2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Apr 05, 2016 10:34 pm UTC

But it is morally defensible. You can't ask me to hurt my family to keep factory workers in China or India employed, can you? Sanders fails in practicality. Trade negotiations need to have hooks to protect the large number of displaced created. And business needs to quit acting like dicks.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Tue Apr 05, 2016 10:38 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:You're entitled to your opinion on how it's "morally indefensible," but we do plenty of "morally indefensible" things on our own soil, and I'd rather shore those up first. Plenty of countries will continue to get cheap goods from countries that exploit their workers in various amounts, I'd prefer ours isn't one of them.
The most likely scenario there is that many workers die. The US is often the biggest trading partner with many of these countries(India, China) and putting barriers up will significantly see those countries development slide. Poverty has been cut in half across the world since 1990 and one of the biggest(likely the biggest) has been adoption of free trade between the West and many undeveloped countries. Removing the worlds largest economy from that will have severe repercussions with regards to poverty and starvation.

morriswalter wrote:But it is morally defensible. You can't ask me to hurt my family to keep factory workers in China or India employed, can you?
Yes. I can. The difference is we are only talking about an American's employment, in China it can be a matter of life or death.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:01 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:Yes. I can. The difference is we are only talking about an American's employment, in China it can be a matter of life or death.
Insufficient, and I would never vote for a candidate that said that. You are as much an absolutist as Sanders. What he hasn't been able to do is to show a path forward that is practical. And what free traders haven't been able to do is find a way to help the displaced.

If I made every decision based on moral choices as applied to the worlds population at large I would be paralyzed. I can't make a calculation that complex. And on the home front if you don't take care of your population than you sooner of later end up with a population that feels no connection to the established order, which can lead to civil unrest.

jseah
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby jseah » Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:11 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
morriswalter wrote:But it is morally defensible. You can't ask me to hurt my family to keep factory workers in China or India employed, can you?
Yes. I can. The difference is we are only talking about an American's employment, in China it can be a matter of life or death.

I don't believe that one has a moral obligation to positive action at one's own cost. Even to save someone else's life.

There is a cutoff somewhere around trivial costs, eg. having to steer a car away from an imminent impact, if doing so would not risk greater damage to yourself; but things like personal income or time off isn't trivial.
eg. I do not think that a surgeon who takes a holiday is doing some moral wrong even if doing so leads to patients dying. Depending on the timing of the holiday, it may not be wise for his employment situation, but that's a generally neutral calculation.


On the other hand, I support free trade for other reasons.
Stories:
Time is Like a River - consistent time travel to the hilt
A Hero's War
Tensei Simulator build 18 - A python RPG

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:17 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:Trade negotiations need to have hooks to protect the large number of displaced created. And business needs to quit acting like dicks.

This is the key.

Free trade is a microcosm of what the world will be like once we have full automation and hard AI: The cost of goods to the consumer will be slashed and technology will advance like never before - but all that is for naught if governments can't humanely cater for the rapid displacement of labour and only the already capital rich benefit.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:28 am UTC

freezeblade wrote:You're entitled to your opinion on how it's "morally indefensible," but we do plenty of "morally indefensible" things on our own soil, and I'd rather shore those up first. Plenty of countries will continue to get cheap goods from countries that exploit their workers in various amounts, I'd prefer ours isn't one of them.

This belief does not require you to abandon global trade. It be like saying "I want to shore up our own soil, so I'm gonna pay double for everything I buy now." Are you referring to our foreign policy or our trade policy? There's a big difference.

Diadem, what's this about both parties need to shore up our election rules? What's wrong with the Democrat's rules?

Quick note to the Sander supporters out there, you don't just have a delegate problem, you have a lack of votes problem. If Sanders were to win the nomination, he would do so entirely off small caucuses that don't have a lot of voters. He'd be the one 'stealing' the election off passionate but small groups of supporters claiming states.
Spoiler:
Sanders Has a Raw Vote Problem, Not Just a Delegate Problem
DAVID_WASSERMAN

Most Sanders supporters are focused on whether their guy can close the lead Clinton has in pledged delegates between now and June. A narrow victory in Wisconsin tonight would be unlikely to put much of a dent in her current 220-delegate lead. But perhaps just as importantly, it wouldn’t put much of a dent in Clinton’s often-overlooked 2.5-million popular vote lead.

Sanders supporters hypothesize that Clinton’s 469-to-31 lead in superdelegates will vanish if their candidate can win a majority of pledged delegates and claim the “will of the people.” But thanks to his reliance on low-turnout caucus states like Idaho and Washington, Sanders has won just 41 percent of votes, even though he’s won 45 percent of pledged delegates.

Even in the very unlikely event that Sanders erases Clinton’s pledged delegate lead by June, Clinton would probably be able to persuade her superdelegates to stick with her by reminding them that she still won more actual votes than Sanders.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Wed Apr 06, 2016 2:20 am UTC

Dark567 wrote:http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11139718/bernie-sanders-trade-global-poverty

This really sums up why I can't stand Sanders. His anti-trade positions(along with Trumps) are the more dangerous than nearly any war. World poverty and starvation has been cut over 50% since broad trade agreements between the US, South American and parts of Asia. To roll that back is to sentence 100s of millions to extreme poverty. To me that's a morally indefensible position.


I agree with you. Free trade is a great accomplishment in international cooperation, and despite unfortunate anecdotes it's been a net positive for both sides. Too bad the angry mobs are rallying against it. Automation has been a much bigger killer of manufacturing jobs, while the sometimes quoted 600,000 jobs "lost" due to free trade over 25 years only account for 0.2% of total job losses.

sardia wrote:
Quizatzhaderac wrote:
duckshirt wrote:Well, I think we can agree having a trustworthy currency is more important than any level of unemployment
I'm afraid we can't.

I'd much prefer a barter economy than extreme levels of unemployment. A stable currency seems kind of pointless if nobody can buy or sell.

Although, I do agree that hyper inflation versus majority unemployment is aside from any of the actual issues in US politics.

Going extreme on both ends is unrealistic. The better question is " is 4% inflation worth the risk of 6% inflation in exchange for lower unemployment ". The fact that duck shirt called inflation untrustworthy currency is telling of how deep he buys into the 0% inflation propaganda.


Not sure why you made that connection. 0% inflation or not, the dollar is still a trustworthy currency. I am speaking hypothetically.
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:06 am UTC

You were showing signs that trustworthyness of a currency was a proxy for how much inflation there was. It's really rare for a currency to be untrusted, and not have any inflation. In addition, anybody who says absolutist statements like " a trustworthy currency is more important than any level of unemployment" is probably an extremist follower of supply side economics. Trustworthiness isn't used much in economic theory because it's such a basic part of money. If you don't have faith in money, it wouldn't be money. That's why everyone thinks you mean inflation.

In other news, Trump continues to underperform his polls or match them, while Cruz continues to overperform. Overall, a very good night for Cruz in Wisconsin. Now the question is if Trump can winner take all New York, or if he has to share a bit of the delegates.
Last edited by sardia on Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:33 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:12 am UTC

A politician ignores mobs at his/her peril. Which is why Hillary is moving left.
duckshirt wrote:a net positive for both sides.
Which ignores the point. Cars are safer than ever. Which will mean nothing if I die in a car wreck. One is a statistical truth, the other a practical reality. Elections are not won on statistical truths.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:39 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
morriswalter wrote:But it is morally defensible. You can't ask me to hurt my family to keep factory workers in China or India employed, can you?
Yes. I can. The difference is we are only talking about an American's employment, in China it can be a matter of life or death.


I bet if I donated all the money I make working over that needed to sustain life, I could save a crapton of lives in developing countries.

I don't. I bet you don't either.

In practice, we're all subject to self interest, and we all prioritize a number of comforts and entertainments over the lives of others.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:10 pm UTC

sardia wrote:You were showing signs that trustworthyness of a currency was a proxy for how much inflation there was. It's really rare for a currency to be untrusted, and not have any inflation. In addition, anybody who says absolutist statements like " a trustworthy currency is more important than any level of unemployment" is probably an extremist follower of supply side economics. Trustworthiness isn't used much in economic theory because it's such a basic part of money. If you don't have faith in money, it wouldn't be money. That's why everyone thinks you mean inflation.

It was a hypothetical based on a quiz question. Epic failure by a central bank to control inflation -> hyperinflation -> people minimize holdings in your currency as it is no longer trustworthy. That is a real thing that happens. I don't mean high inflation = untrustworthy currency, as long as the inflation is under control.
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:31 pm UTC

So I haven't run all the numbers, but according to John King and some other sources, it's pretty much impossible now (barring a major change in the race) for Trump to achieve a majority of delegates, even if he wins all remaining states east of the Mississippi and California. The Republican convention is shaping up to be… entertaining.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:19 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:So I haven't run all the numbers, but according to John King and some other sources, it's pretty much impossible now (barring a major change in the race) for Trump to achieve a majority of delegates, even if he wins all remaining states east of the Mississippi and California. The Republican convention is shaping up to be… entertaining.


This seems unlikely. It's 36 delegates for Cruz, and 6 for Lord Business, right? Not his way, but...pretty much everyone was expecting Cruz to win WI, so it doesn't necessarily mean doomed. The media keeps trying to make every little shift into some inexorable tide shifting, but...to get a majority, Trump only has to pick up, what, 56ish% of delegates from this point forward?

He might, he might not, but neither outcome is obvious.

It is obvious that Cruz can't pick up enough delegates to make it, though. He'd need what, 90%ish? A brokered convention is his only realistic hope. And even there, it's going to be pretty rough for him if Trump is crushing him in delegates, having barely missed the mark. That situation would rapidly become very messy for the party as a whole.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:06 pm UTC

EDIT - Entirely wrong thread
Last edited by Quizatzhaderac on Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:09 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Lazar wrote:So I haven't run all the numbers, but according to John King and some other sources, it's pretty much impossible now (barring a major change in the race) for Trump to achieve a majority of delegates, even if he wins all remaining states east of the Mississippi and California. The Republican convention is shaping up to be… entertaining.


This seems unlikely. It's 36 delegates for Cruz, and 6 for Lord Business, right? Not his way, but...pretty much everyone was expecting Cruz to win WI, so it doesn't necessarily mean doomed. The media keeps trying to make every little shift into some inexorable tide shifting, but...to get a majority, Trump only has to pick up, what, 56ish% of delegates from this point forward?

He might, he might not, but neither outcome is obvious.

It is obvious that Cruz can't pick up enough delegates to make it, though. He'd need what, 90%ish? A brokered convention is his only realistic hope. And even there, it's going to be pretty rough for him if Trump is crushing him in delegates, having barely missed the mark. That situation would rapidly become very messy for the party as a whole.

Cruz has been preparing for that possibility for weeks. He's been sending operatives to make sure the delegates selected are in his pocket. If it goes to contested convention, Cruz is the favorite.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:15 pm UTC

Indeed. Cruz has been working with the delegates and making sure to have a cohesive strategy during the convention. Trump barely even has gotten his delegate team put together this week.

Cruz is aiming to win Round 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 (or later) at the Brokered Convention. The only way Trump can stop that realistically is if Trump straight up wins Round 1.

Tyndmyr wrote:This seems unlikely. It's 36 delegates for Cruz, and 6 for Lord Business, right? Not his way, but...pretty much everyone was expecting Cruz to win WI, so it doesn't necessarily mean doomed. The media keeps trying to make every little shift into some inexorable tide shifting, but...to get a majority, Trump only has to pick up, what, 56ish% of delegates from this point forward?


63.2%, and very few states are winner-take-all anymore, and Cruz is currently expected to win the big daddy California. Don't forget the 125 uncommitted delegates composed of party elites who sure as hell aren't voting for Trump.

Its not mathematically impossible (ie: Kasich), but its horribly unlikely. Brokered convention here we come.


Damn it, I need to stop using number from different publications.

Okay, so Trump needs 54% of the remaining delegates, but 125 of them are uncommitted delegates picked out from the party elite. We can more or less assume that none of them are voting for Trump. So of the 888 remaining delegates (125 of which probably aren't voting for Trump), so 763 delegates to be won from State competition.

Trump needs 479 delegates, so the magic number is either 54% (assuming 54% of the uncommitted votes go for Trump) or 63% (assuming none of the uncommitted votes). I know Bob Dole is more interested in #StopCruz than #StopTrump, so at least some of the elites actually prefer Trump. So the real answer is somewhere between those numbers.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:24 pm UTC

Yeah, it's mildly obnoxious that different places keep updating at different rates, so exact numbers are fiddly...but in general terms, yeah, that's the trend.

I'm not 100% that Trump can pull off the majority, but...he's definitely gaming the system efficiently to win lots of electoral votes while canvassing a minimal amount of people. That, plus winner take all states...could happen.

Not really sure how I feel either way. Cruz ain't really much cause for enthusiasm, I think.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:39 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Yeah, it's mildly obnoxious that different places keep updating at different rates, so exact numbers are fiddly...but in general terms, yeah, that's the trend.

I'm not 100% that Trump can pull off the majority, but...he's definitely gaming the system efficiently to win lots of electoral votes while canvassing a minimal amount of people. That, plus winner take all states...could happen.

Not really sure how I feel either way. Cruz ain't really much cause for enthusiasm, I think.

Trump under performs his polls occasionally and almost never over performs. Cruz over performs several times, which makes me bullish on a contested convention, which makes me bullish on Cruz in general. Personally I prefer kasich.

Side note.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... -get-paid/
On the state level, the public under pays their employees and then complain when the employees do a bad job.
The moral is that if you won't pay the legislature, the lobbyists will. Statistically, better paid Senate means large staffs that can research and develop innovative and effective laws. On average, Under paid law makers are in the pocket of special interests.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:00 pm UTC

I remember reading something similar with police salaries. It basically came down to whether the police really needed the extra money was a huge factor in how likely they were to accept/ seek out extra money.

A living wage for the legislators wouldn't be a silver bullet, but it looks like it would be a one part in 3000 increase in the budget, so just making them 0.05% more effective would be worth it.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:08 pm UTC

I know – I hate it when I see these foaming-at-the-mouth populist proposals that legislators should only be paid poverty wages. Same goes for term limits, that pet project of Newt Gingrich's which voters always seem to love when asked. If you want our political system to be even more corrupt and even less accountable to the people, I couldn't think of two better proposals than these.
Exit the vampires' castle.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:42 pm UTC

For some lighthearted take on this Presidential Election, here is Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham during his Senate Filibuster from 2013.

He put some spirit into that one! There has to be an irony award for reading "Green Eggs and Ham" as a Filibuster tool, as the children's story is about how someone refuses to try Green Eggs and Ham... but eventually tries it just once and ends up liking it. So... its kind of the anti-Filibuster children's story, isn't it?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

ijuin
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ijuin » Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:43 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:I remember reading something similar with police salaries. It basically came down to whether the police really needed the extra money was a huge factor in how likely they were to accept/ seek out extra money.

A living wage for the legislators wouldn't be a silver bullet, but it looks like it would be a one part in 3000 increase in the budget, so just making them 0.05% more effective would be worth it.


Quite. Given what private industry earns (and what Congress earns), I don't see why we shouldn't be paying state legislators about $150-200k/year--which would STILL be less than most people with law degrees (the most popular degree for career politicians) would earn by practicing law.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:09 pm UTC

Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a list of US senate filibusters (including material read), which I would like. I know by the nature of a filibuster the material doesn't really matter, but I find that interesting.

If I ever become a senator, and I plan on filibusting, my staffers will hate me because I will ask for an actual, topical 100,000 word speech. Maybe start from the beginning (like that guy in airplane), or contract my opponents' statistically aberrant anecdotes with 2000 representative anecdotes and/or the full dataset.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Fri Apr 08, 2016 12:28 am UTC

ijuin wrote:
Quizatzhaderac wrote:I remember reading something similar with police salaries. It basically came down to whether the police really needed the extra money was a huge factor in how likely they were to accept/ seek out extra money.

A living wage for the legislators wouldn't be a silver bullet, but it looks like it would be a one part in 3000 increase in the budget, so just making them 0.05% more effective would be worth it.


Quite. Given what private industry earns (and what Congress earns), I don't see why we shouldn't be paying state legislators about $150-200k/year--which would STILL be less than most people with law degrees (the most popular degree for career politicians) would earn by practicing law.


Come now, we can't expect legislators live off a meagre 150k a year. How will they be able to afford food?

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Apr 08, 2016 12:33 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:For some lighthearted take on this Presidential Election, here is Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham during his Senate Filibuster from 2013.

He put some spirit into that one! There has to be an irony award for reading "Green Eggs and Ham" as a Filibuster tool, as the children's story is about how someone refuses to try Green Eggs and Ham... but eventually tries it just once and ends up liking it. So... its kind of the anti-Filibuster children's story, isn't it?

Apparently, with UK filibusters the speaker has to remain on topic and cannot repeat themselves (yes, somewhat like the panel game...) so just reading from a kids' book would be ruled out of order - unless the topic was child education I guess......

(Just thought I'd add something I learnt just this week...)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:43 am UTC

Vahir wrote:
ijuin wrote:
Quizatzhaderac wrote:I remember reading something similar with police salaries. It basically came down to whether the police really needed the extra money was a huge factor in how likely they were to accept/ seek out extra money.

A living wage for the legislators wouldn't be a silver bullet, but it looks like it would be a one part in 3000 increase in the budget, so just making them 0.05% more effective would be worth it.


Quite. Given what private industry earns (and what Congress earns), I don't see why we shouldn't be paying state legislators about $150-200k/year--which would STILL be less than most people with law degrees (the most popular degree for career politicians) would earn by practicing law.


Come now, we can't expect legislators live off a meagre 150k a year. How will they be able to afford food?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... -get-paid/
Political scientists found that the state legislatures that meet for longer and give their legislators more resources (both in terms of staff and salary) are more efficient, passing a greater percentage of bills overall and enacting more bills per legislative day. They have more contact with constituents and are more attentive to their concerns. They are also more independent, both from party leadership and the governor, and more likely to take on government reforms and enact complex and innovative policies. “When you compensate a legislator well and give them a staff, they’re able to put more time into their work and actually develop some knowledge around different policies,” Squire said.

Low pay also puts limits on who can realistically serve in a legislature. In states like New Mexico that have short legislative sessions, lawmakers must leave their day jobs for one or two months every year and travel to the state capital — in addition to dealing with year-round demands from constituents. Many lawmakers must be independently wealthy or have flexible jobs that allow them to juggle politics and everyday work. Part-time legislators are also more likely than full-time legislators to be retirees, Moncrief said. It’s no surprise, then, that state lawmakers tend to be older than their constituents.

Lawmakers with less time to spare and no staff to guide them may rely more heavily on lobbyists to advise them about legislation, Squire said. A lawmaker in Missouri, a hybrid state, recently got into hot water when he declared that he sees lobbyists as “unpaid staff.

We're not advertising about feed the lawmaker here. I could easily feed you with nothing more than food stamps and begging. The reasons listed above show that having a well staffed($$) and compensated legislature($) matters, a lot.

TLDR: Either public pays the law makers or the lobbyists will pay them. Who would you rather control the strings?

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:49 am UTC

elasto wrote:Apparently, with UK filibusters the speaker has to remain on topic and cannot repeat themselves (yes, somewhat like the panel game...) so just reading from a kids' book would be ruled out of order - unless the topic was child education I guess......

Well over here we have something called FREEDOM, so our filibusterers are free to talk about whatever they like.

sardia wrote:Political scientists found that the state legislatures that meet for longer and give their legislators more resources (both in terms of staff and salary) are more efficient, passing a greater percentage of bills overall and enacting more bills per legislative day.

Of course, libertarians and many conservatives will tell you that this is a bad thing.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Apr 08, 2016 4:49 am UTC

You'd be surprised how much research and regulations are needed to make government smaller. Did you think abortion clinic closing or religious freedom bills were a coincidence? That took thousands of man-hours of research by the staff of some lobbyist. Imagine using that power for someone other than corporate interests.

ijuin
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ijuin » Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:03 am UTC

Vahir wrote:
Come now, we can't expect legislators live off a meagre 150k a year. How will they be able to afford food?


The same way that the majority of us are expected to live off a quarter of that amount?

Anyway, even the salary range that I proposed would be another increase of more than fifty percent above the current legislator salaries in my state, and that is what I really meant--that existing legislator salaries can be raised by fifty to one hundred percent while still leaving said legislators with incomes below the threshold to qualify for membership in the "one percent" (minimum $343k/year).

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:50 pm UTC

Ijuin, I think your sarcasm detector is broken.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Fri Apr 08, 2016 4:54 pm UTC

In the present situation, they don't need to be able to afford food. Some lobbyist takes them to dinner in exchange for them betraying the country at least once every two days. It's not a healthy eating pattern but they can get by that way.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 809
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby MartianInvader » Fri Apr 08, 2016 6:39 pm UTC

sardia wrote:You'd be surprised how much research and regulations are needed to make government smaller. Did you think abortion clinic closing or religious freedom bills were a coincidence? That took thousands of man-hours of research by the staff of some lobbyist. Imagine using that power for someone other than corporate interests.

I agree with your overall point, but how is closing abortion clinics in corporate interests?
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Apr 08, 2016 6:40 pm UTC

More of a religious interest thing, I think.

I doubt the corporate wing gives two craps about it one way or the other. It's just a handy tool to get the religious vote out.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:00 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:More of a religious interest thing, I think.

I doubt the corporate wing gives two craps about it one way or the other. It's just a handy tool to get the religious vote out.

Religion is merely a tax exempt corporation, and there are religious corporations. Think hobby lobby and that homophobic chicken franchise.

But yea, I could have used a better example. How about fracking environmental bills. Poor legislatures often print up photo copies of pre written laws from fossil fuel companies.
In other news, Bernie is even less competitive then his delegates totals indicate. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ber ... delegates/
So yea, Bernie is gonna lose, but he will lose because he's not popular enough.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:14 pm UTC

Yeah, he needs some sort of hail mary play at this point. Clinton somehow gets found guilty of something big or something equally unlikely. He needs a big swing, and there's nobody else in the race but the two of them, so...options are limited.

I think his debates in the general might have been more fun than listening to Clinton, so I'm slightly sad about that, but it's about what I expected. I 'spect my facebook page will be filled with rage, as thus far, all his fans have seemed to attribute every setback to establishment machinations. That, at least, should prove amusing.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:32 pm UTC

sardia wrote:In other news, Bernie is even less competitive then his delegates totals indicate. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ber ... delegates/
So yea, Bernie is gonna lose, but he will lose because he's not popular enough.

It's disingenuous to combine caucus goers and primary voters into one undifferentiated pool, because caucuses have lower turnout by nature. If we imagine a world in which Hillary's strongest states had switched to a caucus system, that would lower her total number of votes (by your reckoning), but it wouldn't make her any less popular.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:44 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
sardia wrote:In other news, Bernie is even less competitive then his delegates totals indicate. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ber ... delegates/
So yea, Bernie is gonna lose, but he will lose because he's not popular enough.

It's disingenuous to combine caucus goers and primary voters into one undifferentiated pool, because caucuses have lower turnout by nature. If we imagine a world in which Hillary's strongest states had switched to a caucus system, that would lower her total number of votes (by your reckoning), but it wouldn't make her any less popular.

It's awfully convenient to claim Bernie supporters exist in vast numbers and yet don't show up to vote in primaries. Is this the political version of the hot Canadian girlfriend you always brag about but we haven't ever met?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:44 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
sardia wrote:In other news, Bernie is even less competitive then his delegates totals indicate. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ber ... delegates/
So yea, Bernie is gonna lose, but he will lose because he's not popular enough.

It's disingenuous to combine caucus goers and primary voters into one undifferentiated pool, because caucuses have lower turnout by nature. If we imagine a world in which Hillary's strongest states had switched to a caucus system, that would lower her total number of votes (by your reckoning), but it wouldn't make her any less popular.


They mention the difference.

But from a standpoint of "predicting the outcome", they're right on the money. Because Hillary's strongest states HAVEN'T switched to a caucus system. The real future is what matters, not a hypothetical situation based on different rules.

And only expressed support, in the form of votes, is going to be held up as a mandate and be plausible.

Edit: if anything, it indicates that popular support is *higher* for Hillary, since Caucuses invariably select for the most diehard people. Bernie has very committed fans, but Hillary has the masses. There's similarities here to Ron/Rand Paul, where they've got a diehard internet army, but people at large mostly don't care for them.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:48 pm UTC

Eh, it seems like a fool's errand to try to determine which of two options is more popular based on dozens of contests held months apart under vastly different rules. If you want to know which candidate has more support among the people, conduct a poll.

sardia wrote:It's awfully convenient to claim Bernie supporters exist in vast numbers and yet don't show up to vote in primaries. Is this the political version of the hot Canadian girlfriend you always brag about but we haven't ever met?

There are regional patterns in the support for the two candidates, and there are regional patterns in the use of primaries and caucuses. If one candidate happens to be more popular among the states that use caucuses, then yes, their support will be underrepresented in this dubious pool of total votes. Again, if you want to know who's more popular, look at a national poll.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:54 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:Eh, it seems like a fool's errand to try to determine which of two options is more popular based on dozens of contests held months apart under vastly different rules. If you want to know which candidate has more support among the people, conduct a poll.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/ele ... emocratic/
Here you go. Polls for most of the Democratic State primaries. You have your choice between polls only or the polls plus model. For a Bernie supporter, I recommend the polls only model. it shows a higher chance of Bernie winning.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: addams and 15 guests