Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Naturegirl1999]

"America, you look like an Arab country right now."

That is a truly epic piece of satire.

Spoiler: "Perhaps the American people aren't ready for democracy after all." (click to show/hide)

What does this new flag mean? What do the different co,ors mean?

[Lord Shonus]

Black, Red, and Green are the predominant colors of many Middle Eastern states. The "satirical" article linked above is a claim that the US government is now as functional as those found in the nations that usually use those colors.

[Naturegirl1999]

Thank you

[sluissa]

Re: Term limits

I'm still against them. If a group finds a politician they actually LIKE and that represents them well, why should they have to find a new one after 4-12 years? Why should we be handing the lifelong, experienced lobbyists of D.C. a bunch of fresh fish that have no clue how to handle themselves every couple of elections? Why would we choose to do this for politicians but not any other profession? You've been a doctor for 10 years? I think that's long enough, you're learning how to be a doctor too well. Do you LIKE lame duck politicians who don't give a damn what they do in their last term because they know they aren't up for reelection again? Because that's how you get a bunch of lame duck politicians who WILL be turning to those lobbyists, asking them what they need to do to make sure they have a cushy job after they're term limited.

The problem isn't that we need term limits. The problem is that the party structure has become too powerful and made it so that an incumbent in a safely leaning area has almost perfect protection from primary challenges. If we made it easier to just vote them out for better options then we wouldn't need term limits.

Now, mandatory retirement age? I'd be more in favor of that. But even that is isn't necessary, I believe.

EDIT: Typo'd. I don't believe the retirement age is necessary, despite my desire to have fewer geriatrics in office. If they're doing a good job, then perhaps their experience is a benefit. But if they're not, then it just needs to be easier to vote them out rather than forced out via some procedure. Still... once you hit your 70s it's probably time to pass the torch... to steal a phrase from the last debate.

[Naturegirl1999]

Re: Term limits

I'm still against them. If a group finds a politician they actually LIKE and that represents them well, why should they have to find a new one after 4-12 years? Why should we be handing the lifelong, experienced lobbyists of D.C. a bunch of fresh fish that have no clue how to handle themselves every couple of elections? Why would we choose to do this for politicians but not any other profession? You've been a doctor for 10 years? I think that's long enough, you're learning how to be a doctor too well. Do you LIKE lame duck politicians who don't give a damn what they do in their last term because they know they aren't up for reelection again? Because that's how you get a bunch of lame duck politicians who WILL be turning to those lobbyists, asking them what they need to do to make sure they have a cushy job after they're term limited.

The problem isn't that we need term limits. The problem is that the party structure has become too powerful and made it so that an incumbent in a safely leaning area has almost perfect protection from primary challenges. If we made it easier to just vote them out for better options then we wouldn't need term limits.

Now, mandatory retirement age? I'd be more in favor of that. But even that is necessary, I believe.

Thank you for these thoughts. I haven’t thought of this, my thinking was if they knew they weren’t here forever they would spend more time making laws and less time fundraising for elections, and people in areas that have no challengers would have to quit, making room for someone new. I like the mandatory retirement age idea. There is a point where people get stuck in their ways and don’t change. That shouldn’t be here. We need people open to change things that are broken, not just spout off that America is number 1 and fix nothing

[smjjames]

Turns out Marianne Williamson turns out to be the second most searched candidate after Kamala Harris. Though I wonder how much of those are 'who is this weirdo?' searches than 'I like this person, who is she?' searches.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Age of Aquarius begins again

[sluissa]

Turns out Marianne Williamson turns out to be the second most searched candidate after Kamala Harris. Though I wonder how much of those are 'who is this wierdo?' searches than 'I like this person, who is she?' searches.

Eh, Gabbard won on searches the first night, iirc. But she ended the debates flat with no noticable gain or loss in polls... still ~1%. I'd just put it down to "Who is this weirdo" more than anything else.

[McTraveller]

Bunch of US states' gas tax increases take effect this month.  Good for hydrocarbon use, perhaps, but how the heck are we going to fund roads when we accelerate the reduction in fuel use?

I'm not a fan of odometer monitoring equipment, nor am I fan of a tax that will inevitably added to electricity in general.

Fun.

[sluissa]

Bunch of US states' gas tax increases take effect this month.  Good for hydrocarbon use, perhaps, but how the heck are we going to fund roads when we accelerate the reduction in fuel use?

I'm not a fan of odometer monitoring equipment, nor am I fan of a tax that will inevitably added to electricity in general.

Fun.

Good. We should have raised taxes back when the price started falling back down from $4+ a gallon. People had gotten used to that. Wouldn't have hurt that bad to just hold it steady there.

I do agree though, the road taxes should be spread out better among everyone rather than just the ones that use fuel heavily. Everyone uses the roads, either directly or indirectly, not just the people who drive. But a tax on fuel use is still good to help keep its use down. Consider it less an infrastructure tax and more a sin tax akin to alcohol or tobacco. Funnel that money into infrastructure improvement and technology advancement for the eventual transition to more alternative fuel/electric vehicles. Slowly increase the tax and as those vehicles become a viable option for most of the population, you subsidize them in a big short term push for a switch over from gas to electric/whatever. That'll lose you a lot of that tax revenue, but it'll also mean a large economy of electric car sales/resale/repair/maintenance has to spring up as well, which will lower the costs of those vehicles in the long term.

[Naturegirl1999]

Bunch of US states' gas tax increases take effect this month.  Good for hydrocarbon use, perhaps, but how the heck are we going to fund roads when we accelerate the reduction in fuel use?

I'm not a fan of odometer monitoring equipment, nor am I fan of a tax that will inevitably added to electricity in general.

Fun.

Good. We should have raised taxes back when the price started falling back down from $4+ a gallon. People had gotten used to that. Wouldn't have hurt that bad to just hold it steady there.

I do agree though, the road taxes should be spread out better among everyone rather than just the ones that use fuel heavily. Everyone uses the roads, either directly or indirectly, not just the people who drive. But a tax on fuel use is still good to help keep its use down. Consider it less an infrastructure tax and more a sin tax akin to alcohol or tobacco. Funnel that money into infrastructure improvement and technology advancement for the eventual transition to more alternative fuel/electric vehicles. Slowly increase the tax and as those vehicles become a viable option for most of the population, you subsidize them in a big short term push for a switch over from gas to electric/whatever. That'll lose you a lot of that tax revenue, but it'll also mean a large economy of electric car sales/resale/repair/maintenance has to spring up as well, which will lower the costs of those vehicles in the long term.

sluissa for President, 2020
This sounds like a good plan, and well thought out

[sluissa]

I'll pass on that one. I can't even say the pledge of allegiance without feeling sick. Not sure I could get through the oath of office without vomiting all over whoever gets the duty of swearing me in. Also I hate babies and shaking hands. I basically can't run a campaign without those.

[McTraveller]

which will lower the costs of those vehicles in the long term.

Sorry, I'm laughing too hard at this part...


*whew* Ok - yes, the rest of your post I agree with - almost.  The main problem with high fuel taxes in the short run is that they are insanely regressive in the US.  We have a very interconnected system where our current infrastructure mans that if you can't afford the price of an electric vehicle (which is high compared to ICE vehicles) you are stuck, and because fuel costs more it will be even more difficult to save for an electric.

Regarding the part about "bringing down the cost of those vehicles" - we are well beyond the point in history where technological advancements are going to result in lower prices for vehicles.  Due to the massive barriers to entry to vehicle development, vehicle prices are just going to increase, not decrease.  We're also going to likely end up with a new three-letter agency (or new authority for the NTSB or something) to deal with autonomous vehicles; those vehicles are going to start costing the same as light aircraft at best. We're going to be forced to ride-share; the majority of the public is not going to be able to afford private ownership of autonomous vehicles.

So we can't just hike gasoline taxes - we need to start restructuring the entire system.  It's this lack of systems thinking that bugs me most about politics... the interactions between various "solutions" often have massive emergent results of questionable merit.

(Sluissa - for some reason I have this image now of you with uncontrollably shaking hands, preventing you from running for office... )

[Il Palazzo]

Regarding the part about "bringing down the cost of those vehicles" - we are well beyond the point in history where technological advancements are going to result in lower prices for vehicles.  Due to the massive barriers to entry to vehicle development, vehicle prices are just going to increase, not decrease.  We're also going to likely end up with a new three-letter agency (or new authority for the NTSB or something) to deal with autonomous vehicles; those vehicles are going to start costing the same as light aircraft at best. We're going to be forced to ride-share; the majority of the public is not going to be able to afford private ownership of autonomous vehicles.

Where did you get that +3 Crystal Ball of Unsubstantiated Prognostication?

[McTraveller]

Industry conferences.

Not marketing events - actual engineering and policy conferences.

There are some companies who think they are "fine", but the realistic ones realize that a singe cybersecurity event, or more than a handful of things that are even 1/10 as damaging as the 737 MAX issue, is going to seriously hamper the industry.

The lack of control OEMs have on things as simple as personal vehicle maintenance is going to be a big issue. You may be able to say a vehicle is safe if it's well maintained - but what about neglect? What about improper maintenance?  You might say "oh just disable the vehicle" - but nobody (individuals or fleet operators like Uber) wants vehicles that just stop working and refuse to move.  So who is going to be responsible for maintenance? How will it be tracked and recorded?

Basically these are all the characteristics of health care and aviation.