Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2015, 08:07:19 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 169
1  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Mid-2014 county population estimates out tomorrow, March 26 on: Today at 08:27:34 am
Man, that 26-district NY might be less erose than the 27-district version, but I think that despite that the 27-district map is a better one, since it does a better job of keeping the North Country and Capital Region together (the Schenectady cut-out is still unfortunate though).

Also of course it doesn't matter much to separate out groups within NYC when VRA constraints will make mincemeat of most boundaries there.  

I'm curious about NJ.  Imagine there's not a whole lot of groups you can make happen; NJ just does not tend to play well with the numbers as they currently stand.  Hopefully at least you can still nest the Philly-oriented bits in approximately three districts, like is currently possible.
2  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of this Image on: Today at 07:19:14 am
Yeah, I've heard about this place. They're actually kind of famous for having awful food at ludicrous prices, and more or less only stay in business by scamming starstruck tourists or something.

http://boingboing.net/2012/04/09/headed-to-new-york-watch-out.html

Nello is literally the worst restaurant in the world.
3  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Arizona on: April 17, 2015, 01:17:05 pm
The worst state.  With the exception of Flagstaff and the Native areas, unfit for human habitation.
4  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Opinion of eCigs (vaping) on: April 17, 2015, 01:15:44 pm
Fascists will be fascists.

However, voted fine to counterbalance the fascists. 

Holy hyperbole, Batman!
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Deal Reached on Fast-Track Authority for TPP on: April 17, 2015, 12:27:15 pm
I feel like I'd be more outraged if I didn't leave the Democratic Party for abandoning the common folk.

Since when is having common folk have access to cheaper prices and better goods is "abandoning" it?

It's abandoning common people when they're forced to access those "cheaper" prices and "better" goods because they lost their well-paying jobs because they can't compete with low-wages and lack of regulations (affecting the cost of doing business) present in other countries, and thus need to shop around for the cheapest goods that fit their now-reduced budget.

Cheaper =/= better. Often what happens with poor people who purchase second-hand and cheaper goods is that those things are unreliable, and if they break it will end up costing more in the long-run when they have to pay to repair it or purchase an entirely new one after a the warranty period expires. It also costs them valuable time, for example, when a cheap, imported car breaks down and they have no way to get to their job that pays them by the hour.

These treaties undercut health, safety, and environmental regulations and protections, allow countries like China to exploit weak country-of-origin laws, will probably drive up the costs of medicines by extending monopolies from 5 years to 12 (blowing huge holes in government medical program budgets), in addition to probably opening the door for corporations to sue governments directly over changes in law and policy. It also does nothing to address currency manipulation.

So yeah, our stores fill up with more poorly-made, unsafe, cheap garbage, while the price of medicines go up, government healthcare budgets are wrecked, farmers are undercut, environmental pollution worsens, wages are depressed, and the trade deficit balloons, but hey, as long as corporate profits go up and the rich get richer, who's complaining?

The TPP is an objectively bad deal, unless your goal is to empower corporations more and allow inequality to get worse.

One argument that I've heard in favor of the TPP is that those labor and environmental provisions that people hate would be far, far worse if we weren't at the table, because then China would be the only big power in the room and use their influence set up something with even fewer protections.

I can't speak to how accurate that take is, not having paid that much attention to this issue, but it seems plausible, and I would hope that opponents of the TPP could at least seriously address that counterfactual.
6  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Queens of the Soup Kingdom on: April 17, 2015, 12:22:09 pm
(New England) Clam chowder, split pea, pumpkin/squash are the best.

Then French Onion is in fourth.
7  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of punk rock on: April 16, 2015, 04:35:31 pm
Not really my cup of tea.
8  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What are you listening to right now? II on: April 16, 2015, 03:49:38 pm
Josh Ritter- Hopeful
9  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Should the US have entered WW2 Earlier? on: April 15, 2015, 02:25:21 pm
The language of moral obligation is tricky. It implies Kant's doctrines that if you are obligated to do something, you have to do it every time. That's my issue with obligation to protect:it's an open-ended misdion to perpetual war. Where does aggression stop? Is North Vietnam invading South Vietnam an act of aggression that must be defended against? The PRC's invasion of Tibet? The iraqi incasion of Iran? Congo's neighbors' invasions of it in the 1990s? An obligation to protect countries against aggression is an insane open-ended route to endless war.

Protecting countries not allied with us is not and should not be a controlling interest in the American decision to go to war.

That's not to say that, as stated before, the US did all it could. Earlier embargos (as said before, 1936 for Italy, 1937 for Japan, and 1938 for Germany), a Lend-Lease for China in 1937 and France and Britain in 1939, and a commencement of rearmament in 1937 rather than 1940 would be beneficial, along with more open refugee policies and increased aid to the Red Cross.

Well, I'm not a Kantian, I'm a pragmatist. Much of the time, the costs and benefits just won't pencil out.  However, I think the existential threat (to both their citizens and neighbors) that the Nazis posed was so extreme, and our unique position as a power with the natural resources to counter them sufficiently clear, that intervention was justified.  In many other conflicts, including most of your examples, that wouldn't necessarily be the case.  

As a practical matter, re-armament in 1937 (and an entry into the European theater around the time of the Battle of Britain) is the best we could have reasonably done.  And, yes, definitely better refugee policies.  
10  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Should the US have entered WW2 Earlier? on: April 15, 2015, 11:11:53 am

What possible justification would we have had? We were not part of the Anglo-French ultimatum to defend Poland, we were not allied with Britain, France, or Poland, nor were we allied with the Republic of China, despite our very warm relations with Britain, France, and China. The United States had an armed force in 1939 rivaling titans like Spain, and it would take two years of buildup between 1939 and 1941 before we were even on paper a serious military force again. Outside of economic pressure like the earlier embargoes I advocated, what position would we have been in to do anything whatsoever on the European front without over a year's worth of preparation?

The Pacific theater is a different beast due to the US Navy's still-considerable power, but then again, war with Japan not involving war with Germany and Italy is not exactly what this question is about. I could actually see that as a more plausible option, especially given America's massive financial and humanitarian and personal interests in China in the 1930s and Japan's naked coveting of the Philippines.

EDIT: War between the United States and Japan over dominance of the Pacific Rim was coming, coupled with WWII or not.

Well, obviously the US was in an isolationist mood back then and we didn't have formal treaty obligations, so to a certain extent this is 20/20 hindsight, but uh... what justification?  Defending the oppressed Poles is justification enough, to say nothing of the other atrocities and genocides that would come to light later (and, if we were better, more observant people back then, would have probably been able to bring to light).  Do they not count as victims to you?

I'm not saying that we necessarily could have jumped in immediately.  If we needed some months to ramp-up, then okay, fine.  We should have been in by the Battle of Britain, though.

Defending the Poles would take us into war, all right, but war with the USSR as well, and the Katyn massacre of tens of thousands of Polish political, economic, and societal luminaries is as egregious as anything the Germans were doing in the fall of 1939/spring of 1940.

From the perspective of defending beleaguered small states from aggression, what separates the German 1939 assault on Poland from the Soviet 1939 assault on Poland?

Edit: in general, war for humanitarian reasons/"responsibility to protect" isn't an international relations concept I'm comfortable with.

Edit 2: Let's make this easier. What sort of morality would dictate that the United States has a moral obligation to protect Poland from Greman aggression, but does not hold a moral obligation to protect Poland from simultaneous Soviet aggression? I've been flipping your post around in my head all morning and I'm puzzled, I really don't get what kind of moral code would say that one was a moral obligation to assist and the other was not.

Well, briefly, I think the moral code that would have us defend Poland in 1940 is basically the same moral code that has us defending the Kurds and Yazidis against ISIS today (and, FTR, I think the current strategy of air support but not ground troops is probably the correct one).  And when I say "us" I do not only mean the USA; I mean the international community in general.  If you think that we should just step back and let the Yazidis get slaughtered, then okay, fine, there are coherent arguments to be made for isolationism.  They just simply don't line up with the sort of rhetoric you've been using about victims of change/aggression lately.

Look, I don't think that we should be going out regime-changing willy-nilly.  I do think that we, as a species, have an obligation to protect people from imminent annihilation, to the best of our ability.

As for why Germany, why not USSR?  Sometimes there are multiple moral goods which are mutually exclusive, and sometimes there are real resource constraints that prevent us from doing all that we should.  I acknowledged that we probably couldn't have jumped in immediately in September 1939; this is a case where we'd have to pick our battles.  The reason why we'd pick the battle against Germany rather than the Soviets, I think, has to take in all the other awful things that Germany was doing– to the rest of the Continent, to the Roma and the Jews and other undesirables within its own borders.  And this is not to minimize how awful Stalin was on those fronts as well– but if you only have the resources to fight one evil at a time, the naked expansionism and eliminationism of the Nazis made it a clear choice.
11  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of jocks on: April 15, 2015, 10:42:39 am
I'm personally about as nerd as you can get, and I distinctly remember being treated better by the jocks in school than by my "fellow" nerds.

In general, for both groups, most individuals are FF but those that base their identity around being "jocks" or "nerds" tend to be much worse (and, also, large homogeneous groups tend to bring out the worst in people).  I like Maxwell's angle best, though admittedly I voted HP for both polls instead.
12  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Will Texas ever have more electoral votes than California? on: April 14, 2015, 08:17:34 pm
"Ever" is a long time, so I'm not comfortable saying no. But it won't happen anytime soon. If it does happen, I have to imagine that climate change-caused permadroughts will be the culprit, and if that future comes to pass, Texas might not be in great shape either.  It might fare less poorly than CA, though.
13  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Should the US have entered WW2 Earlier? on: April 14, 2015, 08:07:41 pm

What possible justification would we have had? We were not part of the Anglo-French ultimatum to defend Poland, we were not allied with Britain, France, or Poland, nor were we allied with the Republic of China, despite our very warm relations with Britain, France, and China. The United States had an armed force in 1939 rivaling titans like Spain, and it would take two years of buildup between 1939 and 1941 before we were even on paper a serious military force again. Outside of economic pressure like the earlier embargoes I advocated, what position would we have been in to do anything whatsoever on the European front without over a year's worth of preparation?

The Pacific theater is a different beast due to the US Navy's still-considerable power, but then again, war with Japan not involving war with Germany and Italy is not exactly what this question is about. I could actually see that as a more plausible option, especially given America's massive financial and humanitarian and personal interests in China in the 1930s and Japan's naked coveting of the Philippines.

EDIT: War between the United States and Japan over dominance of the Pacific Rim was coming, coupled with WWII or not.

Well, obviously the US was in an isolationist mood back then and we didn't have formal treaty obligations, so to a certain extent this is 20/20 hindsight, but uh... what justification?  Defending the oppressed Poles is justification enough, to say nothing of the other atrocities and genocides that would come to light later (and, if we were better, more observant people back then, would have probably been able to bring to light).  Do they not count as victims to you?

I'm not saying that we necessarily could have jumped in immediately.  If we needed some months to ramp-up, then okay, fine.  We should have been in by the Battle of Britain, though.
14  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Should the US have entered WW2 Earlier? on: April 14, 2015, 06:40:22 pm
15  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: UK General Discussion II on: April 14, 2015, 01:26:49 pm

I wanna see all the other UK politicos needling Farage for his "rusty sword" now.  FF, indeed, even if Mr. Zylinski's furnishings are rather too rococo for my taste.

Also, lol @ the idea that, of all the examples he's trying to use to justify his xenophobia, he's defaulting to traffic.  Just too perfect.
16  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: 2015 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread (final bracket set) on: April 14, 2015, 12:40:16 pm
HockeyDude, I just want to say that your sig helped us get a question at pub quiz back on Sunday that we wouldn't have otherwise.  And we won, so it was a free round.  Thanks!
17  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update for Everyone III - The Whinge Binge on: April 13, 2015, 10:06:15 pm
Truth-bomb from the GF, regarding those vocal folks on the internet who would go third-party in 2016 because Hillary is too right-wing:

"Voting with your moral heart is kind of a privileged position."

Of course, we'd both go third-party in event of Cuomo The Horrible– we're not completely without privilege ourselves.  But there are degrees.  Both of privilege, and of horribleness.
18  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Opinion of Dr. Oz on: April 13, 2015, 09:54:14 pm
Snake-oil shill.

Heartening to see that the results are unanimous here.
19  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Which congressional or other electoral districts have you been to in 2015? on: April 13, 2015, 11:49:30 am
Another visit to Philly, several visits to my parents, various NYC things, etc. Filling out the easy stuff, no big trips yet.  Little surprised I haven't hit NY-6 or NY-11 yet; those are likely the next ones down.

Bold and red = spent the night
Bold = spent real time in
Regular = just traveled through

NY- 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15
NJ- 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
PA- 1, 2, 8, 13
20  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Opinion of this quote on: April 13, 2015, 12:12:08 am
Now that I've actually read the exchange:

train: I think your views here are actually pretty mainstream and basically the rule in our age bracket. Like how many people from your high school still live in your home town? Yeah there's no doubt some, but it's certainly nowhere near as much as would be expected in past times.

Madeline: I think "tragic" is a bit too strong to describe someone identifying with some affiliation that isn't typical for their ethnic background. At best I'd say "unfortunate" and even then only in the same sort of context as that it's unfortunate that people need to leave dying Rust Belt towns for big cities with better economies: the state of the Rust Belt towns certainly is, but the moving isn't. Also the only Thatcher quote I'm familiar with is the stupid one about "the problem with socialism"

I assume Maddy's talking about the one that oakvale cited not too long ago, about there being "no such thing as Society" or something like that.  It's a quote that I think goes entirely too far and has dangerous implications to say the least, but I do think that society should be structured to serve people rather than the other way around.  I'm sure there are some more traditionalist-minded folks who would blanch at that formulation.

I don't think that leaving one's hometown and home community (and, sometimes, home religion) should need to be thought of as "tragic", btw.  Is it a decision one should make lightly?  No. It comes with real costs; I think few people would deny that.  But it's very often necessary, often enough that it ought to be thought of as functionally normal, and not stigmatized in any way.
21  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Is hardcore the most misnamed genre of music ever? on: April 12, 2015, 11:53:52 pm
Also, the most misnamed genre is clearly ars nova.

"New art" my posterior, you're from the fourteenth century!  That's old, dammit.  Like, older than Classical.  Older than BachOld old.
22  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Is hardcore the most misnamed genre of music ever? on: April 12, 2015, 11:52:26 pm
How many people unfamiliar with hardcore would ever think it's primarily played by SJW types, sometimes involves people crying on stage and is aesthetically the complete antithesis of shock rock?

Also sample lyric from what's commonly considered the best song by one of the most influential hardcore bands of all time:

Quote
I bled—I tried to hide the heart from the head.
And I—I said I bled—In the arms of a girl I'd barely met.

And I woke up this morning with the present in splinters on the ground—
And then I drowned.

Aren't, like, all hardcore lyrics merely stylized, unintelligible screaming?  What does it matter if they nominally read like the sort of sh*t we all wrote when we were young and stupid in ninth grade*?  You can't make any of it out anyway.

*No offense meant to our younger members who might still be going through those hard times, of course.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 3 hours in - grade Hillary's campaign thus far on: April 12, 2015, 11:40:01 pm
I mean, I dunno, doesn't matter in the end.

But that logo is pretty damn hideous.
24  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of the Previous Poster's Signature: The Wrath of Khan on: April 12, 2015, 11:16:14 am
I don't know who that guy is, but if history is any indication he's about to lose an election pretty badly. Tongue
25  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What should the previous poster change their username to? on: April 12, 2015, 10:42:12 am
Rightwingdemocrat
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 169


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines