Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Comment Re:Good (Score 2) 372

I'm all for ending the war on drugs, but doing so won't make cops' jobs easier.

How can it not?

  • No more arresting people for possession of a mostly-benign chemical.
  • No more violence to control market access.
  • No more arms race for smuggling and interdiction.
  • No more payoffs to officials to look the other way.
  • No more slaughter of innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire.
  • No more petty theft to purchase drugs at inflated prices.
  • More people participating in society as citizens instead of marginalized as felons.
  • Fewer people fleeing cartel-ravaged Latin America for the relative safety of the U.S.
  • More time and funds available to fight actual crimes.

Comment Re:Being right doesn't matter if you can't get ele (Score 1) 239

He cannot and (probably) will not get elected, nor does he have a big enough voice to influence the campaign.

Perhaps, but having him be able to speak his message in the national debate would start the ball rolling. We may not be ready to fix the rotten core of our system this cycle, but it's important to expose the real problem so when the next president manages to fix nothing substantive, people will know why and have possible solutions in mind.

It may take some time, but it has to start somewhere.

Comment Re:And that's why I'm backing Sanders (Score 1) 370

So you're saying wanting to keep the money you earn is "exactly" the same as trying to get groups of Americans to hate each other so you can lead one group against another?

No, I said nothing of the sort.

What I do consider divisive is calling the working class "moochers" and "takers," claiming people are trying to steal your money when they're actually trying to build a just society where everyone is compensated fairly for their hard work and children don't starve because their parents can't work enough minimum wage jobs, insisting workers compete on the global job market while capital can flow easily between markets to take advantage of that competition.

BTW, you keep saying "the money you earn" as if people earn money on their own in a vacuum. Imagine passing a law that says all white men get to have two pieces of pie while everyone else gets only one, complaining when some black guy or a woman has the audacity to point out that everyone should get one piece of pie, and shouting that they are trying to steal your hard-earned pie.

Comment Re:No, but if (Score 1) 370

If you're going to complain about the Koch brothers or other republican billionaires donating to their politicians or causes, and say that's a bad thing, it is at least reasonable to expect a fair person to be consistent and similarly list Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg and George Soros among the people corrupting the systems.

Well, I do. I guess I have your blessing. ;)

If you complain about corporation, the exact same complaints need to be levied against unions.

I disagree here because unions don't have shareholders that expect higher profits each year nor share in those profits. While corporate leaders will claim they speak for all their employees and are, of course, only working in the best interest of said employees, it's hard to believe when they donate to politicians whose platform is dismantling worker and environmental safety protections and pitting domestic and foreign workers against each other in a race to the bottom.

While there are certainly stories of union bosses taking advantage (lavish parties, travel, etc), that happens in corporations as well and boils down to human nature. I'd bet that not every member supports every deal union bosses make, at least the members can elect new bosses. What can workers do when their employer donates to a candidate they don't support? Nothing. And where does that donated money come from? From the products and services the workers make/perform.

"Thank you for your tireless effort making widgets at ACME. As we don't like having to pay disability when our machines chop off your limbs, we've decided to take some of the revenue we earned selling the widgets you built and donating it to a candidate who will work tirelessly to dismantle disability insurance. Game on!"

That being said, I would prefer all campaign contributions be small and individual. There's no reason unions and corporations can't explain why they believe a particular candidate is good for their members/workers and leave it at that. I may feel the "nefarious factor" of union versus corporate donations differ, I'm not in favor of exceptions for certain groups that allow them to donate unlimited, anonymous funds to candidates or issues.

Comment Re:And that's why I'm backing Sanders (Score 1) 370

GWB didn't change his position either, even when he was obviously wrong, he preferred consistency to honesty. . . . I just disagree with the whole idea of "staying the course" even when you've been proven wrong.

At least in the U.S., being consistent is not the same as being bull-headed or "staying the course." Someone who is consistent doesn't change their views based on whom they're addressing or what their campaign donors want, but they do change those views when provided with convincing evidence that contradict them.

For example, someone who votes consistently against laws prohibiting cell phone use while driving may change their position after reading studies linking distracted driving to increased accidental deaths. They are still consistent in their view that laws should not be enacted spuriously based on emotion. Once they learned the reasons behind the proposed laws, they change their vote but not their convictions.

This is the consistency Bernie Sanders has demonstrated to me. Unfortunately, I don't know him well enough to think of an example where he changed his position as a better example.

Comment Re:And that's why I'm backing Sanders (Score 1) 370

Again, this is class warfare rhetoric. Humanity has always had a small elite in control of an inordinate amount of resources.

This by itself isn't a problem. The problem arises when that elite influences politicians to pass laws and trade treaties that cause wealth to be transferred from the middle class to the elite, widening the gap. Not because they worked harder or with capital, but merely by changing the system to their benefit at the expense of others.

But I think we should expect it to be in the face of intense labor competition from the developing world.

This is indeed a big part of how that wealth was transferred. By using "free trade" corporations in the U.S. can pay foreign labor even less and avoid U.S. regulations around worker safety, pollution, etc. While it may sound warm and fuzzy to say it's simple fair competition between labor markets, given that those same corporations effected changes to increase that competition to their benefit and keep the profits for themselves, it's more than a tad disingenuous.

If only U.S. workers were more willing to work in buildings with suicide nets, they would be better off. Paid time off? Not necessary. Paid sick and family leave? OSHA? Forcing companies not to pollute our drinking water? Psssh, these things are passé, leftovers from a bygone era that didn't respect capital enough.

And rather than adopt policies that make that problem worse.

Those policies were adopted decades ago, and we've been witnessing the effects ever since.

Comment Re:And that's why I'm backing Sanders (Score 4, Insightful) 370

Dividing people into groups, and encouraging and widening the divisions, hyping up the hostility to gain power organizing one group against the other is almost the definition of evil.

And this is exactly what the wealthy are doing—claiming that the poor are trying to steal their hard-earned cash—while the poor are merely arguing for a return to a time when we had a large, healthy middle class. You can lament the use of the term "class" all you want; it's simply a distinction to talk about degrees of wealth and opportunity.

Trying to bring people together, finding common ground, encouraging peace and empathy is the opposite.

And this is what people seeking equality and justice are calling for. Everyone should have an opportunity to make a decent living without working three jobs, to provide a solid education for their children, and start a business if that's what drives them. Unfortunately, too many people don't have access to that life, one which they would have had forty years ago.

And i said absolutly nothing about "hating" others ...

Of course not.

But still you decided to say, "Your argument seems to be the opposite: we should hate those other Americans in those other classes" anyway because . . . it's intellectually honest to put words in someone else's mouth as long as you're making a point? Sure, that makes sense, as much as the rest of your argument.

Comment Re:It's their money, and they pay most of the taxe (Score 1) 370

Most in that situation shoot themselves in the foot by spending beyond their means.

That's possible, but I haven't read any studies to assess whether it's most or some or few. The problem is that those families used to be able to work a reasonable amount and still spend the same. And it's not like they're buying yachts when they shouldn't; they're eating at McDonald's instead of cooking at home because they have no time or prioritize having at least some leisure time left after working.

It's phrased as the poor wanting to steal the hard-earned money from the wealthy. But that completely ignores the fact that the wealthy have used their power to alter the system to get more of the income gains over the past few decades. In a sense, they stole the hard-earned money from the middle class to make them poor and now whine that the poor insist on having a decent life and call it class warfare. The class war was forty years ago, and the wealthy won.

Comment Re:It's their money, and they pay most of the taxe (Score 5, Insightful) 370

I understand class warfare and envy, and how much it annoys people who sit around and watch TV that others have more money than they do.

That's a generalization that is sometimes fair, sometimes not. . . . Anyway, by making this bald generalization, you definitely have the [all wealth is justly earned] shtick down.

And with that first comment, you perfectly demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the desire for a just society. Up until the seventies, the blue collar middle class grew and thrived. People could work a single job and buy a house, raise a family, live a modest lifestyle, and be perfectly content. But since then those with wealth used it to undermine that culture, and thus began the decades-long erosion of the middle class and working families, all while those with wealth saw their prospects improve.

Now you have families where both parents work two or three jobs and still can't improve their economic outlook. There's much less opportunity to start a business. I'm not saying none, but much, much less. People just want a chance to give their children more than they had, to take risks to get ahead, to see their labor rewarded. Instead of taxing the rich more I'd much rather see a livable wage—or better still—a basic income guarantee that would bring these opportunities back to all of society.

Comment Re:Are you OK, samzenpus? (Score 1) 370

Democrats also get their money from Billionaires and special interest groups.

Sure, and it is just as bad for democracy as when Republicans or Independents or anyone else in a position of power over others cave to plutocrats. That's when you know someone has no justification or backing for their position: when their sole argument is "The other side does it too!" Luckily, rational people are able to dislike an aspect of something and work to change it, yet still support that something. It's like supporting your friend even though you think they're making a horrible decision.

It's the same problem with addressing climate change: "China isn't doing anything to solve the problem, so neither should we!" Your neighbor doesn't have flood insurance in New Orleans, so neither should you. Unfucking believable.

The first version always gets thrown away.