Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Welcome!

Thanks for stopping by the Weather Forums! Please take the time to register and join our community. Feel free to post or start new topics on anything related to the weather or the climate.


Photo

Political Banter Thread for the West

* - - - - 1 votes

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked

#101
FroYoBro

Posted 24 March 2016 - 12:41 PM

FroYoBro

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1649 posts
  • LocationBeaverton, Oregon

https://soundcloud.c...donald-trump-22

 

Trump '16!


  • Jesse and IbrChris like this

#102
Jesse

Posted 24 March 2016 - 01:21 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')
Interesting article. Thoughts?

http://m.huffpost.co..._b_9528076.html
  • Fircrest likes this

#103
IbrChris

Posted 24 March 2016 - 03:01 PM

IbrChris

    Moderating Meteorologist

  • Meteorologist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1903 posts
  • LocationTigard, OR and Portland, OR (work)

Interesting quotes, but you didn't answer my question.

 

Who is going to build the roads? Put out fires? Monitor, investigate, and prevent crime? Educate our youth? Do you honestly believe this "freedom" you so highly value would exist without some form of tax funded government? Chaos isn't freedom.

 

There's a difference between making a theoretical philosophical argument and living in reality.

 

The classic "who will build the roads?" argument. I'm not an anarchist, I'm a minarchist. I believe there's a limited proper role of government and that within that role it wouldn't require massive taxation, especially direct taxation, but could be achieved with voluntary forms such as sales tax, use fees etc.

 

Who's gonna build the roads? Private companies already do...they get government contracts. Roads are already privatized in some cases such as toll roads, turnpikes etc. If future roads were privatized it would have to be a seamless system where you have a transponder and depending on which roads you drive on you pay a small amount each month in lieu of taxes that would go toward roads. Fees would range based on impact...certainly a bicyclist is lower impact than a car, which is lower impact than an 18-wheeler. For more details see Walter Block's book The Privatization of Roads and Highways available free in PDF form https://mises.org/li...ds-and-highways.

 

Monitor, investigate and prevent crime. Well San Francisco had a private police force for almost 150 years...initially the sole law enforcement organization in the city but later on running alongside a governmental police force (SFPD). The private police force had arresting powers until 1993. For more information: http://reason.com/ar...-private-police

Education. There's a ton of options outside of the public school system, many which are more efficient and prepare youth better for college, or a trade. There's of course charter and private schools, there's also cooperatives such as an academy I attended for two grades where parents pay a small amount and/or volunteer their time. There's homeschooling. There's online alternatives now as well, with various curricula available often at little or no cost. Vouchers are a way to bring back choice in education.

 

"Do you honestly believe this "freedom" you so highly value would exist without some form of tax funded government?"

 

Some form of government is bound to exist...but it is a flawed assumption that the current monolithic structure we have is the only workable option. I infer from your wording that any alternative is necessarily more "chaotic", a view that I find unfounded. And yeah I like freedom, the freedom to do as I please so long as I don't infringe on the rights of another person. Freedom has risks sure, but there's risks in any system. There's certainly risks in a government powerful enough to give you everything you want because by definition they are powerful enough to take away everything you have.

 

Contrast minarchism with anarchism...I consider myself the former, although perhaps I came across as an anarchist (anarcho-capitalist) in my earlier post. Spooner was an anarchist.

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Minarchism

 

https://en.wikipedia..._and_minarchism


The Pacific Northwest: Where storms go to die.


#104
Jesse

Posted 24 March 2016 - 03:14 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

The classic "who will build the roads?" argument. I'm not an anarchist, I'm a minarchist. I believe there's a limited proper role of government and that within that role it wouldn't require massive taxation.

Who's gonna build the roads? Private companies already do...they get government contracts. Roads are already privatized in some cases such as toll roads, turnpikes etc. If future roads were privatized it would have to be a seamless system where you have a transponder and depending on which roads you drive on you pay a small amount each month in lieu of taxes that would go toward roads. Fees would range based on impact...certainly a bicyclist is lower impact than a car, which is lower impact than an 18-wheeler. For more details see Walter Block's book The Privatization of Roads and Highways available free in PDF form https://mises.org/li...ds-and-highways.

Monitor, investigate and prevent crime. Well San Francisco had a private police force for almost 150 years...initially the sole law enforcement organization in the city but later on running alongside a governmental police force (SFPD). The private police force had arresting powers until 1993. For more information: http://reason.com/ar...-private-police

Education. There's a ton of options outside of the public school system, many which are more efficient and prepare youth better for college, or a trade. There's of course charter and private schools, there's also cooperatives such as an academy I attended for two grades where parents pay a small amount and/or volunteer their time. There's homeschooling. There's online alternatives now as well, with various curricula available often at little or no cost. Vouchers are a way to bring back choice in education.

"Do you honestly believe this "freedom" you so highly value would exist without some form of tax funded government?"

Some form of government is bound to exist...but it is a flawed assumption that the current monolithic structure we have is the only workable option. And yeah I like freedom, the freedom to do as I please so long as I don't infringe on the rights of another person. Freedom has risks sure, but there's risks in any system. There's certainly risks in a government powerful enough to give you everything you want because by definition they are powerful enough to take away everything you have.

Contrast minarchism with anarchism...I consider myself the former, although perhaps I came across as an anarchist (anarcho-capitalist) in my earlier post. Spooner was an anarchist.

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Minarchism

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Anarchism

Very interesting ideas. I'm still very curious if there are any prosperous countries that have functioned or are functioning with a system of a similar nature to what you are describing, though.

To me, at face value, I can immediately imagine this kind of system translating to a sort of justified social Darwinism. Vast disparities in wealth and resources. We are already pretty bad in this regard, and that is with relatively "big government" and its associated social programs/regulations designed to protect the economically suppressed/exploited.

#105
IbrChris

Posted 24 March 2016 - 03:30 PM

IbrChris

    Moderating Meteorologist

  • Meteorologist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1903 posts
  • LocationTigard, OR and Portland, OR (work)

Very interesting ideas. I'm still very curious if there are any prosperous countries that have functioned or are functioning with a system of a similar nature to what you are describing, though.

To me, at face value, I can immediately imagine this kind of system translating to a sort of justified social Darwinism. Vast disparities in wealth and resources. We are already pretty bad in this regard, and that is with relatively "big government" and its associated social programs/regulations designed to protect the economically suppressed/exploited.

 

If altruistic behavior, like charity, has to be coerced through government is it actually rooted in altruism? If some coercion, some unilateral force is legitimate, how much is legitimate and who decides what is legitimate? Many private organizations provide resources to the poor and victims of both natural and human-caused disaster. Not all of them are churches either, there's the Red Cross, Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) and many other non-religious charities.

While there are limited examples of "government-less" societies aside from communes, there are examples of societies with night-watchman (minarchist) type governments. In the founding of the United States the anti-federalists opposed a stronger central government in favor of more local control. In a night-watchman state the police, courts, military and mint are administered at the highest level by a federal government while other issues are managed locally.

 

Gurgaon, India is an example of a completely privatized city.

 

There's actually evidence of a Laffer Curve effect on social welfare spending with a maximum effect in alleviating poverty around $2,400 per capita. Interestingly that's the same amount of taxes on average, per capita, that goes to corporate welfare.

 

https://danieljmitch...ng-and-poverty/

http://object.cato.o...nal-v36n1-3.pdf


  • BLI snowman likes this

The Pacific Northwest: Where storms go to die.


#106
IbrChris

Posted 24 March 2016 - 03:36 PM

IbrChris

    Moderating Meteorologist

  • Meteorologist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1903 posts
  • LocationTigard, OR and Portland, OR (work)

I will say thanks for keeping the discussion related to the points made and not attacking people...that's refreshing. Sure others are free to believe my non-mainstream views are pie-in-the-sky if they wish. I like to sometimes move beyond the dichotomy of mainstream politics, one that is often false to me.


  • Jesse likes this

The Pacific Northwest: Where storms go to die.


#107
IbrChris

Posted 24 March 2016 - 03:42 PM

IbrChris

    Moderating Meteorologist

  • Meteorologist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1903 posts
  • LocationTigard, OR and Portland, OR (work)

One thing that might surprise you Jesse, and perhaps others on here, is that I'd much prefer a Universal Minimum Income over the myriad of social programs we have today. There's numerous pro's to the former, not the least of which is a much smaller administrative bureaucracy. Yes, ideally social welfare would be handled by private entities (organizations and individuals), but the universal minimum income is a favorable alternative to the patchwork quilt of social welfare we have currently.

 

This is an interesting read. It tackles some of the libertarian philosophies around social welfare and uses the Drowning Toddler example to show that while coercion should not be permitted, social pressure can be used to persuade people to donate to charitable causes when there's little risk or cost in relative terms (ie a millionaire can afford to give more than someone living on a much lower income).

http://www.libertari...rtarianism-poor

 

So while I don't advocate coercing someone into charitable giving, there's plenty of room for social ostracism if for example a wealthy individual gives little to charity. Just like someone who can swim who stands on the shore while a child drowns in a pond would be harshly criticized, yet within their rights as an individual in deciding not to intervene.


The Pacific Northwest: Where storms go to die.


#108
Jesse

Posted 24 March 2016 - 04:01 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

One thing that might surprise you Jesse, and perhaps others on here, is that I'd much prefer a Universal Minimum Income over the myriad of social programs we have today. There's numerous pro's to the former, not the least of which is a much smaller administrative bureaucracy. Yes, ideally social welfare would be handled by private entities (organizations and individuals), but the universal minimum income is a favorable alternative to the patchwork quilt of social welfare we have currently.


I definitely can see that we have some common ground here. Honestly I think some balance between capitalism (individualism) and socialism (collectivism) is the best just about any society can do. There will never be a utopia, and going too far toward either exteme usually leads to trouble. Essentially, preserve individual freedoms/liberties so that a person has a good deal of control over his or her path, but at the same time have some sort of societal structure in place that is designed to serve the greater good. Tyranny as a result of a elitist moneyed class ruling over impoverished masses as the result of an overly capitalist sytstem, or a bloated, corrupt, all-powerful government as the result of an overly collective society are both undesirable, and surprisingly similar given that they are bourne of the extremes of what appear to at face value be diametrically opposite political philosophies.
  • IbrChris and Front Ranger like this

#109
IbrChris

Posted 24 March 2016 - 04:04 PM

IbrChris

    Moderating Meteorologist

  • Meteorologist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1903 posts
  • LocationTigard, OR and Portland, OR (work)

I definitely can see that we have some common ground here. Honestly I think some balance between capitalism (individualism) and socialism (collectivism) is the best just about any society can do. There will never be a utopia, and going too far toward either exteme usually leads to trouble. Essentially, preserve individual freedoms/liberties so that a person has a good deal of control over his or her path, but at the same time have some sort of societal structure in place that is designed to serve the greater good. Tyranny as a result of a elistist, moneyed class ruling over impoverished masses as the result of an overly capitalist sytstem, or a bloated, corrupt, all-powerful government as the result of a an overly collective society are both undesirable, and surprisingly similar given that they are bourne of the extremes of what appear to at face value be diametrically opposite political philosophies.

 

And believe it or not there are libertarians (self-named "Bleeding-Heart Libertarians") who advocate for a libertarian society while also believing we have an obligation to those less-fortunate. We are not all semi-Randians (in fact libertarians are opposed to objectivists on things like foreign policy...objectivists believe "more civilized" societies take preference over "less civilized" ones). Like most philosophers there's some areas where I agree with Ayn Rand and other areas in which I disagree with her, even vehemently disagree.

http://bleedingheart...wning-children/

 

I could even get behind a more bleeding-heart libertarian version of Sanders...enough to enthusiastically vote for him or her. Someone who believed in a limited state but saw fit to include some forms of social welfare in their philosophy of what the state should entail.


The Pacific Northwest: Where storms go to die.


#110
IbrChris

Posted 24 March 2016 - 04:19 PM

IbrChris

    Moderating Meteorologist

  • Meteorologist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1903 posts
  • LocationTigard, OR and Portland, OR (work)

By the way for those who may be interested there's a presidential candidate debate hosted by the Libertarian Party of Oregon (LPO) tomorrow evening at the Embassy Suite in Hillsboro (20001 NW Tanasbourne Dr.) at 7:00 pm. Entry is free for LPO members and $25 for non-members. The debate will feature presidential candidates Gary Johnson, former NM governor and CEO of Cannabis Sativa, and Austin Petersen media personality and founder of The Libertarian Republic.

 

More information here: http://www.lporegon.net/

 

I'm planning on attending.


The Pacific Northwest: Where storms go to die.


#111
IbrChris

Posted 24 March 2016 - 04:26 PM

IbrChris

    Moderating Meteorologist

  • Meteorologist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1903 posts
  • LocationTigard, OR and Portland, OR (work)

Interesting read. I didn't know about Lauren Southern until recently but apparently she's been busy up there in BC.

http://www.dailydot....rn-libertarian/


The Pacific Northwest: Where storms go to die.


#112
IbrChris

Posted 26 March 2016 - 11:36 AM

IbrChris

    Moderating Meteorologist

  • Meteorologist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1903 posts
  • LocationTigard, OR and Portland, OR (work)

Had an awesome time at the Libertarian Party of Oregon debate last night.

Debate part 1 (1h 30m): https://www.facebook...64824010243245/
Debate part 2 (last 5m): https://www.facebook...64890740236572/

 

1474630_10101128154508054_18332506452198


  • iFred and Black Hole like this

The Pacific Northwest: Where storms go to die.


#113
bainbridgekid

Posted 26 March 2016 - 12:19 PM

bainbridgekid

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2472 posts
  • LocationMountlake Terrace, WA (510 feet)

Only 7% in, but Bernie is up 75%-25% in Washington.


2016-17 snowfall: 12"

 

12/8-9: 3.5"

12/23: 0.25"

12/31: 0.25"

2/3: 0.5"

2/5-6: 4"

2/26: 0.25"

2/27: 1.5"+0.5"+0.25"

2/28: 0.25"

3/7/17: 0.5"

3/8/17: 0.25"

 

 


#114
Jesse

Posted 26 March 2016 - 12:52 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

Only 7% in, but Bernie is up 75%-25% in Washington.


Did you caucus?

We did this morning. First time, very cool experience. Even swayed two undecided voters from Clinton to Sanders!

#115
bainbridgekid

Posted 26 March 2016 - 02:10 PM

bainbridgekid

    Daily Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2472 posts
  • LocationMountlake Terrace, WA (510 feet)

Did you caucus?

We did this morning. First time, very cool experience. Even swayed two undecided voters from Clinton to Sanders!

I didn't.

I'm still registered on Bainbridge and was too busy to go back for it.

Looks like Bernie's slaughtering in both WA and AK.

2016-17 snowfall: 12"

 

12/8-9: 3.5"

12/23: 0.25"

12/31: 0.25"

2/3: 0.5"

2/5-6: 4"

2/26: 0.25"

2/27: 1.5"+0.5"+0.25"

2/28: 0.25"

3/7/17: 0.5"

3/8/17: 0.25"

 

 


#116
iFred

Posted 26 March 2016 - 08:33 PM

iFred

    The Weather Forums

  • (° ͟ʖ°)
  • 2241 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania.
Congrats to the Sanders campaign and their supporters for the Saturday sweep. I am looking forward to the contested convention in Philadelphia this summer.
  • Jesse likes this

#117
snow_wizard

Posted 26 March 2016 - 11:14 PM

snow_wizard

    The Snow Wizard

  • Mods
  • 11950 posts
  • LocationCovington, WA

Pretty funny to note if you took the "superdelegates" out of the equation it would be pretty even between Sanders and Clinton.  If those delegates end up burning the Bern I expect a lot of extremely unhappy democrats in the near future.  That is actually the best possible scenario for the Repblicans...


Death To Warm Anomalies!

 

Winter 2017-18 stats

 

Total Snowfall = 0.2"

Coldest Low = 26

Lows 32 or below = 8

Highs 32 or below = 0

Lows Below 20 = 0

Highs 40 or below = 4

 

 


#118
Jesse

Posted 27 March 2016 - 08:10 AM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

Pretty funny to note if you took the "superdelegates" out of the equation it would be pretty even between Sanders and Clinton. If those delegates end up burning the Bern I expect a lot of extremely unhappy democrats in the near future. That is actually the best possible scenario for the Repblicans...

Or a lot of extremely happy democrats. There is a ton of support for Sanders out there, and many people who suport Hillary like him and say they would vote for him if he got the nod. One big belief I see among Hillary supporters is that they would support Sanders, but they think he is totally unelectable, which can become kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. There are also many Sanders supporters who will flip sides to Hillary if they have to. Many see that keeping a Cruz or Trump out of the White House is important, and the Sanders movement isn't going away anytime soon. If he doesn't make it this time you will see the movement come back even stronger in 2020.

That said, things are still competitive right now. What a big night for him. Just got to keep up the momentum!
  • iFred likes this

#119
Front Ranger

Posted 27 March 2016 - 12:39 PM

Front Ranger

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11359 posts
  • LocationWestminster, CO

Or a lot of extremely happy democrats. There is a ton of support for Sanders out there, and many people who suport Hillary like him and say they would vote for him if he got the nod. One big belief I see among Hillary supporters is that they would support Sanders, but they think he is totally unelectable, which can become kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. There are also many Sanders supporters who will flip sides to Hillary if they have to. Many see that keeping a Cruz or Trump out of the White House is important, and the Sanders movement isn't going away anytime soon. If he doesn't make it this time you will see the movement come back even stronger in 2020.

That said, things are still competitive right now. What a big night for him. Just got to keep up the momentum!

 

As long as his hips hold up.


  • Deweydog likes this

Cool anomalies soothe the soul.


#120
Jesse

Posted 27 March 2016 - 12:43 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

As long as his hips hold up.

 

I can't stand idiotic comments like this.

 

Sanders is constantly saying the movement is not about him, it's about the people. I doubt he would run again in 2020 if he fails to get the nomination. I said the movement isn't going anywhere, though. I said nothing about Sanders running again. Check your reading comprehension. Either that or don't purposefully miss people's points for the stake of a stupid, completely forgettable joke.



#121
Front Ranger

Posted 27 March 2016 - 12:57 PM

Front Ranger

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11359 posts
  • LocationWestminster, CO

I can't stand idiotic comments like this.

 

Sanders is constantly saying the movement is not about him, it's about the people. I doubt he would run again in 2020 if he fails to get the nomination. I said the movement isn't going anywhere, though. I said nothing about Sanders running again. Check your reading comprehension. Either that or don't purposefully miss people's points for the stake of a stupid, completely forgettable joke.

 

He's old. I can make stupid, completely forgettable jokes about it. No need to get all butt hurt.

 

God, you take some things way too seriously.


Cool anomalies soothe the soul.


#122
Jesse

Posted 27 March 2016 - 01:00 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

He's old. I can make stupid, completely forgettable jokes about it. No need to get all butt hurt.

 

God, you take some things way too seriously.

 

Sorry, but when I saw you had replied to the political banter thread I had a moment of fleeting hope that you had made a constructive/interesting reply to the discussion at hand about the Sanders win last night. Disappointing.



#123
Front Ranger

Posted 27 March 2016 - 01:07 PM

Front Ranger

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11359 posts
  • LocationWestminster, CO

Sorry, but when I saw you had replied to the political banter thread I had a moment of fleeting hope that you had made a constructive/interesting reply to the discussion at hand about the Sanders win last night. Disappointing.

 

Sometimes I want to contribute like that, sometime I don't. Sorry to disappoint...I know you're riding the high right now :) But we've poked fun at all the candidates, your guy is not immune.


Cool anomalies soothe the soul.


#124
Deweydog

Posted 27 March 2016 - 03:23 PM

Deweydog

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13093 posts
  • LocationHockinson, WA

Sorry, but when I saw you had replied to the political banter thread I had a moment of fleeting hope that you had made a constructive/interesting reply to the discussion at hand about the Sanders win last night. Disappointing.


You certainly have put a new spin on Newton's third law. For every action there is an equal and opposite overreaction.

All roads lead to Walgreens.  


#125
Jesse

Posted 27 March 2016 - 03:35 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

You certainly have put a new spin on Newton's third law. For every action there is an equal and opposite overreaction.


Oh hush.

#126
Deweydog

Posted 27 March 2016 - 04:00 PM

Deweydog

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13093 posts
  • LocationHockinson, WA

Oh hush.


Follow your own advice.

All roads lead to Walgreens.  


#127
Jesse

Posted 27 March 2016 - 04:05 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

Follow your own advice.

 

Forum cop.



#128
Deweydog

Posted 27 March 2016 - 04:20 PM

Deweydog

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13093 posts
  • LocationHockinson, WA

Forum cop.

 

You?  I suppose it kind of fits. Running your mouth while taking any opportunity available to dime out others to big brother for similar behavior.  Sounds like a bad cop...


All roads lead to Walgreens.  


#129
snow_wizard

Posted 27 March 2016 - 04:32 PM

snow_wizard

    The Snow Wizard

  • Mods
  • 11950 posts
  • LocationCovington, WA

Or a lot of extremely happy democrats. There is a ton of support for Sanders out there, and many people who suport Hillary like him and say they would vote for him if he got the nod. One big belief I see among Hillary supporters is that they would support Sanders, but they think he is totally unelectable, which can become kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. There are also many Sanders supporters who will flip sides to Hillary if they have to. Many see that keeping a Cruz or Trump out of the White House is important, and the Sanders movement isn't going away anytime soon. If he doesn't make it this time you will see the movement come back even stronger in 2020.

That said, things are still competitive right now. What a big night for him. Just got to keep up the momentum!

 

I guarantee there will be plenty of Sanders supporters that will be pissed if Sanders loses based on the super delegates.  The DNC put those into the mix in case the voters do something stupid in their eyes.  It's almost impossible for their hand picked candidate to not win with the super delegates.  I'm not a democrat and it pisses me off.


  • Jesse likes this

Death To Warm Anomalies!

 

Winter 2017-18 stats

 

Total Snowfall = 0.2"

Coldest Low = 26

Lows 32 or below = 8

Highs 32 or below = 0

Lows Below 20 = 0

Highs 40 or below = 4

 

 


#130
Deweydog

Posted 27 March 2016 - 04:37 PM

Deweydog

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13093 posts
  • LocationHockinson, WA

I guarantee there will be plenty of Sanders supporters that will be pissed if Sanders loses based on the super delegates.  The DNC put those into the mix in case the voters do something stupid in their eyes.  It's almost impossible for their hand picked candidate to not win with the super delegates.  I'm not a democrat and it pisses me off.

 

It's pretty incredible these two races are occurring simultaneously.  Of course the Republican debacle is much more entertaining and will provide for a lot more drama this summer, but the Democrats are at least trying to make it interesting.  Still remains though that the chances of Sanders taking a pledged delegate lead or even being all that close by the convention is slim to none.  


All roads lead to Walgreens.  


#131
Jesse

Posted 27 March 2016 - 04:57 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

You?  I suppose it kind of fits. Running your mouth while taking any opportunity available to dime out others to big brother for similar behavior.  Sounds like a bad cop...

 

You realize this could completely describe you too, right? :lol:



#132
Front Ranger

Posted 27 March 2016 - 05:07 PM

Front Ranger

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11359 posts
  • LocationWestminster, CO


  • Deweydog and Jesse like this

Cool anomalies soothe the soul.


#133
Deweydog

Posted 27 March 2016 - 05:11 PM

Deweydog

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13093 posts
  • LocationHockinson, WA

The classic "who will build the roads?" argument. I'm not an anarchist, I'm a minarchist. I believe there's a limited proper role of government and that within that role it wouldn't require massive taxation, especially direct taxation, but could be achieved with voluntary forms such as sales tax, use fees etc.

 

Who's gonna build the roads? Private companies already do...they get government contracts. Roads are already privatized in some cases such as toll roads, turnpikes etc. If future roads were privatized it would have to be a seamless system where you have a transponder and depending on which roads you drive on you pay a small amount each month in lieu of taxes that would go toward roads. Fees would range based on impact...certainly a bicyclist is lower impact than a car, which is lower impact than an 18-wheeler. For more details see Walter Block's book The Privatization of Roads and Highways available free in PDF form https://mises.org/li...ds-and-highways.

 

Monitor, investigate and prevent crime. Well San Francisco had a private police force for almost 150 years...initially the sole law enforcement organization in the city but later on running alongside a governmental police force (SFPD). The private police force had arresting powers until 1993. For more information: http://reason.com/ar...-private-police

Education. There's a ton of options outside of the public school system, many which are more efficient and prepare youth better for college, or a trade. There's of course charter and private schools, there's also cooperatives such as an academy I attended for two grades where parents pay a small amount and/or volunteer their time. There's homeschooling. There's online alternatives now as well, with various curricula available often at little or no cost. Vouchers are a way to bring back choice in education.

 

"Do you honestly believe this "freedom" you so highly value would exist without some form of tax funded government?"

 

Some form of government is bound to exist...but it is a flawed assumption that the current monolithic structure we have is the only workable option. I infer from your wording that any alternative is necessarily more "chaotic", a view that I find unfounded. And yeah I like freedom, the freedom to do as I please so long as I don't infringe on the rights of another person. Freedom has risks sure, but there's risks in any system. There's certainly risks in a government powerful enough to give you everything you want because by definition they are powerful enough to take away everything you have.

 

Contrast minarchism with anarchism...I consider myself the former, although perhaps I came across as an anarchist (anarcho-capitalist) in my earlier post. Spooner was an anarchist.

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Minarchism

 

https://en.wikipedia..._and_minarchism

 

As for roads, the bidding process is something that has improved dramatically in the state of Washington over the last decade or so.  There are a lot more processes in place which has created competition in the bid process for large projects and incentives for companies to beat construction schedules and such.  This process has been improved further by some adopted LEAN processes within the bureaucratic side of things.  Problem is with taking things and privatizing them entirely is the checks and balance of upkeep, inspection, oversight and most importantly, prioritization of projects and how they will meet the needs of citizens.  It would take companies an incredible amount of capital to handle all these important aspects along with the costs of the projects themselves.  You would ultimately see situations where large projects end up being scrapped half way through, cost cutting at the sacrifice of public safety, and so on...

 

Now I'll give you that I'd love to see more in the way of privatization when it comes to contracting/consulting services when it comes to large projects.  Case in point is the Columbia River Crossing debacle which siphoned over $100 million in public funds for what has turned out to be absolutely nothing in return except the knowledge that building a new I-5 bridge will be difficult.  It was nearly 10 years of environmental push/pull, mass transit rhetoric and political posturing.  Sickening.  

 

As for public safety services, particularly policing, there exists a huge problem with privatization for the masses.  Corruption.  The San Francisco model was one which was built upon private contracting/consulting.  They enforced laws in a biased fashion based on this, not all that dissimilar to any private security company which is contracted to patrol particular businesses/neighborhoods, just that security guards, while armed, have no arrest powers.  When you privatize policing for an entire jurisdiction, you create competition.  Competition in law enforcement is a BAD thing.  Imagine if you privatized the highway patrol and issued contracts based on a particular security company's number of traffic citations issued in a particular area?  It would be an incredibly slippery slope.  Even in the public sector there have been instances where departments or public safety entities such as the WTSC created programs which incentivized officers to increase their level of enforcement based on promise of a certain prize or benefit.  While the enforcement efforts may have been noble and beneficial to the public, this created a small amount of blow back from the public, enough to get the plug pulled very quickly.  Rightfully so, in fact.  The Washington legislature even went as far this year to pass a bill which makes it unlawful for a department to award or evaluate an officer's job performance based on the number of citations in a specified period of time.  


  • Jesse and bainbridgekid like this

All roads lead to Walgreens.  


#134
Deweydog

Posted 27 March 2016 - 05:12 PM

Deweydog

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13093 posts
  • LocationHockinson, WA

You realize this could completely describe you too, right? :lol:

 

I've never reported anyone here for anything.  It's juvenile.  People should be able to hash this s**t out between one another.  


  • GHweatherChris likes this

All roads lead to Walgreens.  


#135
Jesse

Posted 27 March 2016 - 05:59 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

As for roads, the bidding process is something that has improved dramatically in the state of Washington over the last decade or so. There are a lot more processes in place which has created competition in the bid process for large projects and incentives for companies to beat construction schedules and such. This process has been improved further by some adopted LEAN processes within the bureaucratic side of things. Problem is with taking things and privatizing them entirely is the checks and balance of upkeep, inspection, oversight and most importantly, prioritization of projects and how they will meet the needs of citizens. It would take companies an incredible amount of capital to handle all these important aspects along with the costs of the projects themselves. You would ultimately see situations where large projects end up being scrapped half way through, cost cutting at the sacrifice of public safety, and so on...

Now I'll give you that I'd love to see more in the way of privatization when it comes to contracting/consulting services when it comes to large projects. Case in point is the Columbia River Crossing debacle which siphoned over $100 million in public funds for what has turned out to be absolutely nothing in return except the knowledge that building a new I-5 bridge will be difficult. It was nearly 10 years of environmental push/pull, mass transit rhetoric and political posturing. Sickening.

As for public safety services, particularly policing, there exists a huge problem with privatization for the masses. Corruption. The San Francisco model was one which was built upon private contracting/consulting. They enforced laws in a biased fashion based on this, not all that dissimilar to any private security company which is contracted to patrol particular businesses/neighborhoods, just that security guards, while armed, have no arrest powers. When you privatize policing for an entire jurisdiction, you create competition. Competition in law enforcement is a BAD thing. Imagine if you privatized the highway patrol and issued contracts based on a particular security company's number of traffic citations issued in a particular area? It would be an incredibly slippery slope. Even in the public sector there have been instances where departments or public safety entities such as the WTSC created programs which incentivized officers to increase their level of enforcement based on promise of a certain prize or benefit. While the enforcement efforts may have been noble and beneficial to the public, this created a small amount of blow back from the public, enough to get the plug pulled very quickly. Rightfully so, in fact. The Washington legislature even went as far this year to pass a bill which makes it unlawful for a department to award or evaluate an officer's job performance based on the number of citations in a specified period of time.


Well said.

#136
Front Ranger

Posted 30 March 2016 - 07:04 AM

Front Ranger

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11359 posts
  • LocationWestminster, CO
I've tried a couple calculators that estimate how my taxes would change under each candidates tax plan.

Looks like I'd pay $4-6k more/year under Bernie's plan. I am definitely not wealthy. Interesting.

Not that I put much stock in such things, of course.

Cool anomalies soothe the soul.


#137
Jesse

Posted 30 March 2016 - 07:45 AM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

I've tried a couple calculators that estimate how my taxes would change under each candidates tax plan.

Looks like I'd pay $4-6k more/year under Bernie's plan. I am definitely not wealthy. Interesting.

Not that I put much stock in such things, of course.


Noticed there was some activity on the political thread, and I see you opened with something incendiary AND misleading! Should be a fun day.

#138
Jesse

Posted 30 March 2016 - 07:48 AM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')
Anyway, this had already been covered a few times, but the tax increase would be offset by free health care.

#139
Front Ranger

Posted 30 March 2016 - 07:54 AM

Front Ranger

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11359 posts
  • LocationWestminster, CO

Noticed there was some activity on the political thread, and I see you opened with something incendiary AND misleading! Should be a fun day.


Nope, just stating what they showed. Even said I didn't put much stock in it.

Anything can be incendiary in your hands, in this thread. :)

Cool anomalies soothe the soul.


#140
Front Ranger

Posted 30 March 2016 - 07:55 AM

Front Ranger

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11359 posts
  • LocationWestminster, CO

Anyway, this had already been covered a few times, but the tax increase would be offset by free health care.


In a general sense, perhaps, but not for me.

Cool anomalies soothe the soul.


#141
Jesse

Posted 30 March 2016 - 08:20 AM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

In a general sense, perhaps, but not for me.


How so? Doesn't your company take a certain amount out of each paycheck for health insurance?

#142
Front Ranger

Posted 30 March 2016 - 11:37 AM

Front Ranger

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11359 posts
  • LocationWestminster, CO

How so? Doesn't your company take a certain amount out of each paycheck for health insurance?

 

It's very little. I'm fortunate to have great benefits.


Cool anomalies soothe the soul.


#143
Jesse

Posted 30 March 2016 - 12:25 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

It's very little. I'm fortunate to have great benefits.

So what is taken out of your paycheck for health benefits would not add up to $4-6,000 a year? Let's say for arguments sake it is $6,000 a year. That is roughly $115 a week. And that is probably on the high end.

I worked for a company with great benefits for five years. Each pay period, around $100 was deducted from my gross pay for health/dental/vision etc.

#144
Front Ranger

Posted 30 March 2016 - 12:49 PM

Front Ranger

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11359 posts
  • LocationWestminster, CO

So what is taken out of your paycheck for health benefits would not add up to $4-6,000 a year? Let's say for arguments sake it is $6,000 a year. That is roughly $115 a week. And that is probably on the high end.

I worked for a company with great benefits for five years. Each pay period, around $100 was deducted from my gross pay for health/dental/vision etc.

 

Like I said, I'm fortunate. I only pay about $20/paycheck.

 

I could pay more if I needed/wanted additional coverage. But I would have no choice about paying more if I'm taxed at a higher rate. 

 

Just one factor to consider.


Cool anomalies soothe the soul.


#145
Jesse

Posted 30 March 2016 - 01:04 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

Like I said, I'm fortunate. I only pay about $20/paycheck.

I could pay more if I needed/wanted additional coverage. But I would have no choice about paying more if I'm taxed at a higher rate.

Just one factor to consider.

Well let's first remember that the entire foundation of this discussion is based on the results of some dubious sounding taxation calculators, that even you yourself said you didn't put a lot of stock into.

Another factor to consider. :)

Something tells me a "tax calculator" website is not going to catch all of the nuances of any candidate's tax plan.

#146
Jesse

Posted 30 March 2016 - 01:14 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')
Interesting article that really highlights what I mean when I say the establishment media is anti-Sanders.

http://www.salon.com..._start_partner/

I would appreciate thoughtful replies actually focusing on the subject matter at hand, as opposed to hastily google searched articles that provide "opposition" by simply presenting the establishment media narrative. That is just giving further life to the very problems/misconceptions this article is identifying. :)

#147
Jesse

Posted 30 March 2016 - 02:06 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')
Just had to share this here. :lol:

Attached File  image.png   529.34KB   0 downloads
  • iFred and bainbridgekid like this

#148
Front Ranger

Posted 30 March 2016 - 05:34 PM

Front Ranger

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11359 posts
  • LocationWestminster, CO

I can't stand idiotic comments like this.

 

Sanders is constantly saying the movement is not about him, it's about the people. I doubt he would run again in 2020 if he fails to get the nomination. I said the movement isn't going anywhere, though. I said nothing about Sanders running again. Check your reading comprehension. Either that or don't purposefully miss people's points for the stake of a stupid, completely forgettable joke.

 

This post should refer to #1 above.


Cool anomalies soothe the soul.


#149
Jesse

Posted 30 March 2016 - 05:39 PM

Jesse

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18350 posts
  • LocationEast Vancouver, WA (300')

This post should refer to #1 above.

I attacked both.

REALLY dumb joke. :)
  • Front Ranger likes this

#150
Front Ranger

Posted 30 March 2016 - 05:39 PM

Front Ranger

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11359 posts
  • LocationWestminster, CO

Well let's first remember that the entire foundation of this discussion is based on the results of some dubious sounding taxation calculators, that even you yourself said you didn't put a lot of stock into.

Another factor to consider. :)

Something tells me a "tax calculator" website is not going to catch all of the nuances of any candidate's tax plan.

 

Well, go ahead and check some of those taxation calculators out for yourself. If you find one (not sponsored by Mr. Sanders) that provides different evidence, I'd love to see it.

 

Regardless, there's a reason that almost all socialist-lite countries in Europe have higher tax rates for the middle/upper middle class than we do here. The money to fund all those programs simply isn't going to all come from the top 5%. 

 

And one also has to consider that government programs are rarely efficient and almost always end up costing more than they would at the local level. If you want to trust our government with more tax money, I'd like to see a compelling reason why they deserve that.


Cool anomalies soothe the soul.