#politics
1 messages ยท Page 18 of 1
My computer science class went from 30 students to 5 on the second year, because it was java programming instead of the typical scratch/general computer info stuff
A CCIE in most countries is a guaranteed 6 figure salary.
Not here, a network engineer will not earn 6 figures
If you like networking, it's probably the most useful certification to get, and more useful than a degree.
I'm probably going into artifical intelligence if I can
I think I earn 58k now, as a 23 year old in germany, that's not bad
And I could earn way more if I was gonna switch companies
They used to publish a CCIE by country chart, they don't anymore, sad.
There are only 17k in the world though
All of the CCIE job positions I could find in Germany with the salary published are between 90K EUR, and 170K EUR. Majority with no other qualifications. None of them have a maximum (i.e. some have a range like 90K-140K) salary under 100k EUR.
If you earn that much in germany you have other qualifications
100k here != 100k in the US
In the US a normal dev can get 100k, right?
Oh okay, yeah.
Since stuff like public healthcare and other social systems
Are payed by the employer for you
(partly)
Yeah they are partly paid by the employer in the US now too.
If you choose to get health insurance the employer pays a portion of it as far as I understand the ACA.
Prior to it being a choice, they just had to pay for it.
Healthcare isn't a choice here
Health insurance or healthcare?
You can choose the company tho or choose to get private health care (if you earn about x)
That's the same
Healthcare is payed for by the mandatory health insurance
Ah gotcha, it's insurance that the employer pays for. Yeah, it wasn't in the US until recently, think 2017.
Well it was, but they'd fine you heavily if you didn't.
It's not all payed by the employer, it's also removed from your wage
It's kinda complicated I guess
I think employer tied healthcare is horrible
We make sure that unemployed ppl have health care too
I do too, though I like the way Germany did it better than the US
Mainly due to the choice factor
Afaik, unemployed people do have some means to get healthcare
My understanding may be incorrect, but when initially setup the US one was a lot less competition.
The problem is that the money could have gone towards wages, which in turn would provide the employee the choice in a private healthcare insurance market
but we are in this odd mixmatch setup made and enforced by the government
The issue is generally more-so the people who are employed but generally part time, etc, where they're in that weird band of not being protected by one scheme and not being able to really afford private, etc
Anyone e here from Canada?
Nobody here needs to get private
Ppl here go private since it can be cheaper
Especially if you young and earn good
Well, yea, private has competition which causes a price drive
My best mate has a condition referred to as HS
Private with precondition is brutal
She had to wait like six months ontop of a year and a half of varying guess treatments etc to get a prescription for a immunosuppressant
That drug is only available through like one doctor in the UK who actually has a license to deal with it, and basically, that 6 months was waiting on approval of funding for it, because they don't wanna throw the cash on stuff if it might cause much risk when other options are potentially available, and looots of blood tests, etc
Preconditions are a tough one for me. I think the best way to handle it is preconditions are not a factor unless you run out of allowed coverage.
The thing is, that because there is only one person paying for it, it's not like there is any drive for "Well, we charge X, but they can go Y to get it for cheaper, so we lose out on sales",
this is why I would rather opt into the I would pay for it rather than government
It's literally just a game of bargining until the NHS tells you to fuck off, leaving treatments off the table
For example if you have $1000 for general surgery, and your preexisting condition ends up costing you 1500, you have to upgrade your coverage.
enforicing pre-existing conditions to not be a "fuck off" case is really a weird one
From a societal standpoint, yes, 100%
For a business, insurance is quite literally gambling on your health
Preconditions aren't a factor in public here. For private there are two options, you either pay a premium or you exclude coverage
That's up to the company
Yeah, if you force it by law, you drive prices up for everyone.
Also, don't say anything bad about insurance, am working for one ๐
Altho the health stuff is literally the sector with all the assholes
I think the middle-ground is my idea. Insurance can't turn you away due to a condition, but they can't be expected to handle you differently either.
it's a weird one
So your insurance may cost you more depending on the condition and the treatments you may need, but you can still get insurance easily.
If you force everybody to get insurance, you don't nessasary drive up prices
For public stuff you lower prices, thats the idea of insurance, the more ppl pay the less the prices
Since it's a collective
You increase the risk of payout when you're insuring people with pre-conditions
It's like going up to a table with only high card values left
You're probably gonna lose
Ppl with preconditions would be the ones getting insurance in the first place
It can go either way technically, depending on how it is implemented.
I mean, I literally know how we calculate stuff here. The more ppl join, the more money we have to play with, that's a big factor too
Insurances make money similar to banks
They play with your money
Tightly regulated of course
I mean, you're also talking about a country with a huge obesity pandemic and pre-existing conditions basically on the rise because of lifestyle choices, etc
Under what conditions can an insurance company raise premiums to all their members in Germany?
That's really complicated
Basically, it's a percentage of your wage
For public stuff
But lets say their costs are 1,000,000 EUR, and their premiums only rake in 980,000, can they raise the premiums so they are profitable again?
And if that's not enough for a given company, they can ask all their members for additional stuff
Yes
That's this additional stuff
That's basically where you got the price competition in public
And if they raise this additional thing, you are allowed to switch
So theoretically, if they have 100,000 members that only cost them 980,000 a year, and they then get in 1,000 members that cost them an additional 980,000 a year, the 100,000 members will have their premiums at least doubled?
I guess that could happen, yeah
It's an extreme example obviously.
But for that some heavy miscalculations would have been made, lol
And they can operate on a loss for certain period of time, and they themselves have insurance
Well not necessarily, if you force people to get health insurance and a majority don't need to claim on it, then those individuals are going to be paying a lot for nothing.
it's a gamble on both sides
Public insurance works because since everybody has to pay, it's fair. You can't not pay when the probability of issues is low and enter when you are older, that would be unfair
I mean, there's arguments to be made that throwing money in a pot is a better option for most people
It's just that "when shit happens", sometimes that might not work out to be enough, and in the long run you might be paying more than throwing it in a pot, but, hey, it's there when you need it
Well, since an insurance have a big fucking pot, they can let that money work
Their gamble is praying that you don't end up needing expensive ass treatment which takes your personal profit into the negatives
But generally yes, insurance is a game of fear
I doubt there is a system that everyone thinks is fair, is mainly my point.
Dumpy rumpy will not win again
dont be so confident on that, people were confident on that in 2016 too
he has a lot of support
you got trump with a super energetic supporters who genuinely love him, vs the left which is in shambles and people who are voting for someone they dont support just to vote against trump.
Sure some "love" biden, but thats gonna be much smaller compared to the people who love trump.
felt like a kick in the balls voting for biden myself
i genuinely dont want him to be president, but i want trump even less., so lesser of the super evils
Yeah the picks this year are nearly as bad as last year.
Trump base is definitely more enthusiastic about voting than the Biden base.
Additionally a lot of his base sabotage polls by lying.
Oh also a lot of polls exclude people who didn't vote in all 4 of the last general elections, which has excluded a lot of his base.
yeah, it wouldnt shock me
that excludes a lot of young voters too
Yeah it does
that can go either way, usually the younger crowd that is voting for biden is usually within the cities
Polls are not very accurate, and 2016 they showed how inaccurate they could be, the inaccuracy was probably the worst of any general election in modern history.
People like to dismiss it and say how close it was, but the electoral votes he won where he wasn't expected, he beat many of them by 5-9%
Yeah, I cant take the polls at face value
But I do think trump might have an edge in many areas compared to biden
considering all the unrest going on
Biden's silence on that speaks volumes
are you watching the same Biden I am?
"silence" is not what I'd use to describe Biden's campaign on the unrest
all ive heard from him is covid covid covid
I was 50/50 on that until recently, thought that Biden being elected may just make people calm down, but allegedly there are lots of riots planned for the 4th regardless of who wins.
Also yeah, to be fair recently Biden has denounced the violence.
yeah, people just want chaos
I dislike Biden but I try to be fair/honest (not saying you aren't, just maybe you've not seen it yet)
my own prediction is that it would be much worse with Trump
he would continue his campaigns, I think
@elder portal trump winning or losing?
which is what helped cause a lot of this in the first place
Well realistically, the states have resisted executive assistance.
The states that have welcomed it have put the unrest to bed.
yeah, that "assistance" wasn't really actually assistance
just incited more violence
Theoretically if Biden wins that would be easier, since the Democrat states would welcome Democrat executive assistance.
and all of the "assistance" was in largely democratic-cities
I just can't really support anyone who not only doesn't denounce that kind of violence and behavior, but actively encourages it
and that's just one of many, many issues
National Guard has been deployed to 23 states. Most seem to be Republican states.
conservative areas werent hit really hard during the unrest, its been mainly cities
Let me just confirm, my geography to political mapping is not very accurate sometimes.
depends on how they were deployed - most of it was peaceful, against COVID
not against riots
makes it hard to differentiate
regardless, deployment against unrest made things drastically worse in most situations
hindsight being 2020, that was a bad call
The problem is what else is there to do?
if the state doesnt deploy, they are seen as weak
I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say it was the best move at the time, but I'm not 100% convinced on that either
if they do deploy, they are seen as abusive
its an unending cycle when that does roll around
I think there's better ways to end a protest than to deploy military to it
usually you kill it before it starts by looking at why the protest is there in the first place
I'd love to hear the distinction between a protest and burning builds down, tryna barricade them with people inside, smashing windows of businesses built my mom and pop, etc
The problem is that extemists know how to control a protest and turn it into a wildfire
people can be unhappy, but to get a protest or riot you need some real, fundamental issues a lot of people are very angry about
It's the same issue as moderating a community
it's 11 to 12, so roughly the same
considering plenty of people within the portland/seattle/chicago riots were out of city/state
You can't deal with real issues when you're tryna also deal with people flaming, etc
peaceful protests happen all the time. What drove these people to an unpeaceful one?
or straight-up riots?
Also the city itself has no legal right to deny the national guard, only the governor does.
Many of the communities which also listened to the calls of defunding the police, etc, has seen violence go up
portland apparently can't promise you they'll respond to a call in any form of timeframe
Yeah, its also been the more progressive cities that have seen spikes in crime and more violent riots
I wonder why?
I havent heard of dallas protests going to the point of looting and rioting
I'm literally for the states who wish to defund/abolish/replace the police to try it. But I predict ruin.
a handful of republican states have seen crime spike too
Not sure on numbers, but that ain't purely on the dem side, but, defunding and states basically not supporting their police force defo doesn't help
"defund" doesn't usually mean something as extreme as completely abolishing police departments. There's some extremists, sure, but largely it's far more moderate than that
Also with the proviso that any defunding that occurs gets paid to federal coffers if they require the national guard due to the defunding.
"defund the police" meaning "abolish police departments" is largely a strawman erected by opposition
The issue is that there are several difference stances on what defund means, at what point do you happen to make them happy enough to stop destroying cities?
Yeah, but I think that if a state wishes to try a new policing model, what ever that looks like, as per their constitutional authority, should be allowed to do so.
NYC mayor said that he'd stand with the protests and BLM
With reasonable caveats.
"defund" usually means allocating excess resources to police departments to things like mental health institutions instead, which have been showsn to reduce crime far more than police have
His apparentment got a visit in the night with people screaming for him to resign
Of course.
because police departments have been made a "catch-all" for everything not normal in life
I have heard defund/abolish
Minnesota was apparently working on it
and you can't expect a single entity to deal with everything effectively by giving them a badge and a gun
They where planning to get rid of the police entirely and basically have a "pretty police"
when all you have is a hammer, everything's a nail
I agree.
The police need better training and states need to shove more into proper health services
more training isn't the issue, but it's perhaps par of a solution
But I'm no expert in the matter, and would not expect to be called one, just expect that rapid and major structure changes to police or their funding will result in ruin.
the issue is that we send police to do literally everything from mental health crisis to car accidents to ticketing to domestic violence to riots
I do think there needs to be changes, but think they need to be methodical.
yes
Yes, which is why mental health defo needs to be treated seperatly
That being said, governments are not good at methodical, and when they try they're usually slow as fuck.
Right now you've got the police acting as far too many roles
police are usually on call or patrolling
its why they respond first
I dont see health professionals rolling around in trucks waiting for when someone has a heart attack
we could use some of the (seriously excess in some cases) funding for police to places like mental health institutions. For example, bringing a psychologist along with police in some instances to assist
Well, police need to be trained in handling a mental health related issue.
There is no way to prevent them being called in those situations 100% of the time.
I mean, yes and no
So when they are accidentally called, they need to know how to recognize that and how to deal with it.
They need better training in how to deal with it, but they shouldn't be the 1st call as much as they are
"more training" is usually the "end the conversation" solution. It's easy to say, but there's been a lot of "we need more training for X" just shoved onto police forces as a solution
that's not really a solution
that's a lot of "training"
Police are always going to be part of the role
might as well require PHDs
I agree with that too, most states on both sides of the isle have said how much better they'll do, and how police should get more training, but do shit all.
as much as we hate it, if somebody is being violent, health assistance are rarely trained for that
Well one problem I see with removing the police aspect in mental health cases, is when someone is openly hostile (drugs and whatnot), what should first responders do?
one viable solution is to send a health professional along with police forces. It solves one type of issue, but more often than not people aren't violent to start with
police arent there, and they are parked in a long driveway
That's another reasonable situation where police do need to be involved, and trained to handle that with kid gloves.
"what if they get violent?" is an argument I see a lot. I'm sure it's said more often than it actually happens.
sure, yeah, people can get violent
but is that really the blocker?
it's a nuanced problem, and, really, the best solution is to try to capture this stuff before it even gets anywhere near that far
that's what "defund the police" is supposed to do
Well then we need to equip both police and the people (paramedics?) who deal with a mental health crisis situation, with tasers.
tasers dont work always
tasers are useless
some drugs can really do some funky stuff with your system
remove some of the funding from police and re-allocate it to institutions that have actually been shown to reduce these types of things entirely
Like, yea, they're handy to have and all, but, I wouldn't bet my life on a taser
Well, with some form of non-lethal means to incapacitate someone quickly.
news reports extremist views because that's what gets clicks
Not just for the respondents safety, but the person in the crisis.
so a lot of the "abolish police" you see is a vocal minority
@shut vine blow to the head? that would cause more injury and might be even worse than getting a bullet to the chest
We had someone here advocate for abolishing the police yesterday.
there isnt a good way
Imho, better funding for mental health services, and getting rid of unions, that's really what should be the first steps
there's institutions that have been proven to reduce crime or acts of violence. Re-allocate some of the police funding to those, and you won't need as many police for those types of situations
most ways to knock someone out cold takes time other than blunt force
Yeah I agree zzzCat, make the things unions are meant to protect part of the law.
public unions should be banned
Make unionization obsolete or illegal.
I mean, the issue is, you gotta put yourself in harms way to get close enough to take many of the "defensive steps" people say
@shut vine or stop making them act like side businesses
Cases where an "unarmed" suspect had a knife, what do police do in those cases?
Yeah at least make the business aspect of unions illegal.
I mean, the issue is that the union has too much control in who gets fired and who stays
^
police unions are by far the most powerful union in the US
by a long, long, long way
Well that's just due to size.
a lot of public sector unions are powerful
It needs to be equal and fair though.
It's a mixture of laws and union pleasing
police unions are still the most powerful
You can't just strip police of their rights, it has to be everyone.
because police isnt a private organization
It has to be measured too
it goes to the government to complain
There's countless stories of a whistleblower bringing to the attention some rotten apple who gets fired because the unions buds with them in some capacity
rather than to the business
Yeah but, people choose to be police officers, they are not forced.
I'm trying to articulate the risk I can see but not sure how to word it.
If police can be fired due to the allegation of police brutality alone, no sane person will want to serve as a police officer.
They do need protections and fairness applied to when they get fired, however unions have abused that.
I personally think a part of the solution is to make sure we equip every officer with a body camera and they must have it turned on at all times.
I hear "it's only a few bad apples" a lot
they forget the second part, "ruin the bunch"
I believe the rough cost is 250 million US a year to achieve that but I think it's a worthwhile investment.
Yeah the idea that it's only a few bad apples is a bit of a logical fallacy, it doesn't say there isn't a problem.
There is a problem, it needs to be fixed as best as possible, however; it's a delicate problem to solve.
I mean, I disagree with being fired for pure allegations unless there are witnesses, etc, but, that gets nuanced, which is part of where body cams would be much better
Yeah exactly.
I think that media is also a shitstorm too as they often report stuff inaccuratly
Make all incident related footage public record.
Yeah it is.
I think having the FBI investigate these matters and abolishing IA is probably a good solution. Also make all the footage storage part of the FBI or DOJ.
Add funding to the FBI/DOJ to handle the increased work and IT needs.
Centralization in this instance is probably more money efficient.
A few very carefully decided federal standards for police is probably in order. Particularly around training.
Interestingly, wall street banks have donated 5 dollars to Biden for every 1 dollar they donated to Trump.
This might be the best vid to represent 2020
us Game Devs currently trying to create entertainment in 2020 for y'all
180
817
lmao
Well, today is the day. (or not)
A big part of me wants someone to win decisively and today
doesnt help anyone if the counting takes longer
i get what youre saying. i want it to be just over
She nodded. "Like Multivac."
"The first computers were much smaller than Multivac. Bu the machines grew bigger and they could tell how the election would go from fewer and fewer votes. Then, at last, they built Multivac and it can tell from just one voter."```
You think its better if counting x million votes takes 2 weeks vs counting the same number of votes in a day?
Ey. Don't forget to vote.
I'm not here to tell you who to vote for. Just vote if you can.
I think I am probably against more people voting. I'm def for more informed people voting. But I'm against the person, who has absolutely no understanding of what they are voting for, voting.
more voting simply to increase the number of people who vote, isn't smart. more voting because a greater number of people have an interest in making a change, or keeping something the way it is, is a good thing.
you share the same opinion as the founding fathers, then
who erected the electoral college because they didn't trust the common man to vote
despite the fact that the issues voted on affect the common man
yeah, you should be as informed as you can when you vote
but that's that
well the electoral college exists for several reasons, not just that one
but saying "the common man" isn't really accurate.
it was to protect against uninformed voters
common man doesn't equal uniformed man
Originally, anyone without land couldn't vote. That was a very select few
And done on purpose
Though issues voted on affected everyone
yeah, and I disagree with that. and it was changed. so all good there.
As is true today, issues voted on affect everyone
What was up with Trump having Lil Pump come up and talk at a rally?
right, but if you don't care enough to learn an ounce of information about what you are voting for
Trump called him Lil Pimp I think
He did, yeah.
The question is, how do you separate the uninformed from everyone else? How do you determine who is uninformed or otherwise ill-suited to vote? Then, how do you avoid the slippery slope that comes from that decision?
I, of course, am not advocating for taking away the right to vote for any citizen, ever (without due process). Im just against the whole rock the vote thing
It's best to let everyone vote
yeah, you can't separate that out, and so you don't. I just don't support all these big pushes to get more people to vote without also promoting understanding what you are voting for
nah, imaBASKET I dont think thats a good idea. No more restrictions on who can vote, I just don't think encouraging more voting simply to increase the quantity of votes is good. I want to increase the quality and quantity of votes
Broken down, the argument is fundamentally the same between yours and the founding father's. "Certain people or groups are ill-suited to vote, therefore not everyone should vote"
Which makes sense until you start trying to apply or enforce it
you talking to me? cause I just said I dont want anyone's ability to vote taken away
that's where the distinction ends, yes
I was attacking your argument
I think I am probably against more people voting
Wtf is this discussion, everybody should vote, uninformed or not. Because who are you to judge that?
do you think everyone should be required to vote then mini?
I would love voting to somehow be a requirement, like jury duty
that brings its own complications, though
and im not saying what the criteria what "uninformed" is, but "you" know when you are uninformed
so in practice requiring voting wouldn't really work well
idk what uninformed looks like to anyone else, and I'm not trying to define it. But if you (random person) are uninformed, you should make the choice yourself to not vote.
voting as a requirement is not good. prob require an amendment cause it would violate the first amendment
freedom of speech/press?
that's a bit of a hard sell
maybe cruel and unusual punishment. lol
nobody should have to go through our current voting process
you are taking away my right "not to express" myself
but it's the only way to be heard, so do it anyway
which is protected by the first amendment
because not expressing myself is a form of expression
well, thankfully it's a non-issue and likely will never be a requirement
because the fewer people that vote the more power the voters that do have, and the more control the big two parties have
nobody wants that kind of thing to pass
It would probably be some old white dudes idea of morality and bs
yeah, bunch of bs that means nothing
"elect someone worth electing"
great, thanks, good advice
wouldn't have thought of that
yay, electoral college
yeah, that's kinda the point
elect someone who will then vote for president for you
which, uh.. Doesn't really make much sense
because, ya know.. Could just vote for the president directly.
isn't that kinda how PMs are elected? by the members of parliament?
sounds a lot like deciding who will vote to me
our voting system is already flawed, and adding on top of it the several times that presidents have been elected through the college but missed the popular vote undermines what many people would expect to happen
electoral college doesn't even have to vote in accordance with their state, and that's happened before
pissed a lot of people off
it all serves to undermine faith in the system
rocking the boat too hard
and that is dangerous
I mean... it boils down to... convince enough people to change it, and itll change. But that'll be a long slow fight to get 38 state legislatures to weaken their election power.
"just elect someone new who will vote properly for you" is an argument I hear a lot on that.
Yeah, thanks for the advice. Good talk.
yeah, states are starting to pass bills that skirt the electoral college entirely
our state just put it on the ballot this year
other states have started to pass it
do you think everyone should be required to vote then mini?
@faint radish I mean, that's hard to control and force and stuff, but it's a civil duty and everybody should be encouraged and enabled to do it easily
if enough states pass it, it comes into effect
yeah, im not sold on the constitutionality of that compact thing between states regarding popular vote
I assume when it happens itll get challenged and we'll find out
the constitution is flawed, at any rate. We cling to it too hard
I mean... its the law. if we don't adhere to it... what's the point of laws?
Ending electoral college is already under way and has most of the needed votes
Just needs a little bit more
yeah, thats the part that might make the vote compact thing unconstitutional
I mean... its the law. if we don't adhere to it... what's the point of laws?
@faint radish laws need to be updated
I mean, it's needed to be amended.. How many times? 26, or something? That's 26 too many for something that's described as "perfect" quite a lot
constitution made slavery into law, as well
so I mean
@near glen yes for sure. but we have a process for that. and that needs to be followed.
clearly not perfect by any means
we have current laws that uphold very well, and some that don't
we change what doesn't work and keep what does
that's progress
though the arrow of progress is rarely ever straight or forward
ultimately we take steps forward
but instead of creating new laws that make sense and abolishing ones that don't we stick to a document written 233 years ago
sure, yes, there's a fair amount of the constitution that fundamentally holds true
Alaska Alabama Arkansas Arizona California Colorado Connecticut DC Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Iowa Idaho Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Massachusetts Maryland Maine Michigan Minnesota Missouri Mississippi Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampsh...
but lord is a lot of it dated
right aikar, and im saying that might be unconstitutional. itll for sure be challenged if it ever happens
it's damned hard to change anything in the constitution
in some cases it should be
some cases
but those should be re-written where things make sense
government should be very slow.
in some cases, it should be
in others..
well..
COVID.
the government being slow to respond to COVID is a big part of how we got where we are
if the idea is that we should be ultimately moving forward, perhaps re-thinking a document that's used as a weapon so often written 200+ years ago is a way to do that. It sounds drastic, but there's so much debate about how it's supposed to be interpreted that in many cases it makes more sense to ditch those parts
the electoral college, for example, can vote entirely freely because it took a long time for the college to convene in one place to vote. Transportation was slow. Things may have changed drastically by the time they got to voting. Now, everything's instant and that law doesn't make any sense
yet still people cling to it because "it's in the constitution"
personally, I'm tired of that excuse
the founding fathers weren't perfect human beings, the constitution isn't a perfect document, and nobody could have predicted what 200+ years in the future would look like even if they were
yeah, changing even that tiny part of it has taken the better part of a decade
"slow" is one way to describe it
it's still not changed
just a lot of states have agreed to ignore it
It has to be slow, all constitutions are, otherwise some guy waltzs in and changes it to say only has the power lol
I don't disagree that these things should be slow
but perhaps there's a limo speed that should be in effect, here
we should be going 40, we're going 5
actually, there's a fantastic episode of "Adam Ruins Everything" on this exact thing. "Adam Ruins America"
the U.S. is great in a ton of ways, but there's still flaws
I get the joke, but that was pretty flat
good try, though
also @autumn lotus unrelated but slightly related, 30% of the population already defines laws for everyone because of red-mapping
there's a great episode on Planet Money on it

basically a single group managed to elect many, many republicans into office all across the U.S., which resulted in an overwhelming Republican majority that completely skewed everything
Ok but you should stop getting your politics from comedy shows
been happening over the last decade or so as well
et. voila
it's a good listen
yeah, it's 50 states
and territories
not exactly, at least not right now
in fact it';s deliberately unequal
smaller states get more electoral college representatives
which is designed to be fair
but it's not equal
equality != fairness
but especially not right now, where one group has decided votes to offices for Republicans across the entirely of the U.S., often in hyper-local elections
it's genuinely interesting how they came up with the idea and managed to pull it off
but also, yikes
means a majority of offices across the U.S. are no longer representative of the population
it's way off
but that was a bit of an aside
also @sharp bronze you can have comedy and politics in one show. John Oliver, Late Show, etc are all similar
comedy doesn't invalidate the idea being presented
it just hides the pain ๐ข
I was talking electoral college. Not sure about senate
I still fundamentally disagree with its existence
there's a lot of things about our systems I disagree with, but obviously changing it all would also be disastrous and undermine our faith in the system
however, they're all things to look at
people having the ability to game the system with targeted ads at exactly the right time likely wasn't intentional design, and should be fixed even if it was
for example
supposed to be, yes
that's the idea, anyway
I'm sure someone can pick holes in even that idea, but I think it's fine until proven otherwise
but reality has a way of slapping theory around
if there's a system, people will find a way to game it
patching those holes in a good idea, even if it's fundamental issues created by the system we're trying to protect
it's cat-and-mouse, and refusing to update systems that are holding us back is detrimental to ensuring a republic OR a democracy
changes made too slowly or too quickly have the same effect, and it's bad. There's a happy medium somewhere
somewhere
but I'm not sure we're at that happy medium yet
popular vote, under our current system, still won't make everyone happy. It's a start, though
our voting system, first-past-the-post, is fundamentally flawed
you vote for one person, leading to a two-party system where at most only 50% of people are happy and usually it's far less
and that's before gerrymandering or convoluted voting laws take effect
really removing the electoral college is part of the solution to the problem where the other part is fundamentally changing how we vote
but it's a start
that strawman came out of fucking nowhere
hit by the Nazi bus
I'm not defending Nazi, Germany
you're not putting me in a position to defend them
burying that strawman right now
there are many differences between removing an electoral college and voting for hitler
there are many, many other systems where a popular vote works
sometimes it works poorly, sometimes it works well
it depends on the voting system and the electorates
I love listening ppl talk about nazi germany when they have no idea
the one thing I remember from speech class was that Hitler was a phenomenal speaker. Knew exactly how to get people riled up
starts off low, and personal. Speeches always end in screaming and yelling and much fanfare
one of the many techniques he employed
it's good to watch them analytically to see how those techniques worked and how to avoid getting caught up in them
basically, in that 37% vote, the NSDAP (hitlers party) already used violence to supress voters, still didn't win
a lot of politicians over the last few years use the same techniques
hilter became chancellor as part of a coalition, not because he won the popular vote
yes
but that doesn't mean he would automatically become chancellor
in that vote, the 37% one, he wasn't even chancellor iirc
that was later, in 1932
where the NSDAP got 33 %, but still largest
he was able to trick some other parties in forming a coalition and electing him as chancellor
ah, on the electoral college: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
yeah
basically, conservatives thought they could tame hitler and use him as vehicle for their views
(see the parallels to trump?)
then the reichstag was lit on fire, hitler put in a decree and tada, germany was a dictorship
iirc hitler blamed the communists for the fire
so he basically was about to disable part of the constitution cause "national security"
and quickly used those powers to fight his political opponents
cause he had another election to win shortly after
yeah, re-watching the electoral college video, Grey sums up pretty much every issue with it in 6 minutes which I can't do
so there ya go
watch that. lol
basically, hitler was a fucking genius
he managed to exploit flaws not only in our constitution, but also in the ppl and other political leaders
but you can't blame this on our voting system, that wasn't a part of this, if germany would have had an electoral collage he would have had it much easier
The issue with stuff like popular vote is "the forgottens"
which is addressed in the Grey video, actually
the fear is that cities will gain the most traction
which is false
and the current system is far, far worse than even the worst-case scenario without a college
yes, there's flaws, but it's way better in even a doomsday scenario
also a good starting point. Removing the college can only mean a better system, though there's more to do after
I mean, I'm not saying that the EC is the best system, proportional representation would be much better vs what's basically "it's either red or it's blue"
Never said it was...
6 minutes, I promise it's worth the time
oh, thought you were saying the college was more proportional
mis-read
@autumn lotus watch the video
It's the "all wins all" which imho is the biggest core of the issue
I mean, that's what some of the canidates already do...
the whole "but they'd just care about a few cities" is a flawed argument
and is explained in the video
I could re-write the entire video here, but it would take longer than the actual video, would lack graphics, and would be less information
yeah, sec
there's the actual "cities" argument
and even in that absolute worst-case scenario, it's still better than the current college on an average day
way, way, way better
the thing I like about that video is that it's entirely math
you can't escape math
political opinions be damned
the math says "no"
that wouldn't work
the video explains why, in the segment I linked
at a worst-case scenario, sure. The current scenario is that, on average, a future president visits four states to win. A worst-case scenario has a future president winning 20% of the popular vote in a few states to win
so even a worst-case doomsday scenario without a college is better than an average day with one
yeah, cities have a lot of people
at most it's half, sure
still a 50/50 shot
and STILL way better than the current college system
it's not perfect, but it's much better
The issue with popular vote is that you forget a huge chunk of land
watch the rest of the video to see how you, too, can become president with 20% of the popular vote in a doomsday college scenario!
We know, it's fucked
more fucked than not having it
that's the point
the whole point is that having the electoral college is more fucked than not having it
The issue is that without it, you essentially put the central control of the US in the hands of a few dozen cities
so, yes, the solution isn't perfect. No solution is.
Mathematically, yea, sure, it's less fucked
but it's far less fucked than what we have now
When you consider land mass and caring about the whole country, it's fucked
as unrealistic as it is, it's possible
that "100 cities" scenario is also, like, impossible
100 cities is just as probable as 20% is
unlikely, but not impossible
it's mathematically possible for both
can't escape math
math gives no shits about politics
even if it's 50%, it's still only half
which, also, a new voting system would alleviate
which is why removing the electoral college is half of the solution, not the whole solution. But also fixes things in and of itself
What about the huge portions of land who basically won't really have a say in who gets an election? The people who break their backs so that the huge cities can have food without having to deal with the density hits that farm land tends to have
But, yea, mathamatically, fuck the farmers
the whole point is that it's similar to self-driving cars. Self-driving cars don't have to be perfect, just better than the monkeys that usually drive them
same with removing the college
there's issues with removing the college, but far fewer issues than having it
people are getting fucked either way
currently, most of the U.S. is getting fucked except for four or six states
rural or not
so the idea is to fuck fewer people
states already have a ton of power. Not sure what that would do
I'm all for more power to local gov't, but also what and why
The way I see the US is that it's more akin to the EU, just, with more control
The issue is that everything is done too far away from the people
You have politicians like Pelosi who doesn't even live in the state she represents, where homelessness is flying off the charts
Or, well, district she represents*
EC is fucked when you can win off the back of a few dozen states
popular vote is fucked as it means that huge swathes of land basically are ignored
mathamatically, yes, demographically, no
You still end up swaying the control over to essentially the huge ass city
those same people are currently being fucked anyway
so it's not different in that regard
but it fucks fewer of those people overall
so it's better
and that's assuming a worst-case
Imho, nuke the house
the math still says "unlikely"
on average, the ec fucks most of the U.S.
it's not even worst-case
popular vote is fucked as it means that huge swathes of land basically are ignored
@mystic ermine I see it as the opposite, it will be ignored by campaigning yes, but pv gives voters in states that are hard red or blue of the opposing side their vote to matter. In the ev, their vote is useless, so ev really does the opposite of what it's intended for
Ec only impacts campaigns
And who the fuck votes based on campaigning
I'd love to see the end of campaigning
supposed to be*
that's still assuming a worst-case
which is stil a larger population and area than the current college solution
so even that is better
Ev -> ec
we do realize that like the total population of all cities over 100000 people is not even 100 million right? acting like candidates will only pander to cities is just.. unreasonable
@opaque prairie yeah, that's the same point the video makes
and assuming that worst-case scenario it's still better than the current college
so I mean
not perfect, but fucking fewer people all-round is better
I disagree
currently you just need to win four or six states to win on average. Campaign in those states, spend money in those states, and you're done
so essentially four or six states dictate 50 states
has the EC ever been redistributed?
whereas even in an absolute worst-case popular vote scenario you'd still have 50% of the U.S. population and most states having a say
but you're still comparing an average-case electoral college scenario to a worst-case popular vote scenario, which isn't fair. But even in that, popular vote is still better
The ec only works if all states are swing states
states arent relevant in popular vote
yeah, but most people will look at it that way
@mystic ermine define "redistributed"?
Basically, to my understanding, the distribution of votes across even some states is basically screwed
that's a good portion of the issue, yes
i mean its winner takes all in most states, so uh yes
there's other problems with the EC, but that's why the EC is fundamentally flawed
that's why the idea of having one is flawed in practice*
Honestly, I think the nature of a president is just flawed with how it all works
the majority of the problem is the popular vote, yeah
No matter what, you're gonna have huge chunks of land who basically just feel forgotten
but removing the EC is a step in the right direction
nobody disagrees, I think
but electing a president is flawed
in many ways
Issue with the president is the "you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't"
zzcat, land doesnt vote? are you talking about rural people
the EC is just one of those ways
Yes, I'm talking about rural people
yeah
though honestly they're all fucked even right now
so it wouldn't make things worse for them
but yes, it's still flawed
but also still better
i fail to see how popular vote hurts them, like you could def run a successful campaign on winning over those people like
it's a step in the right direction, not an end-all solution
Yea, but then all the cities get upset
No matter what, 1/2 of the population is left in tears
also the math still says it's unlikely you'll win even by getting all the big cities
so you're still pitting a worst-case scenario to what we haave which is an average-case scenario
i dont think that issue is fixable by a voting system
thats not a voting issue, its a belief and demographics issue
it depends on how you count everyone, as well
land doesnt vote basket
a majority of the population is not in cities
thats how
but also, it's up to the individual to vote, not the city
basically the "problem" here is that many like-minded people live in similar areas
it's still representative of what people want
okay so you have the same issue the other way basket
they just happen to be clumped together
its a demographics issue. that issue will present no matter what happens voting wise
also having a voting system resistant to gerrymandering will turn that map a lot more purple @autumn lotus
excepts its not? its clearly gives rural states a significant advantage
it gives four to six states the entirely of the power*
those states dictate the rest of the 50
and those states don't even have a ton of population
if you look at how many electroal college votes my vote in ny is worth, vs someone is wyoming, youre gonna see that my vote is worth way less
in fact they specifically have the least
i am aware of how the ec works yes
the fundamental system is still flawed- having a few people vote on behalf of many isn't conducive to a good voting system
we should be letting each person vote for themselves
because ec is biased towards land, which doesnt vote
and way in favor of cities/urban
this isnt saying anything. this is saying popular vote is biased towards population
- Big cities don't account for as many people as you think it does
- Even if they did, cities still don't vote
- The underlying problem represented is that like-minded people are gathering in smaller areas. This still means more people want X for president than Y, regardless of location
I'm trying to find evidence in favor of electoral colleges and finding the pickings slim, here
sec, I'll find something eventually
There's slim pickings all around
like I said, the idea is that popular vote fucks fewer people overall
our popular vote system fucks people regardless
People don't care purely about people counts
which should be fixed, but the EC is what's on the ballot and not the voting system
so one thing at a time
i still dont understand why we are acting like the if the majority of population was cities, them picking the the president is bad? popular vote is just stratight up. if youre the minority its not wrong that your candidate isnt president
Because you only care about half the country is the issue
you'd still need to campaign in 100 large cities to match the capaigns in the four states you currently need
and we're not saying that EC fixes that, EC is fucked
100 cities vs four cities, basically
let's be generous and say six states
so it's 100 cities vs six cities
I mean
my point is that removing the EC is better than having it
not that it's a perfect solution
which is your opinion
mathamatically, yes, it makes sense
I am of the opinion that math should be used, here
When you forget the maths, it introduces lots of other concerns
Who protects the farmers?
I mean, they have some chance of getting their people in
i dont understand why a city chosen president is inherently bad for farmers
My one biggest concern is stuff like right to repair
but also: there's currently other systems in place not related to votes that protect them
also also, it's unlikely that "cities will start voting and we'll all forget farmers exist"
especially when you have stuff like large corporations who generally back behind one party who are all for killing stuff like right to repair
like people generally face the same issues. right to repair is prevalent in so much stuff now adays
We need right to repair
Your average rich kid doesn't care about R2R
They bust their phone, they'll just get a new one
But, really, the biggest issue is the entire nature of the system
your average rich kid isnt making the deciding votes
Politicians don't compaign for people
they campaign for votes, and delivery of stuff is generally shitty
basically you're putting out doomsday scenarios and even then they're not as bad as what we have right now
I think that's a win
that can probably be attributed to misc corruption, stuff like citizens united and what not
You're preaching doomsday too?
I don't think that you can get rid of EC without basically getting rid of every person on the bench and getting rid of lobbying, etc
no system will get around those, if that stuff was fixed rn, the ec would be orders of magnitude better
but the fact that you need to put out worst-case ideas to dispute the removal of the college speaks volumes for doing so
The issue is that the entire system is fucked and corrupt, a small number of people basically controls what the whole country sees and hears
"doomsday" is easier to type than worst-case
but fair
that's the current problem, yes
removing the EC fixes some of that
it's not perfect, but it's a step forward
and even in a worst-case it's the same as what we have now
but generally the worst-case won't happen
and we'll all be better off for it
we're talking worst-case, but what about the average case of the removal of the EC? On an average day, it means everyone gets a say in who should be president. Four to six states don't dictate what 50 states get, and the rest of the U.S. actually has a vote
in a best-case, people start moving out of large cities, and the U.S. starts to turn more purple- for those of you who like your maps
People moving out of large cities is a fun plague of cancer
though places with more population voting isn't a bad thing. Means votes affect more people
I think it's a toxic ass thing where you literally have people running away from places like new york and taking their blue vote to red states
It does count at state level stuff
I'm super okay with having more red votes in my somewhat-blue state
keeps us moderate
I want more conservatives moving in to battle the liberals
I think it's moronic that you leave a state that you've been priced out of and start bringing in your ideas of how a state should run into long standing red areas
and I want their votes to count as much as the rest
I think it's also total cancer to do it the other way around
Being more moderate, that would be nice, but, it's a flawed premise in the current political environment
currently, some rando in another state has four to six times as much voting power as I do, which lets them have a say in how things are run over here
which, you know, also no bueno
The EC is just a just a sympton of how screwed the system is, I don't think that fixing that fixes anything
it just presses on the divide between the sides further
you're still thinking in terms of states, I think
we currently think in terms of states because of how that's all done
but in a popular vote, states don't exist
land doesn't matter
that's the point
We think in terms of states because that's how the entire system is structured
Could you imagine a repub president with a democratic house/senate?
states are their own individual bodies
we already had a democratic president with a republican house/sentate
four years ago
How'd that go?
exactly
Which fucked over a ton of people
It caused many people to have to take up a 2nd job in order to survive
had to be
Imho, states should look at doing healthcare vs the entire US doing it
but, ofc, that fucks a whole industry
there was a huge campaign against it in the U.S.
saying people were dying, waiting for treatment
but uh.. That's not it
there's another Planet Money episode on that, and the person behind those campaigns
Not at the levels some would have you believe, but, it's not as pristine as anybody will tell you either
he's become a bit of a whistleblower instead
no healthcare is perfect
but Canada's is far better
the mentality of "it's not perfect so we shouldn't do it" will lead us to inaction
it's way, way better than what we have
How so?
I thought that the mandated insurance, etc, was supposed to deal with the bankrupcy saving, etc?
I agree with a wall
it took the admin branch strongarming the CDC to even pass the wall thing
that's a whole complicated mess
basically, it's all shenanigans
Ofc, the only issue is that I can't ever see it being done given the size of the damned thing
But, illegal immigration is a massive issue if left unchecked
most immagrants don't climb over a wall
they get here, legally, and then are told if they go back they can never come back
so of course they never leave, because duh
Which is a seperate issue...
a wall won't fix the issue
build a 30-foot wall, and you make a market for 31-foot ladders
even if the wall did actually work in the sense that it prevents immigration, in time you'd just create a market for taller ladders
but it wouldn't do even that
most illegal immigrants come here on planes
you know
Well, part of the hopes of a wall is that it would also permit a better defence system to monitor
higher than a wall
and people aren't as upset about illegal immigration as much as cartels carrying children and drugs across the border
I mean, not that I personally care too much about the latter
but there's iiues on immigration far, far larger and deeper than a wall
a wall is symbolic more than anything else
and I dislike what it symbolizes
we are unwelcoming
The hopes is to try to make it so that all people entering your country go through approved checkpoints
"get out, and stay out" is the meaning of the wall
The US defo needs to aim to fix the system to make it better and more viable for those to come legally
there are so, so many systemic issues with people coming here legally. It's insane. I don't even know where to start
But, it also needs to try to deal with the issues on the border too
How do you deal with the coyotes? How do you deal with the illegal arms/drug smuggling?
Like, yea, a wall is not 100%, but it makes it more viable to have stuff like a defensive network, imho
woo boy. Yeah, shit, where do I even start?
maybe the lines?
sure, the lines. There's many people waiting for asylum outside the border wall
and many of those are escaping things like cartels, but we tell them to go back and wait
so, many of them never show up to their court dates set months out at an unknown time in an unknown location
because, uh..
they never show up anywhere ever again
and that needs to be fixed, yes, but I'm not so sure people should be "let loose" in the country on the basis of a claim, but something defo needs to be done
in fact, Mexican cartels have made a racket of capturing and re-capturing people waiting for asylum for ransom
there's systems in place for it on that side
and that's the tip of the shit iceberg
one very, very small problem in this whole system
here's John Oliver talking about asylum, which is only one small part of these problems:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdU5RPDZqI
With the 2020 election underway, John Oliver explains how the Trump administration has handled asylum seekers over the past four years, why it matters, and what we can do about it.
Connect with Last Week Tonight online...
Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel f...
lol
sure, yeah
we should definitely just go in with force, take over Mexico, and call it Mexico 2
nobody would care, I'm sure
no problems would come from that
The issue with mass immigration is how do you deal with it and not have the same issues as sweden did?
again, your search for perfection will lead to inaction
Not to mention, how do you ensure that you're not putting your own citizens at risk?
The issue is your stance that it has to be none or all
not necessarily
we can fix small parts of the problem at a time
which is what we're trying to do with the college
I mean, we disagree with something, and you basically go to preach on as if we're against any form of action being taken?
it's slow, but we're on the right track
well, you seem to be against any of the solutions because they might cause problems elsewhere ๐
I mean, yeah, they probably will
but overall the result is better
and that's the point
the U.S. is great in many ways, but it's not perfect. There's big problems.
we can fix those and be even better than we are
there'll always be more issues, and some we caused (most we caused already and some we will cause in the future)
but the idea is to be better with each action taken
The thing is that these issues have wider scope than people imagine
yes, and I'm sure the same was said about racism. We still did it, though
racism was embedded into the constitution, which is one of the stickiest things to try and root out
but in the end it's better now
still not perfect- a lot of problems were caused with the movement
but it's better
Well, no, the US should fuck off getting involved in other contries dramas
The only issue is that other contries are expected to deal with the side-effects of those broken countries such as the mass immigration it tends to induce, which ofc leads to an issue where you have huge poritions of communities who feel entirely disconnected
the point is we would never be where we are now if we didn't take opportunities to make things better even though they caused issues at the time
I think that the primary issue is that nobody wants to discuss something
It's basically generally "my way or the highway", or, "you're an Xist"
if the line of thinking remains, "well it might cause problems that we don't know about" then nothing would be done about anything
and we'd be stuck where we are
You discuss those issues.
yes, you do
but voting on a "maybe it's not better because what if X?" when you don't even know if or how X would happen is dumb, imo
I don't think that anybody here has said that we shouldn't do anything?
your points earlier were that we shouldn't remove the EC because we don't know what would happen
for example
Well, the issue last I recall was Pelosi wanted cash towards stuff which has fuck all to do with the relief but tryna get cash into other systems
you were saying that it could be bad for people like farmers, but we don't know
and it sure seems like removing the EC would be better for a majority of people
My point was I don't think that relying solely on popular vote without looking into addressing the other issues the backwards system has
we can sit and predict and do the math and wonder if aliens will come and abduct us all day
The issue is that it should be the care of the country and it's people, not the majority of the people
but in the end we have a broken system and we have a potential solution that seems to help more than it hurts
the other issues have been looked into and addressed
I did a bit more searching on the interwebz and found a lot of arguments for
some against, but they seem to be refuted
after looking at it, it seems like removing the EC does more good than harm, and we can solve issues that come up when they do
so that's where my vote went
well, apparently many already did
so hey
we're just the latest state to hop on that bandwagon. Everyone's voting for or against it now
removing the EC is actually much closer to passing than I'd thought
what're we, only a few states away, I think?
I'd have to double-check that
green means "in progress" I assume?
we can try
and it seems fairly official to me
oh is this the plan for states to ignore states votes and vote for popular vote regardless
yeah
its a pretty funny plan
it's basically a "fuck you, mom!" plan
it highlights some issues with the electoral college
but it's likely the only way it'll get done
and in order to fix it youd be improving the college anyway so
and amendment is never happening yeah
but the ignore electoral politics thing is getting pretty close to critical mass isnt it?
yes
but that improves the electoral college either way
casue it removes the whole issue of faithless electors
then this method is legal lol
it is not
okay there ya go then
some states have passed bills about faithless electors
but not all
and not even most
gerrymandering is also not illegal
surprisingly enough
it's a "hey, please don't use that, kthxbai" thing
with a "please turn yourself in if you do it" thing
and we see how well that works
lol yeah