Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 237: You Never Go Ass to Monmouth

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/noahcrothman/status/1169426149363073024?s=21

Ughhhh
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/noahcrothman/status/1169426149363073024?s=21

Ughhhh

Nuclear energy must not have a lot of donation dollars to give

---

https://twitter.com/WalkerBragman/status/1169405162370273280?s=20

Biden burst a blood vessel or something in his eye, apparently. It didnt seem to phase him, but damn thats some terrible timing.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/noahcrothman/status/1169426149363073024?s=21

Ughhhh

Lmao do we need any further proof that the Dems don't give a fuck about fixing climate change and only want to posture?
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/noahcrothman/status/1169426149363073024?s=21

Ughhhh

Lmao do we need any further proof that the Dems don't give a fuck about fixing climate change and only want to posture?

Republicans get no voice in this conversation tbh
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Republicans get no voice in this conversation tbh

Republicans generally support policies that can realistically curb the use of fossil fuels (ie, expanding nuclear power). But that's not deemed to be courageous because it doesn't take things away from rich people I guess.
---

I would love for that statement to be reality, unfortunately the Republican president's gutting of the EPA disagrees with that assessment. If the Republican policy was "expanding nucelar power, curbing fossil fuels" I'd be all for that as a great starting point. Sadly that's not reality in policy.
---

PrestonCooper posted...

Only on this website would a POLITICS topic on a GAMING MESSAGE BOARD be on the front page during tonight's Nintendo's Direct.

No people are being assholes and trying to bring politics everywhere. This is not limited to here.

Republicans don't really care about the way we get energy. Working class voters like the coal miners or oil rig workers just don't wanna lose their jobs, and the rest just fear the government doing anything will raise their taxes. Wealthier republicans are the same, except add their investments into the mix. Long term effects of climate change, potential dangers of fracking or nuclear energy and the poisoning of every day Americans are not even close to something they think about, as long as it isn't in their community.

---

Republicans aren't going to pass legislation to help stop climate change unless they get something for it, even to help poor unfortunate souls. You can't get something for nothing you know. If you want to cross the bridge then you've got to pay the toll, we start by cutting taxes for the rich and then defund Planned Parenthood and take voters off the rolls.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Republicans aren't going to pass legislation to help stop climate change unless they get something for it, even to help poor unfortunate souls. You can't get something for nothing you know. If you want to cross the bridge then you've got to pay the toll, we start by cutting taxes for the rich and then defund Planned Parenthood and take voters off the rolls.

Kill everyone because the rich cant be even richer.

xp1337 posted...

strong contender but i still give it to this. gotta be top 3 for sure though

I would also like to nominate ALCAIDA

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Republicans generally support policies that can realistically curb the use of fossil fuels (ie, expanding nuclear power). But that's not deemed to be courageous because it doesn't take things away from rich people I guess.

Do Republicans actually make it a point to show public support for nuclear? Legit asking from ignorance

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/WalkerBragman/status/1169405162370273280?s=20

Biden burst a blood vessel or something in his eye, apparently. It didnt seem to phase him, but damn thats some terrible timing.

Convinced Biden is unhealthy and might kiel over on the campaign trail.

---

I still honestly think no one in their 70s should really be President, not even Bernie

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I still honestly think no one in their 70s should really be President, not even Bernie

so what you're saying is that 69 should be the maximum age for a president

nice

Look at this stuff
Isn't it neat?
Wouldn't you think the collection's complete?
Wouldn't you think the rich already have everything?

Look at this trove, treasures untold
How many wonders can one country hold?
Lookin' around here you'd think
Sure, they've got everything

They've got tax cuts and loopholes a plenty
And campaign contributions galore
You want some private jets? They've got thousands
But who cares, no big deal

I WANT MORE

I want to be where the people are
I want to see, want to see them workin'
Night and day just to pay the rent on a rundown street

With doctors around you don't get too far
Private insurance is required for gouging and profit
Without sickness you simply can't get people to pay

Up where they walk, up where they run
Up where they stay all day in the sun
Wandering free, wish I could be
Part of that world

What would I give for prayer in school to be required?
What would I pay to take away contraceptives?
Bet 'cha in that US of A
They let everyone have weapons
Absolutely anyone and
Everyone

I'm ready to know what the party knows
Donate my money and get some answers
What's an election and how do we gerrymander?

When's it my turn?
Wouldn't I love, love to explore that shore up above
Watch and you'll see, someday I'll be
Part of Your World

@CaptainOfCrush
---

Why did you repost that when you could have just edited?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Why did you repost that when you could have just edited?

I ran out of edits trying to figure out the Gamefaqs mention feature.
---

75 is forced retirement age of Canada's Supreme Court and Senate! (but our Senate is appointed, not elected)

12/338 people in the house of commons 75+ tho (compared to ~32/435 in us house of reps)
---

The idea that you have to "get something" to pass legislation that is good for the environment is a bunch of crap.

You should not have to be bribed to do your job correctly.
---

Any policy that is good for the environment that has no downsides whatsoever would already be happening. No government policy is necessary.

Government's "job" is not to maximize one end at the expense of all other possible ends. It is to manage tradeoffs. Any policy they might debate has costs, and benefits.
---

https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1169335000724099073?s=19

KEEP AMERICA GREAT
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Any policy that is good for the environment that has no downsides whatsoever would already be happening. No government policy is necessary.

Government's "job" is not to maximize one end at the expense of all other possible ends. It is to manage tradeoffs. Any policy they might debate has costs, and benefits.

I knew you were naive but that sure is a take

To clarify, i agree that managing trade offs and debating cost benefit analyses is one of the jobs of government. My comment is directed more towards the "should" vs "does" dynamic, and the assertion that if a position was fully positive then it would already be policy. One party doesn't agree on underlying facts, and people generally dislike change. Take those two things with the fact that cost benefit analysis in politics almost always focuses only in costs, and you have the situation we're at today.
---

Loss of coal jobs is not a downside, it's the natural progression of technology.

Suppose your profession was fletching arrows, but then guns were invented. Yeah that's unfortunate for you, but your position is now obsolete.

The government should not subsidize obsolete technologies.

.

This is also why UBI is going to increasingly become a better idea. Technological increases as supposed to be good for society as a whole and not just for those people whose jobs happen to have not been automated away yet.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Loss of coal jobs is not a downside, it's the natural progression of technology.

Suppose your profession was fletching arrows, but then guns were invented. Yeah that's unfortunate for you, but your position is now obsolete.

The government should not subsidize obsolete technologies.

.

This is also why UBI is going to increasingly become a better idea. Technological increases as supposed to be good for society as a whole and not just for those people whose jobs happen to have not been automated away yet.

Glad you aren't in charge because that is just bad policymaking.

---

"The wagon makers are throwing a fit because nobody is buying their wagons now that cars exist".

Too fucking bad.

An entire political party should not be catering to the wainwright's guild that by necessity is being phased out.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

"The wagon makers are throwing a fit because nobody is buying their wagons now that cars exist".

Too fucking bad.

An entire political party should not be catering to the wainwright's guild that by necessity is being phased out.

If corrik had his way, Pittsburgh would still be drowned in smoke and we'd be thankful for it
---

Corrik7 posted...

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Loss of coal jobs is not a downside, it's the natural progression of technology.

Suppose your profession was fletching arrows, but then guns were invented. Yeah that's unfortunate for you, but your position is now obsolete.

The government should not subsidize obsolete technologies.

.

This is also why UBI is going to increasingly become a better idea. Technological increases as supposed to be good for society as a whole and not just for those people whose jobs happen to have not been automated away yet.

Glad you aren't in charge because that is just bad policymaking.

I'll bite, why is this bad?
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Loss of coal jobs is not a downside, it's the natural progression of technology.

Suppose your profession was fletching arrows, but then guns were invented. Yeah that's unfortunate for you, but your position is now obsolete.

The government should not subsidize obsolete technologies.

.

This is also why UBI is going to increasingly become a better idea. Technological increases as supposed to be good for society as a whole and not just for those people whose jobs happen to have not been automated away yet.

Ridiculous. You can't just create a permanent underclass of people in poverty who don't contribute to society because we have robots now. Give everyone guaranteed employment, a guaranteed standard of living, rethink what a job means (creating profit for capital isn't it - anything can be work if you are willing to pay for it.) We can better our communities, we can give everyone the dignity of contribution to society, and we can reduce the amount we work in hours or days, increase vacation as productivity rises instead of saying well some people work and get to be better off and everyone else has to barely get by.

---

Shaduln posted...

I'll bite, why is this bad?

You don't just say hey your job is obsolete sorry about your luck.

First of all, arrows aren't even obsolete in the example. What happens is that many transition from arrows which drives the prices up so niche suppliers can stay afloat for the job.

When your economy relies on people having jobs and employment, you don't just say hey sorry about your luck. You need to offer the workers of said jobs that are going obsolete a government pathway to new jobs. Not through unemployment but usually through a TRA like program where you provide schooling to train on a new job to transition to something else. This way you don't cause unemployment, hurt your economy, and etc.

That said, coal is not an obsolete thing anyways as is being acted like.

---

When Blockbuster was made obsolete by Netflix and RedBox, nobody seemed to care about those workers.

It's past time Coal became obsolete tbh.

Corrik7 posted...

When your economy relies on people having jobs and employment, you don't just say hey sorry about your luck. You need to offer the workers of said jobs that are going obsolete a government pathway to new jobs. Not through unemployment but usually through a TRA like program where you provide schooling to train on a new job to transition to something else. This way you don't cause unemployment, hurt your economy, and etc.

They tried this in eastern Kentucky. Free, paid training to become coders, giving everybody free Macbooks to work on and everything

Was supposed to be multiple classes, up to 500 people or more

After one class of 50, the local government got pissed that they weren't getting the money/it was going to the program, and also didn't like that the head of the company the government was working with to run the training was Indian. Born here/in Kentucky, parents born here, but, you know, he was brown and all so none of that mattered. Anyhoo, they ran it into the ground, smear campaigned everybody involved, the money "mysteriously" disappeared, the company got ran out of town, and they somehow convinced everybody it was in the way of coal coming back.

I've moved away, the company is running training programs elsewhere in several states very successfully. Meanwhile, the city where it was happening has lost about half of its industry and everybody basically competes to work at Walmart, the one store it has.
---

Corrik7 posted...

When your economy relies on people having jobs and employment, you don't just say hey sorry about your luck. You need to offer the workers of said jobs that are going obsolete a government pathway to new jobs. Not through unemployment but usually through a TRA like program where you provide schooling to train on a new job to transition to something else. This way you don't cause unemployment, hurt your economy, and etc.

For the sake of argument- why only coal workers? Why not everybody that's unemployed?
---

Also, despite the fact that the guy that really pushed for the program to happen there was Republican governor Matt Bevin, since the money came from an Obama initiative, right-leaning news outlets regularly ran articles about how much of a waste of money it was and how dumb it was to try to retrain coal miners instead of bringing coal back and a bunch of shit, and regularly lied about the number of people that got jobs through it, purposely only interviewed people that left the program early instead of those that saw it to success, etc. They wanted it to fail because Obama dared to have anything to do with it.
---

banananor posted...

For the sake of argument- why only coal workers? Why not everybody that's unemployed?

Everyone's job that went obsolete due to government interference should be transitioned to new jobs. Why not.

---

Corrik7 posted...

due to government interference

So the government isn't allowed to change?

The government can never wake up and say "we want to power our energy grid with something else now" because that would be "interference" with the jobs that had become accustomed to the way things were before?

.

Back to arrows vs guns, you said the invention of guns wouldn't drive fletchers out of business, but please tell me how many arrow makers you know or give me some indication that the arrow "industry" is on the same level it was before obselesence. It went from a warfare staple to a curiosity only used for hunting.

Things change.

Rather than prop up the past we should support the ubi safety net that's going to be life saving for the millions upon millions of displaced workers in our near future.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

So the government isn't allowed to change?

The government can never wake up and say "we want to power our energy grid with something else now" because that would be "interference" with the jobs that had become accustomed to the way things were before?

.

Back to arrows vs guns, you said the invention of guns wouldn't drive fletchers out of business, but please tell me how many arrow makers you know or give me some indication that the arrow "industry" is on the same level it was before obselesence. It went from a warfare staple to a curiosity only used for hunting.

Things change.

Rather than prop up the past we should support the ubi safety net that's going to be life saving for the millions upon millions of displaced workers in our near future.

They can do whatever they want. But, they should bear responsibility and transition the workers elsewhere that they affected. It isn't exactly hard to figure out.

Especially with a government that makes a lot of economical decisions based on the lobbying power of certain interests lol.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

So the government isn't allowed to change?

The government can never wake up and say "we want to power our energy grid with something else now" because that would be "interference" with the jobs that had become accustomed to the way things were before?

.

Back to arrows vs guns, you said the invention of guns wouldn't drive fletchers out of business, but please tell me how many arrow makers you know or give me some indication that the arrow "industry" is on the same level it was before obselesence. It went from a warfare staple to a curiosity only used for hunting.

Things change.

Rather than prop up the past we should support the ubi safety net that's going to be life saving for the millions upon millions of displaced workers in our near future.

Jesus this analogy continues to be garbage.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Especially with a government that makes a lot of economical decisions based on the lobbying power of certain interests lol.

Like coal mining and gas company groups that lobbied hard to get those regulations removed.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Rather than prop up the past we should support the ubi safety net that's going to be life saving for the millions upon millions of displaced workers in our near future.

Guaranteed government job is not the same as "propping up the past." No one is saying replace old coal jobs with more coal jobs. And as Cyclo said, I don't see UBI accomplishing much of anything without major standard of living increases (healthcare, education, affordable housing). Until then we have plans like increasing the minimum wage and guaranteeing jobs to fossil fuel workers to help patch up the social safety net quickly while it's reformed.
---

Everyone should just be provided the requirements to live by its government as a given so that when talking about the advancement of technology we arent fretting about people being cast out into the street to starve. If you want extra money learn a useful skill and contribute that. I thought capitalism was about supply and demand so whats with it constantly propping up these archaic institutions. Robots should mean vacation days not poverty in a culture that cares about its workers.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

guaranteeing jobs to fossil fuel workers to help patch up the social safety net quickly while it's reformed.

Corrik7 posted...

But, they should bear responsibility and transition the workers elsewhere that they affected.

Please tell me how successful the retraining programs we have attempted so far have been. Because my understanding is that retraining programs have been utter shit.

You also have to consider that if 1,000,000 jobs are automated and it only takes 50,000 people to oversee/accomplish what they did before you might not just have 950,000 random other jobs available. And that's assuming the workers would even successfully become suited for those positions which history indicates is not likely unless the new job is almost identical to the one they had.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

Robots should mean vacation days not poverty in a culture that cares about its workers.

This.

UBI + optional part time employment will accomplish the standard of living of full time employment. And people, such as myself, can still pursue full time employment to better provide. But I do so knowing that I have to make my skills marketable in positions that are still going to exist in 20 years.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Republicans generally support policies that can realistically curb the use of fossil fuels (ie, expanding nuclear power). But that's not deemed to be courageous because it doesn't take things away from rich people I guess.

Do Republicans actually make it a point to show public support for nuclear? Legit asking from ignorance

https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1169696499405676546
---

De Blasio continues to suck:

https://twitter.com/noahpinion/status/1169708293167562752?s=21

Think about how insane that idea is. Literally punishing increased productivity through technological advancement. Why not ban the wheel, so we can create a ton of jobs for people physically carrying shit across the country?
---

Alright everyone. I'm calling the Whig Party now to let them know that the wainwrights guild and the candlers guild will give them their full support if they promise to stop high-speed rail and solar-powered electricity.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

De Blasio continues to suck:

https://twitter.com/noahpinion/status/1169708293167562752?s=21

Think about how insane that idea is. Literally punishing increased productivity through technological advancement. Why not ban the wheel, so we can create a ton of jobs for people physically carrying shit across the country?

can't wait for this jackass to officially drop out
---

Well, I mean, keep in mind that the "we're gonna put a lot of coal miners out of work" quote that people slammed Clinton on incessantly was a quote in which in context (as in, if you literally didn't cut the quote off right there and finished quoting her) was her explaining that because of that it was imperative that we provide retraining and support for those workers whose jobs were going to be eliminated.

So politically it makes sense that politicians, especially those running for president, are going to be super dumb about jobs that are being phased out by technological advancement. Because god forbid you suggest that any jobs are going away - doesn't matter if you literally address how we need to help those people in the same thought, you'll be relentlessly hit with "job killing"

but yes it makes for super dumb policy and political discussion
---

xp1337 posted...

Well, I mean, keep in mind that the "we're gonna put a lot of coal miners out of work" quote that people slammed Clinton on incessantly was a quote in which in context (as in, if you literally didn't cut the quote off right there and finished quoting her) was her explaining that because of that it was imperative that we provide retraining and support for those workers whose jobs were going to be eliminated.

So politically it makes sense that politicians, especially those running for president, are going to be super dumb about jobs that are being phased out by technological advancement. Because god forbid you suggest that any jobs are going away - doesn't matter if you literally address how we need to help those people in the same thought, you'll be relentlessly hit with "job killing"

but yes it makes for super dumb policy and political discussion

The retraining thing was the part that was incredibly tone deaf. You can't just provide skilled workers with years of experience "retraining" and get them back up to their old earning level in a new career in a short period of time. That Hillary thought "retraining" was a satisfactory solution is exactly what was out of touch.

She would have done better to leave out the retraining part entirely. If she is going to talk about retraining, it had better be training that can actually get someone back to their old earning levels. A 4-year college degree these days costs about 250k. I think if she promised all the coal miners a lump sum payment of 250k plus 4 years of lost wages - say, 50k a year - a lot of people would take that offer.
---

But when I hear "retraining" without details I hear a 6-8 week course in something that pays poorly.
---