Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   General (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Decision 2016 (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53250)

Nukatha September 23rd, 2016 04:54 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I REALLY recommend reading the responses from each candidate in that document from sciencedebate. They really give great insight into the candidate's actual positions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Johnson
Most public health laws and programs are appropriately
under the jurisdiction of the states, given that state and local governments are
closer to the specific needs and challenges of their populations and regions.
However, we have made clear our belief that, when a public health threat
spreads beyond state lines or is clearly beyond the capacity of individual states
to handle, there is a role for the federal government to step in, consistent with
the federal responsibility to protect citizens from harm.
That same guiding principle will dictate our response to such challenges as
“superbugs”, possible epidemics, and other threats that extend across the
entire nation.

With regard to public health, it is very simple: If a State can handle it, there's no reason for the Federal government to get involved beyond basic oversight. At the national level, with regard to large-scale epidemic prevention, the federal government can and ought to get involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Johnson
Our basic priorities will bend towards funding for
basic science and limiting funding for applied science to that which has clear
public benefit, but isn’t feasible in the private sector. The Johnson-Weld
administration defines basic science as research that works towards
understanding of fundamental issues at the core of scientific disciplines. We
believe that in the case where applied science can produce a profit, the best
thing that government can do is get out of the way, while providing safety
regulations that cannot be covered by the investigating organizations’
Institutional Review Boards, Ethical Review Boards, or Research Ethics
Boards. We believe that science is best regulated by scientists, not regulators.

Gary addressed your concern directly there as well. If a science has direct private sector applications that can be used for profit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Johnson
The Johnson Weld administration supports nuclear
power precisely because it produces energy without greenhouse gases.
Other nations have used nuclear power safely for generations. However,
we recognize that a failure or security breach at a nuclear facility can have
catastrophic results.
The Johnson Weld administration would maintain strict nuclear safety
standards, but also investigate newer and safer lower yield reactors like
breeder reactors or thorium reactors, which produce less or even reduce
nuclear waste. The challenge of nuclear waste storage is, of course, a
serious one. However, we believe solutions exist, and can be implemented,
if decisions can be based on science and honest risk assessment, rather
than the politics of pitting one state or community against another.

And he advocates for nuclear power as a clean alternative to fossil fuel plants, specifically mentioning that his administration would provide for research into new reactor technologies, with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Contrast that with Jill Stein's fear-mongering response:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jill Stein
Nuclear fission technology is unsafe, expensive, and dirty
from the mining of uranium to the disposal of spent fuel. As such we will end
subsidies to the nuclear industry immediately and phase out nuclear power
over a 10 year timeline. Existing nuclear waste will be handled with onsite dry
cask storage of high-level waste into perpetuity. No transport of nuclear waste

EDIT: So Ted Cruz just announced that he's voting for Trump. I honestly thought he still had integrity. I guess not.

Dysole September 23rd, 2016 05:01 PM

FYI
 
Nukatha you won't win me over by comparing Johnson to Stein since I already think worse of her as a candidate compared to Johnson.

The big and important thing economically for me is this. There are quite a few situations where the best thing for society as a whole is not something a profit maximizing company would be interested in and in some cases would actively oppose. Hence why I'm super wary of "the free market will fix it" solutions.

~Dysole, who will add on to wriggz's earlier statements that economic models are based on their assumptions and so rarely do people check their assumptions

Dad_Scaper September 23rd, 2016 05:09 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
My conduct and tone will speak for itself. I don't care to talk about the talking.

Edit: medicine can be sold and would therefore be unregulated as I read that quote.

Dad_Scaper September 23rd, 2016 06:05 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I don't understand not voting, or treating my vote like it doesn't matter. This country is full of dangerous people with whom I disagree, and I expect they are voting. Why the heck wouldn't I?

Edit: oops. Double post.

Nukatha September 24th, 2016 02:33 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
@Ranior

I read your long post, but just haven't had time to give a thoughtful response yet. Here goes something:

My apologies for that logical leap, inferring that the student loan system was significantly responsible for the public school tuition increases.
On the topic of Wisconsin, wasn't the recent tuition freeze motivated by the UW system posting a rather large budget surplus, implying that tuition was higher that it needed to be?
But don't get me wrong here. I'm in Arizona now. And every time a state/local bill comes through to raise public education funding (usually by some tax increase), I vote for it. Of course, AZ ranks I believe 48th in spending per student, and has the absolute worst Public teacher retention in the nation, so it is abundantly clear to me that it needs significant improvement. I'm just of the opinion that education is better handled at the State level, so that rather than attempting to have nationwide standards, we can have 50 different educational laboratories, so that every state can learn from each other state's successes and failures.
Plus, when national standards are implemented, it plays right into the hands of the likes of textbook companies Pearson and Houghton-Mifflin, who make bank off of such standards, with seemingly little demonstrable benefit in the classroom. When each state sets their own standards, it reduces the power of what I would call 'big education lobbies'. Sure, they'll flock to California and Texas, as they've got the largest populations, but the barrier of entry to the realm of educational materials is much lower overall than with national standards.
Bottom line, I think I generally agree with you. K-12 education is a necessary investment into society as a whole, and pays out huge dividends in the betterment of society. Collegiate-level education is increasingly necessary for a number of fields, (like yours and mine), but certainly not for many others. Lots of current college students (and this is just anecdotal from what I've seen teaching at the college level) would be better off hopping into a trade school, entry-level position in their field of choice, or some other shorter term education to get them directly started in some industry.
What it comes down to for me is that National standards are simply too overbearing and uniform to work across an entire nation the size of the US. Individual state-run education programs can try new and unique approaches that if successful can be tried elsewhere, and if failures can be dropped without damaging any other state. In addition, (on the legal side of things) no where in the Constitution is a federal education system established, and therefore I would argue all legal authority over education is, and ought to be, left to the several States.

I'll leave for now with the following quote, which I think is rather powerful.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fr%C3%...%A9ric_Bastiat
Quote:

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

vegietarian18 September 24th, 2016 02:54 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I believe that the state can often do a better job with many of those things than a private interest could. I think the state should be able to ensure that all of its citizens have access to things like education. Capital gain should not play a part in essentials like that.

Your quote does not really follow with the rest of your post either. It is the private, for-profit, colleges that are creating the worst debt problems.

Rich10 September 25th, 2016 05:39 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tornado (Post 2111729)
I am curious if you would indulge me Rich10 but what was your voting pattern like?

I was devout Republican. Why you ask? Alex P. Keaton. :)

After GW's first term, I was done. Ever since then it seems like the Republicans only job to is to oppose and criticize the Democrats but never offer any alternate solutions.

I was a Democrat until Reagan. After that, I voted Republican more frequently than Democrat, but it was never exclusive.

I prefer to see a balance in our government. When either party is in control of both the White House and Congress, they just seem to go too far right or left.

Tornado September 26th, 2016 08:43 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
So I am/was the only APK Republican. :)

Thanks Rich.

Should be a fun debate tonight. :)

wriggz September 26th, 2016 12:20 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112051)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tornado (Post 2111729)
I am curious if you would indulge me Rich10 but what was your voting pattern like?

I was devout Republican. Why you ask? Alex P. Keaton. :)

After GW's first term, I was done. Ever since then it seems like the Republicans only job to is to oppose and criticize the Democrats but never offer any alternate solutions.

I was a Democrat until Reagan. After that, I voted Republican more frequently than Democrat, but it was never exclusive.

I prefer to see a balance in our government. When either party is in control of both the White House and Congress, they just seem to go too far right or left.



It is just scary how often we see Governments sticking to Ideologies when faced with Success.


If the world worked differently and instead of Communism failing and Capitalism succeeding, it was the other way around, wouldn't it seem foolish to hold on to the free market? Clearly Russian and China have learned that Capitalism is better for those that want to become wondrously Powerful and Rich and the common people, explaining why they have switched.


I liked Sanders argument of pointing to Europe and saying "Why can't we have what they have?". Germany is Working, France is (mostly) working, Scandinavia is working and they have rights to Education, Health, and Labour, that are as foundational as Free speech and Baring Arms is in the US.


I'm reminded by Hyundai. Many will remember these were discount cars that were cheap and crappy. What did Hyundai do? The bought a Corrolla (Top rated car at the time) and told their engineers to make one and put a Hyundai brand on it. Now Hyundai is a class leader. No shame in copying the best. Ironically this was at the same time as when the Big 3 were looking for government bailouts, while they continued to do the same thing (Big, Inefficient, expensive but not high end, etc.)


Finance is Ruining America


As an aside, I read an article about how the Wage Gap and low taxes from the Ultra Rich (Fund Managers) have eroded the middle class. The Crux of the argument was in the 60's and 70's the bulk of the money moving around in the stock market was used to make stuff (40 cents on the Dollar). Since the 80's (when taxes fell to record lows) it has been 10 cents.


We have incentivized the market to keep the money moving around the market or end up in the bank accounts of very few. If 90% of your salary goes to taxes, you don't try to make another Million, you keep that money in your business thru R&D, innovation and expansion (all create new jobs). When the "free market" is aloud to run rampant this is what happens. Individuals start working only for themselves and those luck few become super rich while the rest are left out to dry.

Dad_Scaper September 26th, 2016 12:28 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
FWIW, I don't think our current split - Democratic President, Republican congress - is doing the nation any favors. The House spent far more money investigating Benghazi - a political witch hunt - than was spent investigating 9/11, and instead of doing real business it voted to recall the ACA one bazillion times. And the Senate has disgraced the founding fathers and the Constitution the Republican Party claims to hold so dear, by declining to consider a nominee to the Supreme Court.

So I'm not persuaded that it's always for the better to have a party split between the Executive & the Legislative branches. There may have been a time when that was true, and that time may come again, but I don't think that time is now.

dok September 26th, 2016 12:49 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112121)
So I'm not persuaded that it's always for the better to have a party split between the Executive & the Legislative branches. There may have been a time when that was true, and that time may come again, but I don't think that time is now.

It was not a bad thing back when there was significant ideological overlap between the parties. For most of our history the regional variations within a party were more significant than the divide between them. But that's not remotely true now, which is why national politics has become so zero-sum over the last 20 years.

Relatedly, here's a good article that discusses issues the media has had covering politics that I was discussing with @Rich10 earlier.

We are starting to see a shift in the way Trump is covered, although it's coming alarmingly late in the cycle. The NYT front-paging an analysis piece that calls out Trump falsehoods, for instance. They're starting to realize that stenography-as-journalism plays into Trump's hands, and he simply can't be covered like a normal candidate.

vegietarian18 September 26th, 2016 01:15 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I liked this article

Quote:

The people complaining about "false balance" usually seem confident in having discovered the truth of things for themselves, despite the media's supposed incompetence. They're quite sure of whom to vote for and why. Their complaints are really about the impact that "false balance" coverage might have on other, lesser humans, with weaker minds than theirs.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2022 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.