people try to pin on Trump started under Obama.


Republicans might get a lot of crap for the same (Bush Jr and his numerous wars, anyone?), but just wanted to point out the other side has some heinous acts of cruelty notched on their belt too. Whether Biden proves better or worse as a head of state in his own right we have yet to see.

[robkelk]

It's been called by the media. There are going to be legal challenges, naturally.

Barrister
But we've got to verify it legally, to see
Mayor
To see?
Barrister
If she
Mayor
If she?
Barrister
Is morally, ethic'lly
Father No.1
Spiritually, physically
Father No. 2
Positively, absolutely
Munchkins
Undeniably and reliably Dead

It's going to take a while to clear the roadblocks that have been placed on the Yellow Brick Road over the last four years . The work might not be completed in my remaining lifetime.

Two editorial/analysis pieces:

Donald Trump gets no political obituary. He, and his legacy, aren't done

Trump may be on his way out — but Trumpism marches on

[hazard]

FDR: Also German internment, and the New Deal he offered explicitly excluded blacks.

There's a reason I'm saying I do not expect to like Biden's politics and didn't like Obama's politics either.

Also, to be fair to both Obama and Trump, Trump escalated the kids in cages crap tremendously and from all appearances the Obama administration was much more interested in not keeping anybody interned indefinitely or permanently separating families, nor did they track the fertility of any females in their care to a rather disturbing extent.

[GethN7]

Wrote a little something for both sides concerning what to do while we wait for the courts to hash the election results out:

https://gethn7.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-...-what.html

[robkelk]

According to Bloomberg, Trump is losing more of his court cases than he's winning. And that doesn't count the ones that are under appeal.

[Labster]

That said, my point was that if Trump made a point to crush minorities, then the fact a LOT of them voted for his re-election means they are either too stupid to know what's best for them (and please tell me no one here is going to unironically argue such unabashed racism), or they honestly did not agree he was working against their best interests.

That would be unsurprising.  I mean, after all, you voted against your own interests in this election, and minorities aren't different than us.  Here, let me give you a source from conservative-leaning news: The Hill: Trump payroll plan would deplete Social Security by 2023: Administrator.  But more to the point on your own interests:

If this hypothetical legislation were enacted, with no alternative source of revenue to replace the elimination of payroll taxes on earned income paid on January 1, 2021 and thereafter, we estimate that [Disability Insurance] DI Trust Fund asset reserves would become permanently depleted in about the middle of calendar year 2021, with no ability to pay DI benefits thereafter.

So under Trump's campaign promise to end they payroll tax, SSDI would end about seven months from now, permanently.  Social Security is an enormous program that couldn't be funded another way, unless the government enacted a different large tax or cut like five departments from the budget entirely provided one of them was the defense department.

[GethN7]

That said, my point was that if Trump made a point to crush minorities, then the fact a LOT of them voted for his re-election means they are either too stupid to know what's best for them (and please tell me no one here is going to unironically argue such unabashed racism), or they honestly did not agree he was working against their best interests.

That would be unsurprising.  I mean, after all, you voted against your own interests in this election, and minorities aren't different than us.  Here, let me give you a source from conservative-leaning news: The Hill: Trump payroll plan would deplete Social Security by 2023: Administrator.  But more to the point on your own interests:

If this hypothetical legislation were enacted, with no alternative source of revenue to replace the elimination of payroll taxes on earned income paid on January 1, 2021 and thereafter, we estimate that [Disability Insurance] DI Trust Fund asset reserves would become permanently depleted in about the middle of calendar year 2021, with no ability to pay DI benefits thereafter.

So under Trump's campaign promise to end they payroll tax, SSDI would end about seven months from now, permanently.  Social Security is an enormous program that couldn't be funded another way, unless the government enacted a different large tax or cut like five departments from the budget entirely provided one of them was the defense department.

Well, this is information I did not know. Thanks for enlightening me.

[robkelk]

Wait a minute... You folks don't put your federal pension plan at arm's length from the legislators? Next you'll be telling me that you don't make it clear on tax slips which money goes to the pension plan and which goes into general revenues...

Who the heck advises your government on economics?

[GethN7]

Wait a minute... You folks don't put your federal pension plan at arm's length from the legislators?

Who the heck advises your government on economics?

As originally implemented, the Social Security program implemented under FDR was a modified version of a proposed plan already in existence, just made to be more politically workable and was signed into law by the same.

As it stands, Social Security is considered the "third rail" of US politics, at least by most people, as tampering with it is considered madness at best. However, due to how it's a law that required the assent of Congress over a presidential veto or a presidential signature (which it got), that means it can still be tampered with later, but most people on both sides of the aisle have been leery of doing so without the greatest degree of caution.

I definitely support not meddling with SSDI (my father is disabled and needs it), and Trump's idea sounds more than a little crazy and I wished I had known the full effects of his plans for that earlier, but what's done is done.

[hazard]

Entirely valid question Geth.

Would you support SSDI if your father wasn't disabled and in need of it?

I mean, what if it's a different program you don't benefit directly from but does have a large and extensive impact on the health and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands if not millions of citizens?

[GethN7]

Entirely valid question Geth.

Would you support SSDI if your father wasn't disabled and in need of it?

I mean, what if it's a different program you don't benefit directly from but does have a large and extensive impact on the health and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands if not millions of citizens?

Yes. Social Security has such broad-reaching implications NO ONE, regardless of their politics, should mess with it, unless they handle it with the greatest care.

Some issues are more given leeway on the debate, like whether we need to spend more money on highways or other interstate issues of that nature. At the end of the day, those can be fixed far more easily if someone makes a bad call.

Social Security, on the other hand, is right up there with all the other basic "don't meddle with this unless you have expertly researched the options prior, and even then tread cautiously" positions, like our need to have a bare minimum for maintaining the postal system and need to regulate universal questions of law enforcement and civil defense that it would lead to anarchy and societal breakdown if we didn't.

[hazard]

You realize that's a pretty radical position for a Republican to take? Because the ACA is just one more element of the social security system.

[robkelk]

Entirely valid question Geth.

Would you support SSDI if your father wasn't disabled and in need of it?

I mean, what if it's a different program you don't benefit directly from but does have a large and extensive impact on the health and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands if not millions of citizens?

Everybody benefits from Social Security / Social Insurance.

The fewer people who are starving to death because they can't afford even one meal a day, the fewer people need hospitalization for starvation, and the more room there is in hospitals for everybody else - such as people with a coronavirus.

[GethN7]

You realize that's a pretty radical position for a Republican to take? Because the ACA is just one more element of the social security system.

I align with no position save "who do I believe would serve my interests and that of the country as a whole better".

I thought Obama was the better choice back in 2008, FYI.

I disagreed with how ACA was implemented, but I did like the idea.

[hazard]

Everybody benefits from Social Security / Social Insurance.

The fewer people who are starving to death because they can't afford even one meal a day, the fewer people need hospitalization for starvation, and the more room there is in hospitals for everybody else - such as people with a coronavirus.

That's unfortunately a fairly advanced understanding of the functioning of social security systems. One that, to my knowledge, US educational efforts do not cover.

I align with no position save "who do I believe would serve my interests and that of the country as a whole better".

I thought Obama was the better choice back in 2008, FYI.

I disagreed with how ACA was implemented, but I did like the idea.

Then I find your support of Trump puzzling. A man like him serves his own interests, and will not serve the interests of his office, or his country, or his supporters.

Trying to deal with him is like trying to deal with a kaiju fight. None of the punch slingers in that battle are on your side, you are at a distinct risk of being stepped upon, and at most you have a preferred victor because he'll leave before wrecking more of the battlefield.

[nemonowan]

Yes. Social Security has such broad-reaching implications NO ONE, regardless of their politics, should mess with it, unless they handle it with the greatest care.

Social Security, on the other hand, is right up there with all the other basic "don't meddle with this unless you have expertly researched the options prior, and even then tread cautiously" positions, like our need to have a bare minimum for maintaining the postal system and need to regulate universal questions of law enforcement and civil defense that it would lead to anarchy and societal breakdown if we didn't.

Well, that's where you are misunderstanding (too) many of Republican and also Democratic Elders.
They CARE very much about Social Security , and they HAVE been researching the options; they have been doing it since the days of FDR. Because they WANT IT GONE. Same about the postal system, although that seems to be more recent. That eliminating the payroll tax would defund Social Security and bankrupt it is not a unfortunate, unforeseen side effect: IT WAS THE WHOLE POINT.

Why? Because their ideology is that no government program can improve the lives of people., and if there is any that does, it must be destroyed in order to prove that it actually couldn't do it. And it all comes from the fact that they will have less (economic/societal/etc) power over a prosperous people than over a starving, desperate people.
Therefore, according to them the only responsibility of a government should be the "law enforcement and civil defense" that you mentioned. Because it is needed to protect them from the "anarchy and societal breakdown" that starving, desperate people in revolt usually cause unless cowed by a military boot on their necks.

[GethN7]

Yes. Social Security has such broad-reaching implications NO ONE, regardless of their politics, should mess with it, unless they handle it with the greatest care.

Social Security, on the other hand, is right up there with all the other basic "don't meddle with this unless you have expertly researched the options prior, and even then tread cautiously" positions, like our need to have a bare minimum for maintaining the postal system and need to regulate universal questions of law enforcement and civil defense that it would lead to anarchy and societal breakdown if we didn't.

Well, that's where you are misunderstanding (too) many of Republican and also Democratic Elders.
They CARE very much about Social Security , and they HAVE been researching the options; they have been doing it since the days of FDR. Because they WANT IT GONE.  Same about the postal system, although that seems to be more recent. That eliminating the payroll tax would defund Social Security and bankrupt it is not a unfortunate, unforeseen side effect: IT WAS THE WHOLE POINT.

Why? Because their ideology is that no government program can improve the lives of people., and if there is any that does, it must be destroyed in order to prove that it actually couldn't do it. And it all comes from the fact that they will have less (economic/societal/etc) power over a prosperous people than over a starving, desperate people.
Therefore, according to them the only responsibility of a government should be the "law enforcement and civil defense" that you mentioned. Because it is needed to protect them from the "anarchy and societal breakdown" that starving, desperate people in revolt usually cause unless cowed by a military boot on their necks.

Then those who would destroy it are fools.

While I mostly consider myself a classical liberal, classical republicanism had the right idea on how the government has an obligation to see to the welfare of its citizens, and FDR was right when he considered Social Security to be the domain of the deserving poor, as in, those who otherwise would starve and die without assistance from anyone else.

I otherwise believe strongly trade should have some degree of protectionism, immigration is fine insofar as it's legal (I have no sympathy for illegal immigration), and that the average citizen is entitled to a chance at employment to earn their own bread with their own labor if at all possible.

Basically, I don't fit into a standard Republican/Democrat mold. My beliefs are a mix of what I consider the best parts of both platforms, as some aspects of both are worth considering and some I consider madness.

For example, I strongly support gay marriage despite being a devout Christian because everyone should have the right to choose and gay people marrying is no infringement on my own rights or that of others insofar as they are subject to the same penalties and restrictions as heterosexual couples insofar as the law makes feasible. I disagree with a certain part of the Republican platform that opposes abortion for the same reasons. I deplore it on moral grounds, but I believe its absolute abolishment is unrealistic, would cause more problems than it solves, and again, is a matter of personal moral choice, one that does not infringe on my rights for any woman to exercise, and despite my religious beliefs, I believe the choice to get one is a matter of law in the realm of Men. The hereafter is the business of the hereafter in that regard.

By the same token, I strongly believe law enforcement is a public good and oppose its defunding. I do agree when it steps over the line or becomes corrupt those officials should be punished harshly for it, but the demands by certain sections of the public to utterly dismantle law enforcement I consider absolute madness.

As for supporting Trump, I believed he had the necessary acumen to see to the recovery of the economy, would ensure immigration laws were better enforced, and I had no faith in Hilary Clinton's probity nor competence. I admit I have some concerns about Biden, but compared to Hilary, they are far less pronounced and I would be far less uneasy if he turns out to have legitimately won the Presidency. I believe Biden's remarks about the economy are unsound and not keen on his apparent intention to reverse Trump's protectionist stances, but we'll see how it goes if Biden winds up the legitimate winner.

[hazard]

Defunding the police isn't about dismantling law enforcement. In those instances where complete dismantling is even considered it's because the people proposing it have concluded that the police has not only failed to perform its duty, it's done so so catastrophically that restarting from zero is the only option.

Defunding the police is about removing a number of community services that now fall upon the police but the police is not suited to handle from their remit, and shifting the funding for performing those services to agencies that are. Especially since the warrior cop mentality that has taken so much of the USA's police forces makes the sort of community connections that are necessary for performing those services very difficult indeed.

[Labster]

I remember being at a protest against the immigration policies a couple years back.  My dad and I cut across a parking lot to get a little further up in the line, and a Trump supporter stopped to talk to us.  "Do you just want everyone to flow across the border?  Terrorists and all?"

I answer, "Not particularly.  There have to be limits somewhere."

"Then why do you want to Abolish ICE?" he asks, about the Immigration and Custom Enforcement service.

"We don't actually want to abolish it.  Just reform it, or maybe merge it with another department."  I face my sign which reads FREEZE ICE NOW towards him; the reverse says MELT ICE NOW.

"Well, why don't you say that then?  That doesn't sound so crazy."

I shrug.  "I don't get to pick the slogans."

[GethN7]

Defunding the police isn't about dismantling law enforcement. In those instances where complete dismantling is even considered it's because the people proposing it have concluded that the police has not only failed to perform its duty, it's done so so catastrophically that restarting from zero is the only option.

Defunding the police is about removing a number of community services that now fall upon the police but the police is not suited to handle from their remit, and shifting the funding for performing those services to agencies that are. Especially since the warrior cop mentality that has taken so much of the USA's police forces makes the sort of community connections that are necessary for performing those services very difficult indeed.

Well, shifting things to people are sent to handle over to more qualified personnel I can't argue with. However, starting from zero is a bridge too far for me. If the police are corrupt, you weed out the corruption and replace the soiled with the honest, but to leave a gaping hole in law enforcement coverage, even temporarily, is a massive invitation to violent crime to operate with abandon. I've seen what happens when police are utterly forced to surrender their duties so lawlessness can operate with abandon. Seattle's CHAZ experiment resulted in the murders of several people involved because instead of police, you had anarchists (and arguably outright attempted secessionists) taking the law into their own hands, and people were killed in the area of that lawless zone because the police were forced to stand down completely in favor of what looked like something out of a Mad Max movie.

I regret overzealous cops overstepping their bounds, they should pay for it, but I do not agree with any political figure who says all police in the area must suffer for the actions of their trigger happy/corrupt associates.

[hazard]

That would work when the local police have overzealous and trigger happy officers. However, the warrior cop mentality that is so encouraged by much of police culture throughout the USA greatly, greatly encourages officers of the law to act in that manner, to the point that as far as police policy is concerned they are not overzealous and trigger happy. At that point, halting all police operations for a short while so that the corrupt can be excised while the rest that was tainted by that mindset can be retrained is painful, certainly, but a viable option.

Yes, it means that for some weeks or even months there is no police presence. Consider how bad it must be when the damage that would do is concluded to be less than letting the police continue to operate as they have been.

[classicdrogn]

I really don't think you can call the CHAZ thing a model for police stand-downs, either - that was a literal mob rule situation, not any kind of planned or controlled process, not even an experimental one. Even then, though, you didn't see anonymous camo-clad snatch gangs roaming the streets like some third world insurgency, nor was the whole area reduced to flaming rubble by lawless anarchists. Definitely not something to allow to repeat, but hardly as bad as some would predict, or as seen in other places and times.

[hazard]

Odd, I can remember extensive reporting of anonymous camo-clad snatch gangs roaming the streets like some third world insurgency. Who were they working for again?

[classicdrogn]

Different thing, unless I've gotten my Incidents mixed up. There's been quite a few to keep track of, this year.

[robkelk]

And that's 300 posts. New thread is new