Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

It's an interesting argument both ways. Why should a tiny state with almost no one in it have such influence over the election? Or, why should the big states dominate every decision while ignoring the smaller ones?

Neither side of the argument owns the high ground. I wish I had a better solution. The polarization of this country means there's always a significant chunk of the country fucking pissed after an election, no matter the outcome. No one would be bitching about the EC if we didn't literally hate both candidates.
It's almost like different areas of the country have significantly different circumstances and needs, and that there may not be a one-size-fits-all solution.

Both sides feel like they're being threatened, one socially, the other economically. I don't know a good solution either, but I know that whoever is winning at any point tells the other side to just deal with it. I don't see any way for the economically bereft areas of the country to ever prosper without changing, but a lot of them don't want to change, they just want things to go back to the way they used to be. I don't see that happening, regardless of who's the president. The socially threatened side, on the other hand, does not at all want things to go back to the way they used to be and want things to keep changing.

We're looking at polar opposite goals and definitions to success. I don't see how there can be a compromise when the desires of the two sides are so vastly different in the scope of culture and time.
 
Repressing minorities won't re-open the coal mines, kids.
What about immigrants? Repressing them will help, right? RIGHT? God, just tell me what group I have to hate to make America great again!![DOUBLEPOST=1479658639,1479658298][/DOUBLEPOST]
I don't think Canada nor Mexico actually have anywhere near the level of influence depicted on that map.

--Patrick
I confess that, despite slamming you with the "you're doing the thing again" button, I thought the same thing when I first saw the image and didn't have the guts to be obtuse this morning.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
It's an interesting argument both ways. Why should a tiny state with almost no one in it have such influence over the election? Or, why should the big states dominate every decision while ignoring the smaller ones?

Neither side of the argument owns the high ground. I wish I had a better solution. The polarization of this country means there's always a significant chunk of the country fucking pissed after an election, no matter the outcome. No one would be bitching about the EC if we didn't literally hate both candidates.
But does the electoral college actually cause attention to be paid to the smaller states? I can't see any evidence that it does. Some of the major "swing" states, like Ohio, North Carolina and Florida, actually have less votes relative to their population.



How much of the President's power impacts these lesser populated states in a way that isn't in line with the wants of the population of the country as a whole? Honest quesiton, because I can't remember the last time the President made a decision that Vermont or Wyoming were pissed about, but that didn't also cause a problem in larger states. It seems like the Senate is a much more effective way to make sure that smaller states have power.
 
Last edited:
Seeing as my country narrowly escaped economic ruin, as people in the poorer areas voted in an incompetent populist promising handouts to everyone, while the states that actually contribute 90% to the GDP voted against her.

We ended up leading a mass protest that led to her impeachment and I have started seeing a bit of merit in the electoral college, specially looking at Venezuela, Argentina and France*

*although I finally went back and played Assassin's Creed 3 after finishing most of the series, so it could be the influence of the game.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Seeing as my country narrowly escaped economic ruin, as people in the poorer areas voted in an incompetent populist promising handouts to everyone, while the states that actually contribute 90% to the GDP voted against her.

We ended up leading a mass protest that led to her impeachment and I have started seeing a bit of merit in the electoral college, specially looking at Venezuela, Argentina and France*

*although I finally went back and played Assassin's Creed 3 after finishing most of the series, so it could be the influence of the game.
Ironically, it's the populists this time that (say they) want to cut off the handouts, whereas the big city politicians the electoral college is working against want to increase them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCM

Necronic

Staff member
Looks like Medicare really is on the chopping block. I wonder if this is what he meant when he said he would drain the swamp.
 
Looks like Medicare really is on the chopping block.
It is relatively well agreed on that medicare is unsustainable, given two issues - drastically rising medical costs and the baby boomer retirement.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/15/are-medicare-and-medicaid-sustainable

So both sides of the aisle are interested in making changes. The question is what changes to make.

Trump appears to be bending towards Paul Ryan's recent plan. It doesn't eliminate medicaid, but does change it in a variety of ways in order to control costs. Right now Medicaid is just like an insurance company, and if medical costs go up they simply have to pay more, regardless of the medicaid taxes.

One of the key points of Ryan's plan appears to be fixing the taxes and payout rate of medicaid, so rather than an insurance plan it becomes a subsidy, and seniors would have to choose a plan that fits the subsidy, or pay extra.

It's not much different than the ACA - you get a subsidy, not an insurance plan - from the government.

But Ryan's plan was released this time last year and doubtless will undergo many changes before it becomes signed.

The similarity between Ryan's plan and the ACA, though, suggests that changing both at once might result in an overall more streamlined healthcare system. It's possible that Medicaid will be eliminated as a separate thing altogether, and there will simply be one government healthcare system/service/bureaucracy, though I don't think that's what Ryan's plan called for.

At this point it's all speculation and rumors. "senior aides say..." is not something to become worked up over, but do contact your congresscritters if you are worried about any given rumors, your input may have an effect.[DOUBLEPOST=1479746965,1479746799][/DOUBLEPOST]When I say "fixing the prices" what the plan calls for is having the taxes/payout track a common index, like inflation.

The biggest hole in the plan is that medical costs are rising far faster than inflation. While accelerating medical inflation is due partially to the ACA, the changes being floated for the ACA don't seem to change the basic math so I doubt medical inflation is going to slow down any time soon.[DOUBLEPOST=1479747099][/DOUBLEPOST]Ah, and the bit about the similarity between the ACA and Medicare is completely unfounded guesswork by myself. I've not read anywhere that anyone has suggested combining the two in any way.

Reading those who say it's being "cut" or "eliminated" leads me to believe this might be the only way - seniors will still have medical support of some sort from the government, the only question is what that support looks like and how it's administered.

Again, non-factual guesswork by me on that little bit.
 
And back at the pipeline in sub-freezing temperatures, police set out the water cannons, tear gas, and rubber bullets from behind the safety of the barb wire fence.

Bernie yet again calling on Obama to do something ... Bernie, man, give it up. Obama isn't gonna do shit. Clinton wouldn't have done shit. I don't know what Trump will or will not do, but he won't be helping the protestors. If the politicians had a choice between giving up that pipeline or massacring what's left of every tribe on the eastern side of the U.S., they'd be putting Jackson back on the $20.
 
Wikipedia has a pretty good overview of the whole project, from announcements to opposition and approvals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline
Most pipeline arguments IMO come down to this: Do you want the oil shipped by pipeline, or rail? Rail is more dangerous.

Anything else IMO is (almost entirely) sensationalism. You won't stop oil exploration/development by stopping pipelines. You just make it more dangerous.
 

Dave

Staff member
This pipeline issue is with where they are putting it and what it means for Native Americans. And, of course, the water supply for millions of people.

It also has to do with the rights of corporations of the native population, the breaking of even more treaties, and police overreaction for corporate interests.
 
This pipeline issue is with where they are putting it and what it means for Native Americans. And, of course, the water supply for millions of people.

It also has to do with the rights of corporations of the native population, the breaking of even more treaties, and police overreaction for corporate interests.
The big companies don't even have to hire Pinkertons to smash protesters anymore.
 

Necronic

Staff member
I agree with Eriol that rail is massively more dangerous than pipeline. But I also agree with David that that argument is not an excuse for trampling over the rights of landowners. I think there's a lot of BS static in the air surrounding pipeline development, and pipeline developers are using the existence of that static to hide real issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCM
If the President of the USA held a press conference to reveal that Roswell was an actual alien space craft and they have been studying it for years, following the revelation what could she get away with while everyone else is talking about aliens?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCM
If the President of the USA held a press conference to reveal that Roswell was an actual alien space craft and they have been studying it for years, following the revelation what could she get away with while everyone else is talking about aliens?
One of the few benefits to Trump's inability to keep his mouth shut is that if there are aliens at Area 51, we'll find out soon enough :D.

And yeah, everything Dave said on the pipeline.
 
Medics Describe How Police Sprayed Standing Rock Demonstrators With Tear Gas And Water Cannons
Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier said, “We don’t have water cannons,” explaining, “This is just a fire hose.”
“It was sprayed more as a mist, and we didn’t want to get it directly on them, but we wanted to make sure to use it as a measure to help keep everybody safe,” he said.
The unabridged news conference can be watched here:

The snippet quoted above comes from the Q/A starting at 4:57 (-11:31).
 
One video appears to show protesters being sprayed, but the water was sprayed over the crowd, and protesters had to climb on top of things in order to get in the direct stream of water. I haven't reviewed other videos. Perhaps the protesters were trying to prevent the fires from being put out.

That said, unless the fire is uncontrolled or poses an immediate threat, putting them out and essentially preventing the protesters from keeping warm is pretty mean.
 
Even if it really is just mist that still wouldn't be ok when it's freezing temperatures.
If the fires actually posed a real danger to life, then they have a higher priority than cold people.

Otherwise yes, it's not ok.[DOUBLEPOST=1479835204,1479834992][/DOUBLEPOST]Looks like the Wisconsin legislature got a huge knock on the head today for their 2010 gerrymandering. Unless the state appeals, federal courts ruled that the redistricting performed in 2010 is too partisan, and both sides must suggest a plan within 30 days to resolve the issue. If the state appeals they can push it off and see what the supreme court says.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ting-maps-unconstitutional/ar-AAkAH3p#image=1
 
If the fires actually posed a real danger to life, then they have a higher priority than cold people.

Otherwise yes, it's not ok.[DOUBLEPOST=1479835204,1479834992][/DOUBLEPOST]Looks like the Wisconsin legislature got a huge knock on the head today for their 2010 gerrymandering. Unless the state appeals, federal courts ruled that the redistricting performed in 2010 is too partisan, and both sides must suggest a plan within 30 days to resolve the issue. If the state appeals they can push it off and see what the supreme court says.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ting-maps-unconstitutional/ar-AAkAH3p#image=1
State will appeal. They have been very overt in their desire to cheat the vote.
 
This pipeline issue is with where they are putting it and what it means for Native Americans. And, of course, the water supply for millions of people.

It also has to do with the rights of corporations of the native population, the breaking of even more treaties, and police overreaction for corporate interests.
Here's a map, red is the Keystone, the rest already exist. No other comment.

 

GasBandit

Staff member
Having played a whole buttload of factorio, I feel qualified to say that transportation by rail is a perfectly valid alternative, and that pipelines are a bit of a pain because you keep running them over with your tank by accident when you're driving around. The train, on the other hand, runs over YOU.
 
I agree with Eriol that rail is massively more dangerous than pipeline. But I also agree with David that that argument is not an excuse for trampling over the rights of landowners. I think there's a lot of BS static in the air surrounding pipeline development, and pipeline developers are using the existence of that static to hide real issues.
THAT I agree with. There ARE legitimate issues that come up with regards to landowners (sometimes) but often whatever other issues (that should be addressed) are run roughshod over by the "Piplines are TEH EVILZ!!!!" and the ensuing responses.

I can say that having been in the business for 10 years (but NOT ANYMORE) that they are FAR safer than rail. The product will find a way to market. Use the option that's best for everybody (except the rail companies), INCLUDING the environment.


Edit: and nice map, though incomplete.
 
Top