USA politics following Trump's election

[SGF]

I guess this is just how I would do things if I was in charge.

1. For issues like large riots and other large scale problems with a small police force, ideally I'd want to involve community "minutemen" police that can be called upon should the need arise. These people could be like the national guard where they have periodic training and get paid a bit for it, but you're not hiring full-time people. And since these are community people, they shouldn't be vested in putting people behind bars, but de-escalation. Full time cops have a tendency to see the public as potential rule-breakers and prison/jail as a natural punishment. It might even be a better idea to have it be a mandatory thing for certain age groups, similar to how some country's force everyone to join the military for a time. The goal is to have all kinds of people in the police force and not just that domineering asshole type that thrives on the authority.

I like this idea, it not only solves a problem, but also brings the community together, which is important imo.

2. Police shouldn't be full-time. What I mean is they are full-time employed, but only cops part-time. The other time they do other jobs and functions for local governments and communities. Making them full-time creates problems because they tend to see the worst in their communities and it can have an effect on how they view and interact with the public.

Well this makes sense, yeah. You'd need to have sufficient people rotating in at all times to deal with emerging situations effectively tho. Organization is beside the point tho.

3. We should find cheaper ways to enforce the law for minor things. We could have people that are trained and certified as a public servant to help de-escalate or fill in a for a cop when one isn't around in time; they could maybe get some perks or paid a little for it. We could enforce speed limits with electronics, make it mandatory to have a dash-cam for accidents, and have better tech for enforcing certain laws, such as noise ordnance that is effective. So if someone is breaking certain noise laws, there will be direct and immediate evidence and they will be fined or whatever the penalties will be. No need to call police every time people are being assholes to each other. Anything to help bring down the amount of more minor issues that police get, so they can focus on stopping the big crimes or helping the public with disasters and conflicts. Less giving you a ticket and more being an overall positive influence in the community.

Ok, again makes sense. I'd get behind this.

4. Eliminate police unions (or limit their power to protect police against convictions). They are only there to defend the police from criminal convictions. Police are government employees and as such there needs to be complete transparency about everything they do, otherwise there is no authority making sure the police are following the law too. And that's pretty important. That's like giving the executive branch of the US government no checks and balances. That's troublesome.

Depending on the circumstances unionizing is beneficial for a workforce imo, so I would not get rid of them.

5. States need to give employers incentives to hire released convicts. Some people may not like this, but if people use that against them they are more likely to turn back to crime. It's just something that needs to be done.

Not as law enforcement tho.

6. I'm a fan of Andrew Yang's UBI because it would directly help convicts integrate into society. But I do understand why a lot of people are against this, so it's not super important to do. But convicts do need some help integrating into society. Maybe a short-term UBI for recently released convicts would be better. I don't know, but something.

You could have a system in place where they'd get food stamps and basic needs met for 6 months as well as every opportunity to get a job or the system to find a job for them within that timeframe. UBI has been tried here in Europe... it does not work in practice. You guys can always try I guess.

7. Police budgets need to be revised quarterly for their needs and voted on and scrutinized by the public. This is the only way that the public can make sure their police departments are going in the right direction with things. Some police departments might actually need tanks and military weapons and bigger SWAT teams, if they are dealing with gang wars or things of that nature. But when it's not needed, it shouldn't remain the focus of their budgets. And you should never have a situation where every year the police budget increases because the police are afraid that if they don't spend everything they get, they will get less money next year. That's definitely not how budgetary concerns should be motivated. Maybe something like giving police bonuses or incentives for reducing the budget will help this, but you don't want to demotivate them to increase a budget if it's needed. So there needs to be some kind of way to incentivize having a proper budget.

Ok, sounds fair.

I probably left out a lot and some of these most police departments might already do, but I think that would be a nice start.

I'd still start with mandatory 2 year police academy, strict evaluation, proper training.

[xerx]

Honestly, I doubt that very much progressive legislation would have been passed even if Sanders had somehow won the primaries and then the election. The houses are still controlled by an older generation that's perfectly content with the status quo. They're the ones who helped achieve it, after all, and don't particularly have an incentive (or perhaps even the understanding) to fight someone else's battles. Progress happens one funeral at a time.

Maybe I shouldn't speak too soon, but I think that change will be slow until younger generations take over management positions and the electorate. I give it until 2026-28, when the median millennial (b. around 1990) reaches their mid-to-late thirties, which is the age at which people enter senior management and also begin to take their voting privileges seriously.

[Adam Strange]

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ar-since-2012/

Q. If Trump's supporters once supported him because (they said) he was a great businessman and would be incorruptible because he doesn't need money, will they abandon him now that he's been shown to be approaching another bankruptcy, the latest in a long line of bankruptcy's?

A. No, because he's still a racist.

[Adam Strange]

The New York Times got hold of Trump's tax returns for the past twenty years and people are already trying to spin the results.

https://twitter.com/danhreck/status/1310506379459866624

If anyone is interested in how the rich hide income and pay no taxes, this tweet is pretty relevant.

https://twitter.com/davidfickling/st...80939600510978

If anyone is interested in why Trump appears to be consistently losing money, or why he is so friendly with Putin, this tweet has one explanation.

https://twitter.com/adamdavidson/sta...29478030426112

Enjoy!

[End]

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ar-since-2012/

Q. If Trump's supporters once supported him because (they said) he was a great businessman and would be incorruptible because he doesn't need money, will they abandon him now that he's been shown to be approaching another bankruptcy, the latest in a long line of bankruptcy's?

A. No, because he's still a racist.

I thought you more intelligent than that Adam. Look, as an ILI dirt person let me tell you why we know that he is, worst case, a cloud person who hates the likes of me (as you've just confirmed you're of the clouds as it were) yet is business savvy enough to understand that if you pander to a group, you had best back that up with some action if ya don't want to find out what dirt people/the people you pandered to yet betrayed do to those who leave them with no other options.

Trump's a hardcore capitalist end of the day. He's hired pretty much every kind of person you can imagine that can conceivably exist within the modern USA. Doubtless he's found that dirt people try much harder than cloud people and that, if we really get down to it, dirt people build civilizations, and cloud people end them. He has kids, kids he doesn't hide behind (unlike Biden). He, unlike most "western" leaders, has skin in this game. He knows he has to leave behind a country his chlidren can hopefully succeed in without the potential advantage of his bloodline.

Chinese emperors failed to consider that potential factor. The Dynastic Cycle is but one reason why that's a thing. As I've said many a time before, you win right up until you don't. And then you REALLY don't.

The New York Times got hold of Trump's tax returns for the past twenty years and people are already trying to spin the results.

https://twitter.com/danhreck/status/1310506379459866624

If anyone is interested in how the rich hide income and pay no taxes, this tweet is pretty relevant.

https://twitter.com/davidfickling/st...80939600510978

If anyone is interested in why Trump appears to be consistently losing money, or why he is so friendly with Putin, this tweet has one explanation.

https://twitter.com/adamdavidson/sta...29478030426112

Enjoy!

Once more man, I had higher hopes for you. I provoke you so directly so that you may disprove my most pessimistic assumption. Man is a "rationalizing" rather than a "rational" animal. Surely, you're intelligent enough to realize how the Obama/Biden administration caused Trump to happen yes? Have you even bothered to look at that election by county map? OCEANS of red/republican, with but a few blue streaks along the coasts and dots within "flyover" country. It ain't because we're X-phobes. It's because us normal people who are more than willing to help others who don't look or sound like them are a thing yet we get bombarded day after day, show after show, ad after ad, job after job, how we're literally fucking Satan!

And then we're told that that's "white supremacy" somehow. How is adhering to the Golden Rule (as Christians see it) racist? How am I exercising "white privilege" when I engage a pagan/unbeliever in an honest dialogue in regards to the ultimate truths of this world?

Challenge a "sensitivity trainer" to a witch test and do your best to ape me in doing so. See them hiss and recoil. See them do their utmost to ruin you and all you care about. I do pray you survive the attempt, as at this point I'd bet you'd get killed via summary execution and you'd be the one portrayed as the villain! It's your fault, after all, for being the ultimate colonialist!

[xerx]

Once more man, I had higher hopes for you. I provoke you so directly so that you may disprove my most pessimistic assumption. Man is a "rationalizing" rather than a "rational" animal. Surely, you're intelligent enough to realize how the Obama/Biden administration caused Trump to happen yes? Have you even bothered to look at that election by county map? OCEANS of red/republican, with but a few blue streaks along the coasts and dots within "flyover" country. It ain't because we're X-phobes. It's because us normal people who are more than willing to help others who don't look or sound like them are a thing yet we get bombarded day after day, show after show, ad after ad, job after job, how we're literally fucking Satan!

This is a pretty common sentiment in a lot of other countries, not just the United States. There's an ongoing culture clash between coastal elites and the countryside everywhere.

Here's a map of the recent Turkish referendum, which decided the question of whether to replace the parliamentary system with a presidential one, and thereby give more powers to the executive. The "Yes" vote squeaked by with a small majority thanks to voters in the more Islamist and conservative heartland, in large part because the would-be president was also a Muslim conservative.

Brexit also surely comes to mind.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ar-since-2012/

Q. If Trump's supporters once supported him because (they said) he was a great businessman and would be incorruptible because he doesn't need money, will they abandon him now that he's been shown to be approaching another bankruptcy, the latest in a long line of bankruptcy's?

A. No, because he's still a racist.

Displaced workers and the economy are surely important factors, but I agree that a lot of it is racism and exaggerated fears of 'change' (read: homosexuality in media and immigrants). I'll listen to counterarguments, but I also believe that a lot of it is pure tribalism against distant power centres that are perceived as different rather than simply indifferent; and there are plenty of historical examples of countryside people switching to a clashing ideology out of resentment for the central government. End's rhetoric about "demonic" and "pagan" liberal elites certainly illustrates that point.

I've also always suspected that much of American libertarianism is simply disguised nativism; the hostility towards immigrant workers is entirely uncharacteristic for an ideology that promotes the freedom of movement of capital. Even the Tea Party was more than about defending "free market" principles, but also included agitation and support in favour of the paternalistic American military state. These people take a kinder view to government interventionism when it takes the form of building border walls—Rush Limbaugh is quintessentially this type of person.

[End]

This is a pretty common sentiment in a lot of other countries, not just the United States. There's an ongoing culture clash between coastal elites and the countryside everywhere.

Here's a map of the recent Turkish referendum, which decided the question of whether to replace the parliamentary system with a presidential one, and thereby give more powers to the executive. The "Yes" vote squeaked by with a small majority thanks to voters in the more Islamist and conservative heartland, in large part because the would-be president was also a Muslim conservative.

Brexit also surely comes to mind.

Displaced workers and the economy are surely important factors, but I agree that a lot of it is racism and exaggerated fears of 'change' (read: homosexuality in media and immigrants). I'll listen to counterarguments, but I also believe that a lot of it is pure tribalism against distant power centres that are perceived as different rather than simply indifferent; and there are plenty of historical examples of countryside people switching to a clashing ideology out of resentment for the central government. End's rhetoric about "demonic" and "pagan" liberal elites certainly illustrates that point.

I've also always suspected that much of American libertarianism is simply disguised nativism; the hostility towards immigrant workers is entirely uncharacteristic for an ideology that promotes the freedom of movement of capital. Even the Tea Party was more than about defending "free market" principles, but also included agitation and support in favour of the paternalistic American military state. These people take a kinder view to government interventionism when it takes the form of building border walls—Rush Limbaugh is quintessentially this type of person.

Glad and yet not glad to see my theories vindicated yet again. What you pointed out was/is within the realms of possibility in regards to my own theories. Sadly, those were the negative possibilities. Nobody wants to be a Cassandra, yet I seem to be one yet again.

In regards to the libertarians. It isn't disguised, it's just the logical outcome of that ideology.

People naturally prefer to live among their "own" as it were. As I've said many times before, the only thing that "trumps" ethnicity/race is religion. Only a common deity can unite those of different looks and languages in any meaningful and lasting way. I refer you to Hans-Hermann Hoppe and his concept of "covenant communities". That's what a libertarian society/utopia ultimately looks like. It comes complete with the "physical removal" of anyone who isn't on board with the covenant of that particular region. The Catholic community holds belief in Catholicism to be mandatory. As does the Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. They can all live next to each other in almost perfect harmony despite what you may think. Just so long as they all share the "pacifist" modifier if ya catch my meaning. All would, in this example, be so absolutely confident in their convictions that they saw the conversion of all the others as a mere matter of time. A decade, a century, they'd all be ultimately certain that they held closest to the "truth" and thus, given enough time, the others would come around. Why kill the ancestor of a future brother/sister in the one true faith after all?

Now, if one of those was a "militant" community things get a bit interesting. Jihadis and Crusaders can war all they want until one conquers the other as they'd doubtlessly agree to, but if they tried to make the pacifists choose, well, that'd probably get them all to join hand in kumbaya and fight against the crazies who obviously lack the necessary confidence in their convictions to be considered true believers in their faiths!

[xerx]

People naturally prefer to live among their "own" as it were.

Not really. That seems more like a reactionary mindset.

[khcs]

Chris Wallace - ISFP Dumas

[marooned]

i have great affection for Wallace after that debate lol

[End]

Not really. That seems more like a reactionary mindset.

I'd like to challenge you on that on the very grounds I mentioned. Living among your "own" most especially applies to matters of faith. As politics has become the "faith" of so many in this modern age we'll use that to demonstrate my point.

Are you a conservative or a liberal? How much of one? Do you merely lean one way? Do you more or less subscribe to one or the other ideology in all the ways that matter to the "mainstream" members of that ideological bent? Or are you "all in" hard in enough respects to qualify you as a true radical in the eyes of the former two? If you lean left, would you really want to be the only left leaning voice in a sea of right leaning types that absolutely won't listen to you on that one singular issue you really wish those other idiots would see reason on? That, after all, is how you "lean" one way or another in the eyes of most.

Say you're a radical. Would you really want to subject yourself to the stress of being one of the few Anarcho-Capitalists with enough balls to die for your beliefs in a Communist dictatorship if you had the option to choose? Or perhaps the reverse if we wanna cover all bases. Yeah, you may have an inclination to be a martyr, but really, only idiots and the foolishly misguided actively seek that out.

This, by the way, comes from a dude whose faith knows all about and can be argued to be founded upon martyrdom. So tell me, seriously, would you rather be the sole member within a community that didn't "fit in" with it somehow or would you rather pretty much every neighbor you had more or less agree with you? If they didn't, could they at least understand you? Like I said, faiths. A Catholic would much rather be surrounded by Protestants than other faiths who vehemently deny the divinity of Christ. A Shia Muslim would rather be surrounded by Sunnis than Buddhists. At least those damned dirty Sunnis know and profess that God is God and Muhammad is his prophet!

This is what I'm getting at. The definition of "our/your own" can vary greatly from person to person, but it's pretty damned consistent generally. People generally get it. That's why I say it's a logical consequence of the Libertarian ideology. We would all rather live among our own given the context I've provided.

[xerx]

I'd like to challenge you on that on the very grounds I mentioned. Living among your "own" most especially applies to matters of faith. As politics has become the "faith" of so many in this modern age we'll use that to demonstrate my point.

Are you a conservative or a liberal? How much of one? Do you merely lean one way? Do you more or less subscribe to one or the other ideology in all the ways that matter to the "mainstream" members of that ideological bent? Or are you "all in" hard in enough respects to qualify you as a true radical in the eyes of the former two? If you lean left, would you really want to be the only left leaning voice in a sea of right leaning types that absolutely won't listen to you on that one singular issue you really wish those other idiots would see reason on? That, after all, is how you "lean" one way or another in the eyes of most.

Say you're a radical. Would you really want to subject yourself to the stress of being one of the few Anarcho-Capitalists with enough balls to die for your beliefs in a Communist dictatorship if you had the option to choose? Or perhaps the reverse if we wanna cover all bases. Yeah, you may have an inclination to be a martyr, but really, only idiots and the foolishly misguided actively seek that out.

This, by the way, comes from a dude whose faith knows all about and can be argued to be founded upon martyrdom. So tell me, seriously, would you rather be the sole member within a community that didn't "fit in" with it somehow or would you rather pretty much every neighbor you had more or less agree with you? If they didn't, could they at least understand you? Like I said, faiths. A Catholic would much rather be surrounded by Protestants than other faiths who vehemently deny the divinity of Christ. A Shia Muslim would rather be surrounded by Sunnis than Buddhists. At least those damned dirty Sunnis know and profess that God is God and Muhammad is his prophet!

This is what I'm getting at. The definition of "our/your own" can vary greatly from person to person, but it's pretty damned consistent generally. People generally get it. That's why I say it's a logical consequence of the Libertarian ideology. We would all rather live among our own given the context I've provided.

Actually, I'm capable of living almost anywhere. I'm a pretty solitary person and don't feel any pressure to conform to anyone else's beliefs. I don't need anyone to conform to mine either. Quite frankly, I don't even enjoy changing people's minds because I'd feel as though something was lost.

WRT. to your main point, I think that you're stretching the definition of "living among one's own". I'll grant you that zealous activists of all political stripes have the need to create echo chambers, and to push the boundaries of those echo chambers to an uncomfortable extent, to the point where someone bombarded by their incessant rhetoric feels awkward in expressing a minority opinion.

That is still a lesser degree of conformity than requiring your next-door neighbour to physically be the same race, or to enthusiastically participate in the same religious (or political) institutions—institutions that place high demands on one's time and intellect, and which insist on preformative adherence to highly specific metaphysical (or ideological) claims. Where to draw the line between them is a subjective question, but there are clearly different degrees of conformity, and the latter type surely belongs to the extremist ends of the political spectrum.

[marooned]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/regener...-fetal-tissue/

it was a blessing from god that trump caught the virus to be saved by drugs tested on cells derived from an aborted fetus against god's wishes so that the blessing could happen which allowed trump to deliver "the cure" and ask we be not afraid to be so blessed ourselves

[Aylen]

I suspect insider trading surrounding covid involving Trump, his family and associates.

[xerx]

Would a Biden loss really push the Democratic party to the left? Or, would it create an exodus of moderate Republicans that move the Democratic party even further to the right?

[FreelancePoliceman]

Would a Biden loss really push the Democratic party to the left? Or, would it create an exodus of moderate Republicans that move the Democratic party even further to the right?

"Moderate Republicans" are already Democrats. And Republicans who stuck with Trump the first four years would stick with him the next four.

[marooned]

i think moderate democrats are already republicans lol

[xerx]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...in-each-party/

^ Interesting article about issues that divide people from other members of their party. It's definitely worth reading.

A few things that roughly half of Republicans support or believe to be true:

* A Public Health Option.

* A (mini) Green New Deal.

* That minorities face systemic discrimination.

* UBI.


Democrats are evenly split on issues like reparations and religion. There's also the ongoing clash between the centrist wing and the progressive wing of the party.

[xerx]

https://www.economist.com/by-invitat...lection-result

^ A very good article in the Economist, written by a law professor, about what a legally contested election could look like.

If all ballots aren't counted before the deadline, possibly due to legal shenanigans, an 1845 law allows states to appoint their own electors. Since Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—all swing states—have Republican legislatures and Democratic governors, that list of electors will be highly contested, and the stage is set for a succession crisis.

If no president is chosen before January 20th, the acting-presidency automatically falls to the speaker of the house.

[Moou]

I don't understand why there can't be more than two parties? Everything has to be the polar opposite, republican or democrat they are very rigid in their beliefs. It can never encompass the diversity of views people have. So you're always stuck picking the less bad option. (Don't think I'm one of those undecided, I voted for Biden but still wish there were more than two options)

[khcs]

... I voted for Biden ...

How many times?

[Moou]

How many times?

once, I didn't vote in the primaries if that's what you're asking

[khcs]

once, I didn't vote in the primaries if that's what you're asking

Once is enough.

[Adam Strange]

"Wives of the Deplorables"

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/polit...oup/index.html

An interesting article. I've seen people sorting themselves geographically since the '80's (I live in a very liberal neighborhood in the city, but that's because all the conservatives sold their houses and moved to the countryside), but more recently, I've been on dating sites and I've seen women state in their profiles "I do not support Trump. If you do, move on, because we will not get along."

Lol. Finally, women are not apologizing for their thoughts. YEAH!

Information tends to be free, and freer information can make your entire life more slippery and less "stuck".

[Moou]

Looks like it's a BIDEN victory after all

[khcs]

Useful book.

[khcs]

Fake News, Fake History, Fake Finance, Fake Science and Fake Elections

[Adam Strange]

Fake News, Fake History, Fake Finance, Fake Science and Fake Elections

Everything's fake until you win a Darwin Award.

Fox News delenda est.

I wonder how the Capitol rioters are doing? Because, you know, Trump said he would be there with them. (Except he somehow wasn't, he was rather safely watching events on TV.) "Go Team Trump, you Patriots!"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55626148

It's not relevant to my point, but Riley looks EIE to me, and Sullivan clearly looks like he can tell when he's being lied to. And you'd definitely want Mr. Packer to date your daughter.

[khcs]

Everything's fake until you win a Darwin Award.

Here is how to pretend to be indoctrinated enough to fit in with mainstream society.

[SGF]

Here is how to pretend to be indoctrinated enough to fit in with mainstream society.

[Verse 1]
This'll be a clean start and we won't allow the doubts
We'll find your every blemish, just to shut you down
We see your every move and keep watch at every turn
We'll be your judge and your jury, so pick a stake at which to burn
For we have our truth and we got the golden guns
And the diamond bullets that will make you go along
No we don't need to answer for the damage that we cause
And we will turn to ashes all that ever was

[Chorus]
Parlez-Vous Hate?
Parlez-Vous Hate?
Parlez-Vous Hate?
Parlеz-Vous Hate?

[Verse 2]
No we won't rest until thе disintegration is complete
And you'll be so tame and begging on your knees
And we will know your thoughts, be they hidden or hinted
We watch your every word, whispered or printed
And we'll be there whenever you step out of line
Cus we want you to know there's no safe space for your kind
We'll mortify your pleasures, your thousand mortal sins
There'll be no more common touch and no more bloody kings
[Chorus]
Parlez-Vous Hate?
Parlez-Vous Hate?
Parlez-Vous Hate?
Parlez-Vous Hate?
Parlez-Vous Hate?
Parlez-Vous Hate?
Parlez-Vous Hate?
Parlez-Vous Hate?

[Verse 3]
And the vast schemes we promise are for your own good too
In our war against transcendence we made up your mind for you
We'll burn it all down and call it progress anew
We'll put you all in chains and call it freedom, mind you

[Chorus]
Parlez-Vous Hate?
Parlez-Vous Hate?
Parlez-Vous Hate?
Parlez-Vous Hate?

[Verse 4]
For we have our truth and we got the golden guns (Parlez-Vous Hate?)
And the diamond bullets that will make you go along (Parlez-Vous Hate?)
No we don't need to answer for the damage that we cause (Parlez-Vous Hate?)
And we will turn to ashes all that ever was (Parlez-Vous Hate?)
And we will know your thoughts, be they hidden or hinted (Parlez-Vous Hate?)
We watch your every word, whispered or printed (Parlez-Vous Hate?)
We'll burn it all down and call it progress anew (Parlez-Vous Hate?)
We'll put you all in chains and call it freedom, mind you (Parlez-Vous Hate?)

[End]

Useful book.

Sadly, that's not gonna be allowed to happen as posted. I wish the meme would be real, but it won't. Instead, it'll be labeled as though it was a definitive edition of "Next Wave Feminism: Birthing Person Friendly" but there will be one very subtle flaw in that title. A Pixle will be off that can only be observed through a magnifying glass under the light of twilight and that will unlock a cipher that'll induct you into the true "resistance" against the "woke" as it were...

At least, that's how it'd be if those kiddy diddling fuckers were as formidable in intellect as the average conspiracy theorist assumes. In truth, they're all dumb as all fuck and are coasting upon an infastructure they have no true idea how it works outside the retarded/childlike assumption of "Me big and strong you bad and weak me crush and laugh!".

They literally are that dumb and clueless at this point. Like I said elsewhere, they are now hated. Worse, they are hated by the likes of their true intellectual superiors. The revolution will be openly organized with one hell of a great joke behind hit. The only bad joke will be the wedding parties. We are about to get droned in that regard. Nothing spawns a suicidal and vengeance-crazed terrorist quite like seeing their entire family save for them and perhaps a brother or aunt spared by the luck of the dice roll/draw.

Ponder on that a bit all who relish the prospect of punishing and/or slaughtering the supporters of Trump as "funny mustache man" did the... well, you all have the IQ to finish that sentence. Do so. Then ask yourself, if you're on the side that'd love to do that, are you the baddies?

I eagerly await your response. I got datasets and theories to test!

[Adam Strange]

The government is trying to decide how much money they should give to people who have become unemployed due to COVID.

One faction would like to have them get as little as possible, because they think that they are 1.) undeserving, and 2.) likely to not want to work for minimum wage or less if they are getting free money.
And truthfully, I would love to have an army of very cheap laborers to maintain my yard and clean my house and wash my car, etc. I'm sure you understand my feelings, because you would like this, too.

Another faction would like to see them get more money because they think that the unemployed will spend every cent and this will boost the economy.

Both factions want any checks that go out to be printed with the name of the gifting party. Of course.

But what if there is a way to determine what the amount on the checks should optimally be?

The government pays large farmers price support payments when they have a good year and the price of corn, for example, falls due to oversupply. The government has determined that it is in the interest of the nation to keep farmers from going bankrupt in times of low crop prices, so that the farmers will still be around next year when the nation needs more food. So, they pay farmers a guaranteed amount for their crops, whether they grow any or not. Just in case.

A sweet deal, you might think, especially for the multi-millionaire farmers and their farm lobby. But, it actually makes sense, because if the government didn't do this, many farmers would simply go bankrupt and there would then be years when you could not buy corn or milk. At all.

My question is, why can't the government treat the recently COVID-unemployed like corn farmers? For the farmers, maybe it didn't rain that year. For the restaurant workers, maybe there was a virus. Who knows? Who cares?

What is important to know is that, just as letting a farmer go out of business and having his fields go fallow is destructive to the nation's food security, so too is letting people be unemployed for a long time destructive to their long term job prospects and the nation's labor force security.

So, pay the unemployed whatever it was they were making before COVID, until the virus passes and they can get back to work. The government can do this because they print money. They don't need to have it "come" from anywhere. They supported the entire banking industry in 2007 when those assholes didn't suffer a drought, but rather bankrupted their businesses from greed and fraud. So the govt can do the same for workers who did nothing wrong, other than having the bad luck to be working when a virus sweeps the country.

This might mean that I'm not going to have guys out there cutting my lawn with scissors at ten cents per day, but in hard times like these, we all have to make sacrifices.

[Adam Strange]

"Only the best people"

Rep Gaetz, under investigation for allegedly transporting a 17 yo over state lines, throws Tucker Carlson under the bus.

Gaetz: "You and I went to dinner... I brought a friend of mine. You’ll remember her.”
Carlson: "I...I...don't remember the....the woman you're speaking of...."

https://twitter.com/i/status/1377065621398126594

Maybe Tucker's wife will remember the woman. Oh, wait. Maybe that wasn't Tucker's wife at dinner. Never mind.

[khcs]

[Adam Strange]

Apparently, giving money to unemployed people isn't affecting the rate at which people take jobs, although it makes a good story if you think other people (not you! Not you!) are lazy.

https://jabberwocking.com/ending-ui-...-unemployment/


People are quitting their jobs for other reasons.

[Adam Strange]

Donald Trump is petitioning a Florida judge to set aside his lifetime Twitter ban.

Considering the fact that even his Dual, Barr, told him he was a huge asshole, along with my greatly improved quality of life since I don’t have to listen to Trump spewing his racism and idiocy twenty times a day, I say, keep the ban.

The problem with this country is that people aren’t being held to the consequences of their bad actions anymore. By “people”, I mean politicians.

[Michelle Obama]

So basically the people who claimed Trump would crash the economy and start WWIII have crashed the economy and started WWIII