Politics

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-23 13:22:35

Pot is grown there. Canada has a lot of open space to grow stuff in, if its highly illegal, it could be grown indoors regardless of the weather outside.

Dexter2999 · 2016-03-23 14:07:30

Okay, my view is probably not all that popular but here it is.

Republicans tend to go to war and funnel money to the military industrial complex. They went from having a surplus under Clinton to trying to loot Social Security to fund the Gulf War. The Republican party is largely for people who earn a great deal of money, not Middle Class (and Mitt Romney and Obama agreed "Middle Class" BEGINS at $250,000 a year....I have no idea if that is starting from the bottom going up or top going down) There are a large portion of people who vote against their best financial interests because the Republicans represent their religious views (largely Christian conservatives.)

Democrats funnel money into the health care industry the way Republicans funnel it into the military. Big Pharma uses the govt. as a subsidy to offer lower priced drugs over seas and "remain competitive". This is basically done through Medicare as the majority of people using drugs are seniors. However, Democrats represent the economic interests of the poor by increasing the taxes of the wealthy and redistributing it to the poor as public services.

Democrats get bashed for taxing and placing burdens on business. This is especially harmful to small business and can cause them to fail. "They are punishing the 'job creators'." And for the small business this is absolutely true. But for mega-corp, who out sources their jobs to India, China, Philippines, etc.. The extra taxes are a nuisance that bite into the quarterly bonus of their management, so they like to push the publicity of the small business damaged by taxation.

Also, I do believe in higher taxation for the wealthy. If you have more stuff you want to protect but you don't ever have to send any of your kids into war to protect it...you better be writing checks like there is no tomorrow and be happy that you can spare their lives by doing so.

In the end politics should be about voting in your own best interest whatever that may be.

Anyway, like I said, probably not the most popular view, but that's it.

RobertDyck · 2016-03-23 14:44:41

Facebook video (slides with text)

A British soldier who lost his leg in Iraq has posted a powerful message to people "expecting racism" from him just because he "got blown up".
For Chris Herbert's full message: http://bit.ly/21OyRjz

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-24 07:44:07

Dexter2999 wrote:

Okay, my view is probably not all that popular but here it is.
Republicans tend to go to war and funnel money to the military industrial complex. They went from having a surplus under Clinton to trying to loot Social Security to fund the Gulf War. The Republican party is largely for people who earn a great deal of money, not Middle Class (and Mitt Romney and Obama agreed "Middle Class" BEGINS at $250,000 a year....I have no idea if that is starting from the bottom going up or top going down) There are a large portion of people who vote against their best financial interests because the Republicans represent their religious views (largely Christian conservatives.)

That is an untrue stereotype put out by Democrat Hacks. Do you think most of the people Trump is addressing at his rallies are country club types? I think most Republics support the military because they like to win wars rather than lose them. Democrats assume that there is a third option: Just don't go to war, and we won't need a military, we can spend the money on social programs instead. Not really! What if we cut the military and the Enemy comes knocking at our door, and says the price of peace is that we have to give up our land, lets say Mexico wants Texas back, and says it will go to war with us if we don't give the Texas? What do Democrats say then? "Hell, we don't need Texas, it certainly isn't worth going to war over, lets give them Texas!" What you are talking about is a specific kind of Republican, they kind that wants Defense contractors to get rich, but that is a distinct minority even within the Republican Party.

Democrats funnel money into the health care industry the way Republicans funnel it into the military. Big Pharma uses the govt. as a subsidy to offer lower priced drugs over seas and "remain competitive". This is basically done through Medicare as the majority of people using drugs are seniors. However, Democrats represent the economic interests of the poor by increasing the taxes of the wealthy and redistributing it to the poor as public services.

It isn't in the economic interests of the poor not to have jobs. Also if the poor get rich, they are no longer poor, so would you define the "economic interests" of the poor as keeping them poor so they continue to exist as a voting block wanting social programs?

Democrats get bashed for taxing and placing burdens on business. This is especially harmful to small business and can cause them to fail. "They are punishing the 'job creators'." And for the small business this is absolutely true. But for mega-corp, who out sources their jobs to India, China, Philippines, etc.. The extra taxes are a nuisance that bite into the quarterly bonus of their management, so they like to push the publicity of the small business damaged by taxation.

If a big corporation chooses not to operate in our country to avoid our taxes, the only loss is our own, since we don't get those jobs the company has to offer. We don't get any revenue from a company that chooses not to operate in our country, so I don't see how taxing them helps. You assume a big company won't notice being taxed, and that its CEO would not choose to maximize profits and avoid taxes just because it is so big. I don't see that as the case.

Also, I do believe in higher taxation for the wealthy. If you have more stuff you want to protect but you don't ever have to send any of your kids into war to protect it...you better be writing checks like there is no tomorrow and be happy that you can spare their lives by doing so.

Do you turn "green" with envy because they are richer than you, and because of that they need to be taxed? If you want space tourism, the early customers of that will be rich people, and later on as technology develops it will be middle class people going into space, but if you tax the rich too much ...

In the end politics should be about voting in your own best interest whatever that may be.
Anyway, like I said, probably not the most popular view, but that's it.

Some people think taxing the rich into oblivion is in their best interest and will vote in that direction, but what if they are just wrong? If we got rid of all the rich people in our country, would we be better off with just poor people?

SpaceNut · 2016-04-10 16:07:54

Dereliction of Duty

is a specific offense under United States Code Title 10,892. Article 92 and applies to all branches of the US military. A service member who is derelict has willfully refused to perform his duties (or follow a given order) or has incapacitated himself in such a way that he cannot perform his duties. Such incapacitation includes the person falling asleep while on duty requiring wakefulness, his getting drunk or otherwise intoxicated and consequently being unable to perform his duties, shooting himself and thus being unable to perform any duty, or his vacating his post contrary to regulations.

So can this term be applied to those in office that are civilians in our government positions and agencies.. even though they control no military action or intervention....

Contents
1 Legislative branch
2 Judicial branch
3 Executive branch
3.1 Executive Office of the President
3.2 United States Department of Agriculture
3.3 United States Department of Commerce
3.4 United States Department of Defense
3.5 United States Department of Education
3.6 United States Department of Energy
3.7 United States Department of Health and Human Services
3.8 United States Department of Homeland Security
3.8.1 Agencies
3.8.2 Offices
3.8.3 Management
3.8.4 National Protection and Programs
3.8.5 Science and Technology
3.8.5.1 Portfolios
3.8.5.2 Divisions
3.8.5.3 Offices and Institutes
3.9 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
3.9.1 Agencies
3.9.2 Offices
3.9.3 Corporation
3.10 United States Department of the Interior
3.11 United States Department of Justice
3.12 United States Department of Labor
3.12.1 Agencies and Bureaus
3.12.1.1 Boards
3.12.1.2 Offices
3.13 United States Department of State
3.13.1 Agencies and Bureaus
3.13.1.1 Reporting to the Secretary
3.13.1.2 Reporting to the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources
3.13.1.3 Reporting to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
3.13.1.4 Reporting to the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
3.13.1.5 Reporting to the Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment
3.13.1.6 Reporting to the Under Secretary for Management
3.13.1.7 Reporting to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs
3.13.1.8 Reporting to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
3.13.2 Permanent Diplomatic Missions
3.14 United States Department of Transportation
3.14.1 Agencies
3.15 United States Department of the Treasury
3.15.1 Agencies and Bureaus3.15.2 Offices
3.16 United States Department of Veterans Affairs

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-10 22:00:10

I don't know where you are going with this. For a non-military government worker who does not perform his duty, he simply gets fired and loses his job. though Union rules and regulations often make it hard to fire government workers for any reason, I think one major reason would be an employee who simply doesn't work. I seriously doubt a government civilian worker would shoot himself in the foot because he didn't like his job! If he didn't like his job, he can simply quit, he doesn't have to injure himself. If you are not in the military, you can quit your government job, the government won't arrest you for doing so! So there really is no comparison between military and nonmilitary in government.

clark · 2016-04-15 00:26:26

Why do any of you put up with this? I'm shitty. I'm 10+ years of shitty, but I'm not out in left field.

Tom, your posts are such a colossal waste of time. You make us all stupider for reading your posts. Either elevate your thought, or just go find some other corner of the internet to die in. I've heard that that this thing called "twitter" is taking off. Check it out. If this is the place where you define yourself, great, get on board and align yourself with the point.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-15 08:11:32

clark wrote:

Why do any of you put up with this? I'm shitty. I'm 10+ years of shitty, but I'm not out in left field.

Does this mean you are 11 years old? Just wondering.

clark wrote:

Tom, your posts are such a colossal waste of time. You make us all stupider for reading your posts. Either elevate your thought, or just go find some other corner of the internet to die in. I've heard that that this thing called "twitter" is taking off. Check it out. If this is the place where you define yourself, great, get on board and align yourself with the point.

Does this mean, you would shoot yourself in the foot if you had a government job you did not like?
I wonder why you participate at all in these discussions if all you ever do is make personal attacks? Don't you have somewhere else to go?
Its funny, whenever you show up, you are always hurling insults at me. I don't know why. I did not come here to trade insults with you. Don't you have something more productive to do with your time than to look for someone to insult. The topic is politics, and I'm not running for political office, why don't you go insult some politician instead?

Terraformer · 2016-04-15 08:23:21

Oh dear, clark's turned up. The only person who's posts I skip over more often than Tom's, though in this thread I rarely actually read any of them.

Speaking of politics, we've got a local city election coming up. Again. We voted last may for a councillor, then he died. So we voted again, and he died too. Now we're voting a third time.

RobertDyck · 2016-04-15 08:43:10

Ooh! Fight!

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-15 10:35:51

I do what Donald Trump does, when someone hits me, I hit back!

RobertDyck · 2016-04-15 17:00:06

Terraformer wrote:

Speaking of politics, we've got a local city election coming up. Again. We voted last may for a councillor, then he died. So we voted again, and he died too. Now we're voting a third time.

Sounds like a conspiracy. Is anyone actually running this time? Death wish? Are police investigating?

Terraformer · 2016-04-16 09:06:10

Well, people are still running. If the next guy dies... well, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence.

RobertDyck · 2016-04-19 17:42:00

Provincial election today. One hour and 20 minutes to polls close. Existing party is expected to lose. The New Democratic Party (NDP) is left-wing by Canadian standards; they have socialism in their party charter. They were elected in 1999 with a moderate centrist leader. He resigned (retired) in 2009. I'm told NDP members wanted to push back to left-wing values, and their new leader did. The previous leader passed a law that stated a referendum was necessary to raise Provincial Sales Tax, but the new leader raised it anyway without one. Voters have not forgiven that. Polls suggest voters will change government with this election. There's a saying in politics: "Government has to be changed every so often, just like diapers, and for the same reason."

Registered parties: NDP, Progressive Conservative (PC), Liberal, Green. The Liberal Party of Manitoba hasn't formed provincial government since the 1950s, they've had only 1 member elected to the Legislative Assembly for several elections. The Green party has never elected anyone here.
::Edit:: I almost forgot the "Manitoba Party". They're pro-business and include former members of the Liberal and PC parties. This is their first election.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-04-20 11:44:15)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-19 22:08:48

How many trees and bushes did the Green Party register to vote last year? What sort of people care more about the environment than they do about the economy? Logically, one way to save the ecology is to wipe out the Human Race!. Deny every person a means to support himself, and eventually everyone will starve to death. Seems to me the Green Party wants to save the environment by killing everyone's job. You wonder why they aren't so popular in Canada? Their motto is "Keep Canada Cold! Stop Global Warming!"

Actually in Canada, it ought to be called the White Party, because when Canada gets cold it tends to be white, they don't want to see too much green growing in Canada, because that will mean the Polar Ice Cap is melting!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-04-19 22:10:15)

RobertDyck · 2016-04-20 04:40:59

Yup, the PC party won. They won 40 of 57 seats in the legislature, the largest majority in Manitoba's history. Leaders of the NDP and PC won their seats. One past Liberal MLA moved on to federal politics, but his daughter ran in his old area. Due to electoral district realignment, borders aren't exactly the same, but close. She won. And the Liberal party won a seat in the north, so they went from 1 seat to 3, but the new leader of the Liberal party didn't win her own seat. That district was a close 3-way race, but the Liberal leader actually ended up in 3rd place for her own seat. Green party almost won a single seat in a district where voters are very concerned about the environment, but not quite, close second. Leader of the Green party didn't even come close.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-04-20 06:37:01)

RobertDyck · 2016-04-20 05:57:26

Manitoba generates electricity with 100% sustainable and environmentally friendly technology. Mostly hydro-electric power dams, with a little power generated by windmills. There are 2 small coal burning power plants, but they were built as emergency backups in case power transmission lines go down. Manitoba signed a contract to sell power to Minnesota, and had fired up those coal plants to sell maximum power. They even built one natural gas burning generating station at the site of one of the coal burning power plants, but got in a lot of political trouble for that. So they built another hydro dam, and shut down all coal and natural gas plants as soon as the new dam came online.

Manitoba heats homes with natural gas, but Quebec uses electricity. Quebec generates most of their power with hydro dams as well.

Federal NDP held a national convention recently. One group within that party raised a manifesto, and the federal NDP voted to talk about it. They didn't endorse it, just voted to talk about it. The manifesto raises several issues that are actually long-standing values of the NDP, but one is environment. The manifesto calls for a complete moratorium on all fossil fuel infrastructure. That means no new oil pipelines, no new natural gas processing or storage facilities, nothing. Alberta recently elected an NDP government, and they promised to do more for the environment, but they intend to support the oil industry. The Alberta NDP leader has threatened to separate the Alberta NDP from the federal party, because of the anti-oil stuff in this manifesto. It made the news, and some long-standing NDP members said they're insulted by this manifesto. Because it raises points that were already long-standing values of that party; why are these newcomers trying to lecture? And the NDP had tried to balance environment with economy, but this manifesto would completely abandon any balance. Polls show support for the NDP has fallen drastically over this. The NDP has never formed federal government in Canada, but two elections ago they did fairly well, became the second party in the federal government, first time ever. But they fell back to third place in the last election. After this manifesto, voter support has completely crashed. They had tried to be moderate in order to get elected, but after they lost last election, some NDP members want to emphasize what the party stands for. However, this manifesto pretty much ensures they'll never win an election.

In Manitoba this election was over tax hikes. They lost the trust of voters. As I said, government has to be changed every so often just like diapers, and for the same reason.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-20 06:12:10

Funny thing is, to fully develop Canada, Global Warming is essential! Without Global Warming, most Canadians will live within 100 miles of their southern border!

Terraformer · 2016-04-20 06:56:19

Not if they embrace the sort of technologies that will be needed to colonise the rest of the solar system.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-20 10:46:29

Warming up Canada would be "terraforming", making it more habitable for humans.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-09 06:55:38

Army has fewest active-duty soldiers since 1940, report says
Published May 09, 2016
· FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05 … tcmp=hpbt1
The number of U.S. Army soldiers on active duty has been reduced to its lowest since 1940, according to a published report.

The Army Times reported this weekend that the Army's endstrength for March was 479,172. That's 154 fewer soldiers than the service's previous post-World War II low, which was reached during the Army's post-Cold War drawdown in 1999.

The current number is still well above the 269,023 soldiers on duty in 1940, the year before America entered World War II. However, the report says the active force has been reduced by more than 16,500 troops over the past year — the equivalent of about three brigades.

According to the Army Times, the Army is on track to reach its goal of reducing the number of active duty troops to 475,000 by Sept. 30, the end of fiscal year 2016. Under a drawdown plan unveiled last July, the number of active-duty soldiers would be reduced to 460,000 soldiers by the end of fiscal year 2017 and 450,000 by the end of fiscal year 2018, barring action by Congress or the Pentagon.

If those targets are met, the number of soldiers on active duty would be down 20 percent from 2010, when there were nearly 570,000 soldiers on active duty.

When the Army presented its plan last July, military officials said their hands were tied by reduced funding levels.

"These are not cuts the Army wants to make, these are cuts required by budget environment in which we operate," Gen. Daniel Allyn, vice chief of staff of the Army, said at the time. "This 40,000 soldier cut ... will only get us to the program force, it does not deal with the continued threat of sequestration."

The Army Times report said that 2,600 soldiers departed active service in March without being replaced.

In addition to those on active duty, the Army has 548,024 soldiers in reserve, for a total force of 1,027,196 soldiers. Under the drawdown plan, the total force number would be reduced to 980,000 by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Terraformer · 2016-05-09 08:12:18

Well, it makes sense to start now. The Republicans haven't picked/ended up with a particularly hawkish candidate, and as far as I'm aware Sanders isn't hawkish either - and if the Libertarian Party manage to pull off an electoral coup, well they're definitely not hawks. America is probably going to be retreating into isolationism, for good or ill.

Locally, Labour won the by election for the district council, and Lancashire County Council released a list of services they're shutting. Well, there goes the library, unless the parish takes it over.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-09 10:19:24

Last time America retreated into Isolationism, 250,000 Americans died! That was called World War II! The United States just can't abide by the bad guys winning and ruling the World, and if we don't invest in our military now, we definitely are going to be sorry later. One idea I've has is we've got to share development costs with our allies, I mean the trustworthy ones. Japan, for one has an interest in containing China and North Korea, we have a nifty airplane called the F22, problem is we've stopped manufacturing it in favor of the F35, which is having trouble due to software glitches, and we need something in the meantime. The F22 is a closely held secret, but we need more of those. So here's the deal, we give the F22 technology to the Japanese and the British, and in exchange for receiving that technology, they build plant to build them, and we get a few extra copies at a discount price to fill out our Air Force. We save some money on building the plants here at home, because the plants we used in the US have been retooled to build something else. I think Japan is just as interested in Containing China as we are, we're just giving them the tools to do so, we farm out certain weapon systems that we did R&D on to our allies to save money, but they must be reliable allies, that is not Turkey or France, for example.

Antius · 2016-05-09 11:57:10

Terraformer wrote:

Not if they embrace the sort of technologies that will be needed to colonise the rest of the solar system.

Does raise an interesting question. We could be building giant glass greenhouses in places like northern Canada and Siberia and building cities beneath them. Much easier to colonise these places than Mars. Yet we don't do this. So why would we expect to produce such things on Mars if they apparently aren't economic on Earth and at least an order of magnitude easier to build?

Last edited by Antius (2016-05-09 11:58:19)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-09 12:03:04

Because Northern Canada belongs to Canada, and they wouldn't like us colonizing them! We could colonize Antartica but then the greenies wouldn't like us interfering with the ecology, such as it is!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2016-03-23 13:22:35

Re: Politics

#152 2016-03-23 14:07:30

Re: Politics

#153 2016-03-23 14:44:41

Re: Politics

#154 2016-03-24 07:44:07

Re: Politics

#155 2016-04-10 16:07:54

Re: Politics

#156 2016-04-10 22:00:10

Re: Politics

#157 2016-04-15 00:26:26

Re: Politics

#158 2016-04-15 08:11:32

Re: Politics

#159 2016-04-15 08:23:21

Re: Politics

#160 2016-04-15 08:43:10

Re: Politics

#161 2016-04-15 10:35:51

Re: Politics

#162 2016-04-15 17:00:06

Re: Politics

#163 2016-04-16 09:06:10

Re: Politics

#164 2016-04-19 17:42:00

Re: Politics

#165 2016-04-19 22:08:48

Re: Politics

#166 2016-04-20 04:40:59

Re: Politics

#167 2016-04-20 05:57:26

Re: Politics

#168 2016-04-20 06:12:10

Re: Politics

#169 2016-04-20 06:56:19

Re: Politics

#170 2016-04-20 10:46:29

Re: Politics

#171 2016-05-09 06:55:38

Re: Politics

#172 2016-05-09 08:12:18

Re: Politics

#173 2016-05-09 10:19:24

Re: Politics

#174 2016-05-09 11:57:10

Re: Politics

#175 2016-05-09 12:03:04

Re: Politics

Board footer