Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
So, just to be clear, it's the regulations that prevent companies from selling spoiled food. Not fear of the potential economic ruin that a lawsuit for poisoning someone would result in. Not some desire to compete with other companies. Nope, it's just the wise hand of Woodrow Wilson's Scientific Bureaucracy.

Ever hear about the product safety problems China has, with their lack of regulation? Or the various incidents of US companies behaving badly until they were caught and the government forced them to stop? It's a lot harder to have a successful liability lawsuit when the company can point to the law and say "what we did was 100% legal", and any future boycott accomplishes very little since the profit has already been made and the owners can re-form the company under a new name. If you think that companies aren't going to take an opportunity to make extra profit just because it might hurt some people then you have a really naive view of the world.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
The comparison might be made to vaccines, or certain levels of nutrition. We accept that schools may exclude students who are not vaccinated, and failure to properly feed children may prompt state intervention, possibly removal of said children.

WTF? Vaccine is used against diseases. Low nutrition is dangerous to person. Being gay is neither. Only idiots try to claim being gay is bad or needs to be cured so hopefully you were just ignorant in your choise of words.

Hint: Being gay is inborn. There's currently no way to change it. There's no NEED to change it. Only thing that needs to change is people's opinions to accept the natural.

You claiming green eyes must be "cured" out of existance?

 BigWaaagh wrote:
They are "intrusions"? Like when you intrude on the chemical industry to stop putting lead into paint? Like when you intrude on the automobile industry to mandate seatbelts be put in all cars? Like when you intrude on industry to not dump waste and sewage into the waterways? Like when you intrude on businesses to stop putting young children to work? Like when you intrude on employers not paying the same wage for the same work? There are "intrusions" and then there are intrusions...

I think you're missing the point a bit there. Those are intrusions, but they are justified intrusions. Buzzsaw concedes the fact that intrusions are sometimes justified, so you seem to be arguing against a straw man version of their real position.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
This requires a definition of "harmful" and "only result" that excludes a number of things that objectively correlate with homosexuality. A very obvious one is that if your child is exclusively homosexual, the likelihood of parents seeing grandchildren is... well, let's just say dramatically decreased. Is it really obvious that a lack of lineal descendants is something that can be so easily dismissed?

Genetic engineering has come a long way and same sex couple will soon be able to have children with both partners dna.

Or even without partner for that matter...Just using cells from person in question(well at least with males. Article I read didn't mention lone women but don't see why that wouldn't be possible if it's possible for 1 men to create new human from just his genes)

 ZergSmasher wrote:


Y'know, all this horsegak just shows how bad liberals have gotten. It's like they are all a bunch of spoiled brat kids who throw a tantrum when they don't get their way. You didn't see disappointed Republican voters trashing cities and beating Democratic voters up in 2008 or 2012, at least not on the scale we're seeing now. Hell, even Hillary Clinton herself is at least accepting her defeat with dignity.

I was disappointed when Obama got elected (I voted for McCain and later Romney), but I certainly wasn't about to beat up people that voted for him. And I certainly wasn't going to trash some innocent person's business over it. Just suck it up and move on. It's not like he'll be the president forever. In all honesty I don't think Trump will get a second term unless he does a really amazing job (and the American people agree that he did a good job).

As for a viable 3rd party, I don't think that can happen, as a 3-party system would be very unstable, and would degenerate into two of them more or less folding into one (and then we're back where we started).

I almost wish there were no actual political parties, and people just ran for office on their own merits and beliefs rather than on party platforms. I don't think any politics anywhere in the world actually works like this, and campaign funding would probably be a nightmare, but it sounds like a good idea to me (of course I'm no expert in politics).

1. Not all of us "liberals" are that way...In a twisted way, I was hoping for a Clinton presidency followed swiftly by the Nixon treatment, thus resulting in a Kaine presidency. But I sure as gak ain't outside acting a fool.

2. I'm also seeing reports already of widespread racism from those who presumably supported Trump... Unsubstantiated stories on FB, which we should naturally doubt, but not be surprised if they were true, aside... there's at least one story I've seen coming from Minnesota where students heavily grafiti'd a girls bathroom with racial epithets, "go back to africa" type slogans as well as pro-trump slogans. Sadly, I fully expect more of this kind of thing to happen, as well as happening in reverse as some groups get tired of the treatment.

3. I agree with you on the 3rd party. The way things run today, I think would take some unforeseeable, absolutely MASSIVE *thing* happening where basically another party literally explodes onto the scene.

4. I do wish there were no parties... the Electoral College was created in a time when we didn't have parties, it made sense. In a way, it makes sense now, but not entirely. All that said, of what I've studied of history, it seems that if you start creating governing bodies, sporting bodies, or any sort of "thing" in society where groups of people gather, you're inevitably going to have parties form. I mean, let's say magically, we pass a bill abolishing political parties... the politicians will simply form "coalitions" and then we'd be stuck with the Democratic Coalition and the Republican Coalition because hey, it's not a party.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
So, just to be clear, it's the regulations that prevent companies from selling spoiled food. Not fear of the potential economic ruin that a lawsuit for poisoning someone would result in. Not some desire to compete with other companies. Nope, it's just the wise hand of Woodrow Wilson's Scientific Bureaucracy.

Ever hear about the product safety problems China has, with their lack of regulation? Or the various incidents of US companies behaving badly until they were caught and the government forced them to stop? It's a lot harder to have a successful liability lawsuit when the company can point to the law and say "what we did was 100% legal", and any future boycott accomplishes very little since the profit has already been made and the owners can re-form the company under a new name. If you think that companies aren't going to take an opportunity to make extra profit just because it might hurt some people then you have a really naive view of the world.

Seriously? You're going with a lack of regulations in the People's Republic Of China. That China is a libertarian utopia without regulations or state interference in private enterprise.

China is a freewheeling capitalist nation, but I'm the naive one. Right...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Piston Honda wrote:
First time I voted and did not vote Democrat. I voted 3rd party.

After watching these protests, the things people are saying, "People have to die", the complete hypocrisy I see unfolding before me as well as all the assaults I have seen committed against Trump voters I don't think I'll vote Democrat ever again. Democrats have become everything they hated in the Republicans in the early 2000s.

Never thought I would see the day that Democrats/liberals acted like jackbooted thugs.

Anyone want to start a viable 3rd party?

...

Uh... ever heard of the fight to desegregate Southern Schools? Pretty much everyone, including the guy standing in the schoolhouse door (George Wallace) in order to prevent black children from entering a white school, all of those people were Democrats.


All the guys with the dogs? Bull Connor? All Democrats.


It's endlessly frustrating to hear Democrats/Progressives proclaim their shock at how Democrats/Progressives are acting badly. Many of the most grotesque abuses of the American people in the 20th century were the direct actions of Progressives/Democrats, yet it seems the sins that sprang explicitly from Progressives are simply "American" sins, while the GOP owns its own sins forever.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
They are "intrusions"? Like when you intrude on the chemical industry to stop putting lead into paint? Like when you intrude on the automobile industry to mandate seatbelts be put in all cars? Like when you intrude on industry to not dump waste and sewage into the waterways? Like when you intrude on businesses to stop putting young children to work? Like when you intrude on employers not paying the same wage for the same work? There are "intrusions" and then there are intrusions...

I think you're missing the point a bit there. Those are intrusions, but they are justified intrusions. Buzzsaw concedes the fact that intrusions are sometimes justified, so you seem to be arguing against a straw man version of their real position.

And I conceded that regulations can sometimes get onerous. I just have a problem with the simplistic dismissal of regulations as nothing but "intrusions" and the not-so-subtle tone appointed to that word driven by presentation of the estimated cost closing paragraph.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Seriously? You're going with a lack of regulations in the People's Republic Of China. That China is a libertarian utopia without regulations or state interference in private enterprise.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Whatever China might still have in their name or in their theoretical laws it's pretty well known that Chinese industry is allowed to get away with a lot. Blatant piracy, horrible working conditions, etc. And regardless of whether or not the worst offenders are punished after they're caught the point is that they tried. They didn't say "nah, let's not put toxic waste in this baby food, it would be wrong", they ruthlessly made money from selling a dangerous product because they saw an opportunity to do so.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

1. Not all of us "liberals" are that way...In a twisted way, I was hoping for a Clinton presidency followed swiftly by the Nixon treatment, thus resulting in a Kaine presidency. But I sure as gak ain't outside acting a fool.

Sorry, didn't mean to blanket label every liberal. It's pretty late and I'm very tired, so I'm not thinking as much when I post. I'm also very irritated by what's going on. I sure hope the police or somebody can restore order before too many people on either side get killed.

I'd better go to bed before I fall asleep at my computer.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
It's endlessly frustrating to hear Democrats/Progressives proclaim their shock at how Democrats/Progressives are acting badly. Many of the most grotesque abuses of the American people in the 20th century were the direct actions of Progressives/Democrats, yet it seems the sins that sprang explicitly from Progressives are simply "American" sins, while the GOP owns its own sins forever.

This is a rather dishonest argument. The abuses you're talking about happened before the democrats and republicans reversed their positions on the the liberal/conservative spectrum. The "democrats" in those pictures would be republicans in 2016.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Parents very often must subject children to painful and traumatic medical procedures. That they are painful and traumatic does not mean they are de facto immoral.

I think the critical difference is how the child looks back on the experience as an adult, and if they agree it was "for their health" or if they feel it was just abusive.

Hmm, while an attractive idea that notion would make the morality of any actions taken for the benefit of the health of a child subject to retrospective revision. That would seem untenable as a moral principle, not least because the moral character of your own actions would depend entirely on externalities.

I don't see it as untenable. Most of our moral behaviour is based on historical experience of what is and isn't harmful. If I were to burgle someone's house while they are out, I can't be 100% sure that they will mind (later when they discover what I have done) but based on collective experience, we can assume that they almost certainly will mind, so stealing is therefore deemed bad.

The collective experience of sexual orientation realignment therapy is that it is not healthy, and is often quite harmful psychologically.

If technology reached a stage where it could be achieved easily (or at least successfully) then I would concede that the question of morality would change. However, then you get into "designer babies" which brings its own quite serious moral dilemmas.

 Piston Honda wrote:
First time I voted and did not vote Democrat. I voted 3rd party.

After watching these protests, the things people are saying, "People have to die", the complete hypocrisy I see unfolding before me as well as all the assaults I have seen committed against Trump voters I don't think I'll vote Democrat ever again. Democrats have become everything they hated in the Republicans in the early 2000s.

Never thought I would see the day that Democrats/liberals acted like jackbooted thugs.

Anyone want to start a viable 3rd party?

Food for thought:

More than half of Democrats (55%) say the Republican Party makes them “afraid,” while 49% of Republicans say the same about the Democratic Party. Among those highly engaged in politics – those who say they vote regularly and either volunteer for or donate to campaigns – fully 70% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans say they are afraid of the other party. -- Pew Research Center

http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/


“So how did our politics get so poisonous?” I think it’s because we overdosed, especially this year. We drank too much of the poison. You take a little bit of it, so you can hate the other side. And it tastes kind of good. And you like how it feels. And there is a gentle high to the condemnation, right? And you know you’re right, right? You know you’re right.” -- Stephen Colbert

 ZergSmasher wrote:


I was disappointed when Obama got elected (I voted for McCain and later Romney), but I certainly wasn't about to beat up people that voted for him. And I certainly wasn't going to trash some innocent person's business over it. Just suck it up and move on. It's not like he'll be the president forever. In all honesty I don't think Trump will get a second term unless he does a really amazing job (and the American people agree that he did a good job).

I think part of it has to do with this line of thinking.
Ok, so it is no secret that alot of Democrats are college students. When I was at UCSC one thing I saw was that ACTION was the name of the day. That disurbing the peace was a viable form a protest because those who enjoy the peace are those who are not oppressed because they can have peace. An Example was the blocking of a Highway that was a major lane to get to work. Their reasoning boiled down to "These people go their their jobs ignorant of the struggles that are facing people, so we will show them" basically a captive Audience.
So I see it as a consequence of this. The kids see a system that failed them and now doesnt represent them. So now they get angry and make a big show to get peoples attention to know that they are angry.
Sounds weird. But in essence. A narrative that destruction is fine if the system doesnt work for you that i see in colleges is what is going on.
Also, Oakland is on fire.

Brexit. Trump. Can't wait until the elections in Europe next year, Germany in particular could be rather interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as a little distraction from picking out flowers and a band for the inauguration ball...


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/before-inauguration-a-trial-trump-to-appear-in-court-over-trump-university/ar-AAk68BO?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=ASUDHP


Contrary to what I intended when I posted last night , I stayed up for the whole election...primarily because of the market impact...and after it was over I was touched by what I took as the genuine sincerity of Trump's eloquent acceptance speech, I hear a few of the things in the economic message and I'm encouraged, but then comes the never ending baggage train that just doesn't end. I just don't know...

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Oi vey.

So, just to be clear, it's the regulations that prevent companies from selling spoiled food. Not fear of the potential economic ruin that a lawsuit for poisoning someone would result in. Not some desire to compete with other companies. Nope, it's just the wise hand of Woodrow Wilson's Scientific Bureaucracy.

This kind of economic purism is fascinating, precisely because it is based in so little actual economics.

The first and best reason for regs is that they make trade so much easier. When you pick up a bag of flour and you know it weighs 1kg, that is so much easier than having everyone inspect the weight and contents of each purchase. Not only that, but there is a huge benefit to having some trust that the product is actually what it claims to be. Having a government system of uniform weights and requirements on ingredients is so much more economically efficient than every man having to test and learn about every product on the market for himself.

The second reason is that your ideal world above relies on perfect consumer information, that a product that proved harmful to a consumer would immediately be known by all consumers. The history of snake oil salesmen selling products loaded with all manner of crap and then scooting through is famous for a reason, but it can works on a bigger scale. With no regulations testing health before someone puts a product on the market, what's to stop a fly-by-nighter selling a bunch of crap in one town, then moving on to the next once people know how bad his product was? People might respond by being wary of any new product, but that would be its own problem, as it would become impossible for new companies to start up and sell new products, killing competition.

Lastly, negative impacts aren't always immediately apparent. If you feel sick, was it because your strawberry jam was actually rotten apple that was heavily treated to look and taste like jam? Or was it because your meat was treated to appear that it wasn't rotten? Or was it the canned drink containing some dodgy chemical? It is near impossible for the individual to figure out which of the dozens of products he consumed in a day made him sick.

Good regulation is good for the economy.

 sebster wrote:
The first and best reason for regs is that they make trade so much easier. When you pick up a bag of flour and you know it weighs 1kg, that is so much easier than having everyone inspect the weight and contents of each purchase. Not only that, but there is a huge benefit to having some trust that the product is actually what it claims to be. Having a government system of uniform weights and requirements on ingredients is so much more economically efficient than every man having to test and learn about every product on the market for himself.

And this goes for the manufacturers as well. Which is easier: having to guess at the standard you have to meet to successfully defend yourself in a lawsuit from your customers, or looking up the standard regulations for the subject and following them?

 Buzzsaw wrote:
As for overreach, an estimate from the CEI put the costs of regulations at around $1.885 trillion annually. To put that in perspective, US military spending is $598.5 billion. Social Security, Unemployment and Labor spending is $1.25 trillion. So the cost of regulation is about equal to the sum total of both our military spending and SS, et al.

CEI is libertarian think tank, by the way. And they're a really small, gakky one that grinds along scoring corporate donations by doing work that companies can use to prop up their special interests. I doubt anyone here is silly enough to believe anything they publish, but on top of that I'm just loving the irony of arguing against regulations as favouring special interests... by using a bs report written by a group lobbying for special interests.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What you say makes good sense, however if the ability to pass useless ineffective unjust laws was restored, would it be a good thing?

In one sense, to demonstrate the uselessness of such laws may be worth the effort of passing them.

When did we restrict the ability to pass useless ineffective unjust laws? We do that all the time at the local, state and federal level.

I mean the ability has been restored in the sense that the checks and balances of a separate presidency, senate and congress are now all in the hands of the Republicans, energised by an extreme wing of the party. There have been plenty of useless laws passed at state level, by Republican state governments, which generally get struck down by the Supreme Court. Even that check and balance miught go Republican in the next two years.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Uh... ever heard of the fight to desegregate Southern Schools? Pretty much everyone, including the guy standing in the schoolhouse door (George Wallace) in order to prevent black children from entering a white school, all of those people were Democrats.

And here's the bit where you pretend that political parties are permanent, that the party of 1960 is the same as the party of 2016. The amazing thing is how consistent all you hardliners are.

 LordofHats wrote:
... while a combination of well crafted remarks on his part...

Really? Well-crafted remarks that helped him?

I realise we're far, far away from the US, but every time we ever heard anything about Trump over here it was always something bad. "Trump uses a puppy to beat another puppy to death!", "Trump promises to conquer Sweden!", "Trump's body odour gives Japanese-Americans rabies!" and so on. And every time there was a quote it was "Well why aren't we using the nukes?" and "If she wins you 2nd Amendment folks can do something about that nudge nudge wink wink use yourgunsonher nudge wink!.".

My surprise at Trump winning stems not from anything Hillary did - no one likes her anyway - but from a series of ever-increasing own-goals on Trumps part.

I don't think Trump won as such. I think the other side lost.

 sebster wrote:

Lastly, negative impacts aren't always immediately apparent. If you feel sick, was it because your strawberry jam was actually rotten apple that was heavily treated to look and taste like jam? Or was it because your meat was treated to appear that it wasn't rotten? Or was it the canned drink containing some dodgy chemical? It is near impossible for the individual to figure out which of the dozens of products he consumed in a day made him sick.

Good regulation is good for the economy.

Easily the best example of companies recklessly lying and screwing people for profit is cigarette companies, who spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of decades denying that cigarettes cause cancer (and continue to do so today in less fortunate markets).

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Long story short, a few Resturants got trashed. Including the place that was gonna hire me until this happened. And my Favorite Mexican resturant.

Ah. The oft-reported 'tolerance' of the left.

 LordofHats wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Lastly, negative impacts aren't always immediately apparent. If you feel sick, was it because your strawberry jam was actually rotten apple that was heavily treated to look and taste like jam? Or was it because your meat was treated to appear that it wasn't rotten? Or was it the canned drink containing some dodgy chemical? It is near impossible for the individual to figure out which of the dozens of products he consumed in a day made him sick.

Good regulation is good for the economy.

Easily the best example of companies recklessly lying and screwing people for profit is cigarette companies, who spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of decades denying that cigarettes cause cancer (and continue to do so today in less fortunate markets).

Some other examples still present today are energy companies & climate change, and pharmaceutical companies pushing off-label uses.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
1. Not all of us "liberals" are that way...In a twisted way, I was hoping for a Clinton presidency followed swiftly by the Nixon treatment, thus resulting in a Kaine presidency. But I sure as gak ain't outside acting a fool.

Let is all hope that this does not happen to Trump because, yikes, you think he's bad, that Pence guy is waaaaaaaay more scary.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think Trump won as such. I think the other side lost.

It was definitely both. It's no use denying that HRC's campaign totally failed. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that Trump's campaign definitely succeeded. That is, the votes were not merely against Hillary - although that certainly played an important role.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
1. Not all of us "liberals" are that way...In a twisted way, I was hoping for a Clinton presidency followed swiftly by the Nixon treatment, thus resulting in a Kaine presidency. But I sure as gak ain't outside acting a fool.

Let is all hope that this does not happen to Trump because, yikes, you think he's bad, that Pence guy is waaaaaaaay more scary.

Pence is gonna be running the show anyway. Our shiny new President-Elect hasn't shown all that much interest in understanding or learning the nuances of government; supposedly, he offered Kasich control of foreign and domestic policy when shopping for VPs, leaving 'making America great again' as his own chosen task. It would fit with the way he does business - lend his name to stuff, collect the check, and wander off for a little light sexual assault. I imagine Pence would have been offered a similar deal.

A little comeuppance for his many con jobs would be nice, at least.

 Manchu wrote:
At the same time, we have to acknowledge that Trump's campaign definitely succeeded. That is, the votes were not merely against Hillary - although that certainly played an important role.

Which mean only means that we (we as in people not in the US) weren't hearing the full story, and that the news stories we heard and social media echo chamber that just repeats the words racist, bigot, misogyny and homophobe over and over again were only part of what actual Americans were hearing.

What can you tell me about the Trump campaign that makes it seem like it wasn't someone trying not to hit themselves in the face with a baseball bat yet continuously failing at that.

I really don't understand how he won given all we heard over here. Educate me please!

 Manchu wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think Trump won as such. I think the other side lost.

It was definitely both. It's no use denying that HRC's campaign totally failed. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that Trump's campaign definitely succeeded. That is, the votes were not merely against Hillary - although that certainly played an important role.

Even the anti-Hillary votes probably still had some level of excitement when it came to actually voting FOR Trump as well.

Hillary was able to check off a lot of boxes when it came to being a good candidate. But "making people excited to vote for her" wasn't one of them for a lot of people.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more talk about the FBI and the whole email October surprise so far, I expected that to be one of the first scapegoats for the result.

I have also heard the first excuse for not repealing Obamacare already, the lack of a filibuster-proof majority. So the GOP is safe from having to actually follow through on their promise once again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

What can you tell me about the Trump campaign that makes it seem like it wasn't someone trying not to hit themselves in the face with a baseball bat yet continuously failing at that.

I really don't understand how he won given all we heard over here. Educate me please!

He won because a lot of people wanted someone who says a bunch of crazy and who looks like someone who was trying to hit himself in the face with a baseball bat yet continuously failing at that.

Just had a thought: isn't Bush Senior the last time a Republican President actually got into the White House with a majority of the total votes? "Tyrrany of the majority" and all, but when one party only manages to get into power because majoritarian rule is being set aside in a system that has almost come to be synonymous with majoritarian rule, perhaps some serious reflection is in order.

On the subject of Trump, I'd make the argument that this is what happens when you let socioeconomic differences in a population become too big. In hindsight it makes complete sense that, as has been pointed out, those with nothing to lose would prefer a gamble to nothing. The question in the US' case is how to lessen these inequalities when people insist on voting for trickle-down congress critters. The US is punching itself in the face and in the process punching the rest of the Western world too.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I really don't understand how he won given all we heard over here. Educate me please!

There are more deplorables and gullible people than polls and analysis anticipated. The deplorables love him for obvious reasons, the gullible people somehow thought that a billionaire who was born into wealth and privilege and has a history of screwing over middle-class workers is somehow the champion of the masses who will give them their jobs back. So it turns out that if you yell racism and zero-substance nationalism loud enough you can win an election despite having policy positions that range from "not possible" to "sheer raving lunacy".