American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah. Call me an ass, but I'd be all for something like a 5-year cool-off period between switching.

Compensate them, I'm not advocating for putting them out of work, but enabling a buffer of some kind to diminish the benefit of shilling for your old or future company while in office.

You're saying this because of the corruption that comes from being able to take advantage of working in both worlds. On that point I agree.

However if someone works in the public sector, then goes to the private sector and builds a business that wins some fat government contracts, what are you going to do about it?

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by #-3

This seems really unnecessary.

While completely true, the whole world would pretty much be better to see him move on, given the politics at this point in time (which could always change in the next year, you never know), if stumbling over words is your measure, I could present a lot of 20 years olds who are struggling with cognitive decline.

And while "but the other guy" shouldn't matter, the other guy if re-elected would be older in his future term than Biden is in this one, definitely isn't a step ahead of Biden for clarity of speach, if you want to argue that a president has control over inflation he certainly has a level of culpability equal or above Bidens, and while somewhat dangerous for us laymen to armchair diagnose over the internet clearly suffers from an extreme case of narcissistic personality disorder. Given all of the great choices out there, the world is extremely lucky to have Biden.

And all of that said, I don't think it's a decision that should be made early in the process, if Biden plans to step down, let the other guys spend the next 18 months running against him.

Biden's had a speech impediment all his life (stuttering)

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-stutter/

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Azure

You're saying this because of the corruption that comes from being able to take advantage of working in both worlds. On that point I agree.

However if someone works in the public sector, then goes to the private sector and builds a business that wins some fat government contracts, what are you going to do about it?

Is 'drawing and quartering' in the city square still on the table?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

no more billionaires who want to run the country like a corporation.

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Governments are not businesses and shouldn’t be run like businesses.

What if he wants to run the government like a corporation that's running like a better government, though?

Originally Posted by Azure

What Mark Cuban is doing right now with Cost Plug Drugs is rather remarkable.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thoughts on Cuban or Bezos running?

What Mark Cuban is doing right now with Cost Plug Drugs is rather remarkable.

Cuban would be interesting. His primary motivation seems to be leaving a legacy, and has the foresight to shift his resources to causes that are important to a lot of people. I would say that Trump also wants to leave a legacy, but he has zero foresight and can't think beyond anything that can immediately benefit himself personally. IMO a Cuban presidency would look similar to Trump's in that he would be a figurehead primarily, and the real work of governing would fall to his subordinates. But I think he would be more focused on hiring people that would help him further cementing his name in history rather than Trump who only wanted gutless lackeys who agreed with everything he said. President Cuban would probably mold his policy decisions around whatever the most popular polling results were, so he'd probably be a net positive overall given that the popular vote for most social issues swings heavily in favor of liberal ideals

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

I would say that Trump also wants to leave a legacy, but he has zero foresight and can't think beyond anything that can immediately benefit himself personally.

Speaking of which, this is pretty wild. But consistent I guess, anything to save a buck.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1553533320469905409

https://twitter.com/user/status/1553535165611261952

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Speaking of which, this is pretty wild. But consistent I guess, anything to save a buck.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1553533320469905409

https://twitter.com/user/status/1553535165611261952

This is Qanon level nonsense.

[jayswin]

Well I guess the good news is QAnon level nonsense finally came from something other than QAnon? Based on posting history and hating the "CP left" I'd assume that you were gleeful to post that something was QAnon level nonsense that was finally from the "other side".

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

This is Qanon level nonsense.

A simple explanation should clear it up then.

[GGG]

A pretty solid article on the Climate Change proposal.

The new bill will significantly broaden the scope of these incentives, replacing them with technology-neutral tax credits that can be used for any low- or zero-carbon form of power generation. At the outset of a project, developers can make a choice: Either they can take the new investment tax credit, which will generally cover 30 percent of the cost of their project, or they can take the new production tax credit, which will pay them for every kilowatt-hour of zero-carbon electricity that they generate.

When economists at the University of Chicago and the Rhodium Group analyzed an earlier version of this proposal last year, they found that these technology-neutral tax credits were strikingly efficient, creating $1.5 trillion in economic surplus while eliminating more than 5 billion tons of carbon pollution. The tax credits had a benefit-to-cost ratio of about 3 to 1, Michael Greenstone, the Milton Friedman Distinguished Service Professor in Economics at the University of Chicago, told me. “It’s very rare that we get opportunities to have policies with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 3 or 4 to 1. Normally it’s, like, 1.3 to 1, and we economists get very excited,” he said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...limate/670981/

For a subsidy based solution is does a pretty good job at not picking winners. Essentially if you decarbonize the grid you will get tax cuts.

Also creates regulation on venting methane.

It’s a massive corporate subsidy so the Donor Class will like it which should help it get passed.

[Mull]

Doesn't this bill also reinstate the USA's efforts to create minimum global tax rates? I think that is pretty sweet if true.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

This is Qanon level nonsense.

How so? There appears to be a history of shenigans with this land.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...TAX-BREAK.html

The fact that it actually happened seems to go well beyond anything Qanon has dreamed up to date. So why is this nonsense?

[PsYcNeT]

"Trump is a cheap #######" seems a lot less farfetched than "democrats use the basement of a pizza parlor to traffic small eastern european and asian children into the US, murder them, and harvest their adrenochrome to stay young forever"

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mull

Doesn't this bill also reinstate the USA's efforts to create minimum global tax rates? I think that is pretty sweet if true.

Yep that’s in there along with some Medicare funding and drug reform.

[Azure]

BEIJING — China said on Monday that its military “not sit idly by” if U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi visits Taiwan.

The latest warning was issued during a Chinese foreign ministry regular briefing. Spokesperson Zhao Lijian also said that because of Pelosi’s status as the “No. 3 official of the U.S. government,” a visit to Taiwan, which China claims as its own, would “lead to egregious political impact.”

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pm...-visits-taiwan

So since she's visiting, what will China do? Blast Taiwan to the moon?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Azure

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pm...-visits-taiwan

So since she's visiting, what will China do? Blast Taiwan to the moon?

This whole thing is so stupid and pointless. There is zero need for Pelosi to visit Taiwan.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

This whole thing is so stupid and pointless. There is zero need for Pelosi to visit Taiwan.

Honestly, I try not to attribute inane concepts like 'Logic and Reason' to something like American Politicians, or Politicians in general, but in this instance I wonder if she's just thicker than pig#### or whether this might actually be an instance of the US taking a little poke at China during a financial crisis just to see what happens?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

This whole thing is so stupid and pointless. There is zero need for Pelosi to visit Taiwan.

Really? I am on the other side of this.

Taiwan is a de facto independent nation.

The US patrols the Taiwan Straight on an on-going basis. China want's to bully the world, why let them? Taiwan has invited Nancy and Nancy accepted their invite- why shouldn't she go? To appease China? Not interested in that.

I cheer Nancy for this move.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Locke

Honestly, I try not to attribute inane concepts like 'Logic and Reason' to something like American Politicians, or Politicians in general, but in this instance I wonder if she's just thicker than pig#### or whether this might actually be an instance of the US taking a little poke at China during a financial crisis just to see what happens?

The only reasons I can really see for them doing this is to appeal to the anti-China sentiments in the US and to create a heightened sense of fear of conflict where Pelosi and Biden can end up being seen as showing strength as standing up for America's values/interests globally. That barely makes any sense to me either though. It just seems nuts, and quite a gamble.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

The only reasons I can really see for them doing this is to appeal to the anti-China sentiments in the US and to create a heightened sense of fear of conflict where Pelosi and Biden can end up being seen as showing strength as standing up for America's values/interests globally. That barely makes any sense to me either though. It just seems nuts, and quite a gamble.

Recall, at least publicly, the Biden admin condemn the visit.