Sunday, 21 October 2018

The first step to UBI or crass vote buying?

quote [ Sen. Kamala Harris, a potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, today proposed a big new tax break for average Americans.

The California Democrat wants to create a new $6,000 tax credit for families earning up to $100,000. The break would be “refundable,” which means people could claim it even if it exceeded their tax liabilities, by receiving a check from the government for the difference.

She wants to allow recipients to claim it throughout the year, up to $500 per month, rather than having to wait to get a lump sum after they file their taxes. ]

I think it is still too early for 2020 guessing but it is obvious some people are already running so here goes.

And Politico is hinting there is a deal to come between Bernie and Elizabeth Warren. But take it with a grain of salt this is the same politico that only last week said...

Bernie 2016 alums wary of 2020 sequel A large contingent of his former staffers is looking to other candidates to carry the torch.

which is total bullshit..they note two junior staffers who are looking for a job.

But they do mention one candidate I am interested in but have no idea if she has the chops it takes to get on the big stage.

Tulsi Gabbard weighing 2020 presidential bid

And uncle Joe is making the rounds as well. And hold on to your hats Hillary is back on the stump...There is already been a parade into Iowa and Hampshire.

Iowa Starting Line Iowa Starting Line

Democrats with an eye on challenging President Trump in 2020 are already making travel plans that could position themselves for a potential bid.

2020 Dem contenders travel to key primary states

______________________

It looks like there is no doubt that Trump is running again, and I am still giving 2 to 1 odds he get primaried.... and 4 to 1 he wins and becomes the GOP nominee again. These stops he has been making the last couple of weeks are in 2020 battleground states.

That leaves open a 3rd party run down the middle, by the never Trumpers...it could get real crazy and have a left wing run if the Dems treat the progressive worse than they did last time...4 viable candidates running...wild. If Bernie /warren get the nomination that 3rd party run down the middle could be a split ticket reoublucan /democrat like what McCain wanted with Leibeman.

What was that old Arab curse..."May you live in interesting times"


Lets get through the primaries and then let the fun begin/
[SFW] [politics] [+1 Informative]
[by bbqkink@4:35amGMT]

Comments

hellboy said @ 5:31am GMT on 21st Oct [Score:3 Underrated]
Hillary can fuck off. She had her chance and she blew it.

I love Bernie but he's too old. He should support someone new. I don't love Biden, but he has the same problem (and he's run a couple times now and fizzled). He missed his chance in 2016.

Gabbard is... interesting but she needs more experience (Senator, Governor, a cabinet post).

If they do a real primary with Warren, Harris, Gillibrand, Booker, hopefully Sherrod Brown, and a couple others, they may actually get a decent candidate. I wish Warren hadn't played the Pocahontas game with Trump, she needs to take lessons from Stormy Daniels on how to humilate the chump in public.

Not interested in McAuliffe, Holder, Bloomberg, or Cuomo, all of whom are ballot box death.

Friends of mine think Haley is positioning herself to run, either against Trump or as the post-Trump savior of the Gang Rape Party. She's just lipstick on a bunch of pigs, either way. Running a non-white woman doesn't change the fact that your party is about nothing more than making rich white men even richer.
C18H27NO3 said @ 10:08pm GMT on 22nd Oct
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought warren has made major mistakes.
0000 said @ 1:16pm GMT on 21st Oct [Score:-3 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
rylex said @ 6:03pm GMT on 21st Oct [Score:-2]
filtered comment under your threshold
bbqkink said[1] @ 6:23pm GMT on 21st Oct [Score:0 Underrated]
She had to address the Trump racist comments before running...she didn't have to do it 3 weeks before the midterm.

And in a normal world where facts mater DNA (science) would matter, but the Right doesn't accept it the proof of evolution there is no reason the would accept it as proof of ancestry,

"While the vast majority of the individual's ancestry is European," he concluded of Warren, "the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual's pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago."
In short, the results pretty much agree with what Warren has been arguing for years.


Here's the deal with Elizabeth Warren's Native American heritage

To me the most disgusting part of this is that he did it in front of the "Code Talkers".

++++++++EDIT+++++++++++

And they are still tying to say she used it for some sort of advantage in either a job or school admission even though there is no evidence of it....and they are also saying she is trying to use this for Tribal admission even though she is not....facts and science are wasted on bigots.
0000 said @ 8:22am GMT on 22nd Oct [Score:-3 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
bbqkink said @ 10:29pm GMT on 22nd Oct
And now she has proven it.
0000 said[1] @ 12:44am GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2]
filtered comment under your threshold
bbqkink said @ 1:06am GMT on 23rd Oct
"While the vast majority of the individual's ancestry is European," he concluded of Warren, "the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual's pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago."
In short, the results pretty much agree with what Warren has been arguing for years.
bbqkink said @ 10:36pm GMT on 23rd Oct
The third great lie is about what fixes it.

One of the most popular solutions that arose in online culture was, again, the mantra of “don’t feed the trolls.” This meant that any time a troll popped up in an online situation making inflammatory remarks, you were supposed to ignore them because responding would derail the thread and give them the attention they wanted. What no one seems to remember is it never worked, practically on any level. There was always someone who wanted to troll back in the opposite direction, someone who genuinely got offended for a personal and valid reason, or someone who wanted to try to be reasonable. Instead of solving anything, “don’t feed the trolls” became a motto for people who want to act above it all or regale us with stories about how much harder it was to troll back in their day when they had to troll uphill, both ways! But most of all, it became the mantra of how to ignore online abuse completely.

The premise of “don’t feed the trolls” implies that if you ignore a troll, they will inevitably get bored or say, “Oh, you didn’t nibble at my bait? Good play, sir!” and tip their cap and go on their way. Ask anyone who has dealt with persistent harassment online, especially women: this is not usually what happens. Instead, the harasser keeps pushing and pushing to get the reaction they want with even more tenacity and intensity. It’s the same pattern on display in the litany of abusers and stalkers, both online and off, who escalate to more dangerous and threatening behavior when they feel like they are being ignored. In many cases, ignoring a troll can carry just as dear a price as provocation.
"Ignoring a troll can carry just as dear a price as provocation"

It all harkens back to Cliff Pervocracy’s analogy of the “missing stair,” where everyone works around the obvious dangers of a situation because they are so used to “dealing with it” by outright ignoring it. If someone speaks up about the danger, they are dismissed. Why complain when you can “just hop over” the missing stair? But on a systemic level, it all adds up to something so much more than a mere missing stair. For many people on the internet — especially women, people of color, and the LGBTQ community — it is an entire broken staircase, full of loose nails, jutting floorboards, and impossible leaps. And there are so many others who don’t notice it because they either get to use the elevator or are already on the top floor.

Not only does this sort of ignorance function as a kind of tacit permission, but it also ignores the inherent threat of the troll’s true intent. What the troll, the stalker, and the abuser really want out of the situation is to feel powerful and in control. And they will not stop until they feel it. Therein lies the most horrible aspect of the “don’t feed” mantra: rather than doing anything to address the trolls, the more tangible effect is to silence the victim and the reality of their abuse, or worse, to blame them for it. For far too many who promoted this idea, the true goal was silence, to avoid facing what is happening and the impossible responsibility of it.

“Don’t feed the trolls” also ignores an obvious method for addressing online abuse: skilled moderation and the willingness to kick people off platforms for violating rules about abuse. At one website I used to write for, everyone constantly remarked that we had the most amazing, thoughtful commenters. How did we achieve this? Easy: a one-strike policy. Complete zero tolerance. Did people complain? Of course they did. But it stopped people with bad intentions from being a part of the community, and it kept all the well-meaning people on their best behavior. It wasn’t perfect, but it was good.

It also a took a ton of effort on the part of the entire writing team. We had to ignore the other popular sentiment of “don’t read the comments” (which is largely about trying to maintain sanity while staring at the void) and embrace a jaw-droppingly obvious fact: what truly derails any given thread or conversation lies not in a given response to trolls, but the very troll who is trying to derail in the first place. The second you treat them as a “constant” or inescapable part of your community, you have given them permission. You make them a missing stair. And the impact of doing so is only exacerbated when you scale up.
"What the troll, the stalker, and the abuser really want is to feel powerful and in control"

Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are now so large that they are considered “unmoderatable” communities. We like to pretend this was a pure facet of their size, but it is inescapably a part of their ethos. They are platforms forged in the fires of troll culture, founded and operated by techno-libertarians who didn’t understand why they had to care about any of this. They set out with no intention to moderate at all. Zuckerberg just wanted to rate hot girls, after all. But in 2018, the staggering effects of non-moderation are just starting to hit them, and they have little idea how to address or even intellectually engage with the idea.

It starts by acknowledging that these systems are so large and pervasive and such an important part of people’s forward-facing lives that it is intrinsically necessary to protect the well-being of the people on it. For many, social media networks are a huge part of not just how they socialize and connect with other people, but how they do their jobs. These platforms have succeeded in making themselves indispensable to many users, which renders absurd the suggestion that the abuse festering there is something people can easily “opt out of” by not participating.

When Zoe Quinn pursued legal action for the horrors of Gamergate, she was frequently confronted with this so-called solution by police officers and even the judge who decided not to issue criminal harassment charges against the man who orchestrated an online harassment campaign again her: just get offline. But as Quinn wrote in her book Crash Override, “The internet was my home, and treating it like a magical alternate dimension where nothing of consequence happens was insulting. Telling a victim of a mob calling for their head online to not go online anymore is like telling someone who has a hate group camped in their yard to just not go outside.” The consequences of this attitude are very real. In today’s online world, people can claim the power of a threat with none of the consequences of actually making a threat. Just last week, Milo Yiannopoulos called for the shooting of journalists. Then, when someone did exactly that, he quickly insisted that “he wasn’t being serious.” This is the heart of trolling, especially when it’s built around the intent to terrorize.

But this is all really happening. And the large-scale internet needs the figure out the way to guarantee the same protections as smaller communities by moderating with a sense of decency and displaying the same basic sense of judgment as a damn open mic night. (There is a reason Michael Richards is not asked back to The Laugh Factory.) The powers that be in social media can’t just make it about who is saying bad words, try to algorithm their way out of the problem, or play every side in the name of “fairness” when it leaves so many of us to the wolves. They have to make an ethical choice about what they really believe and what ideology they want to represent moving forward. Because they cannot reap the reward of what they have built without taking on the responsibility and the cost of it, too.
0000 said @ 6:59am GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2]
filtered comment under your threshold
bbqkink said[1] @ 4:34pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2 Trollfood]
filtered comment under your threshold
0000 said @ 5:36pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
bbqkink said[1] @ 5:42pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2 Trollfood]
filtered comment under your threshold
0000 said @ 5:50pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
bbqkink said @ 6:39pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2 Trollfood]
filtered comment under your threshold
0000 said @ 6:47pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
bbqkink said[1] @ 6:57pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2 Trollfood]
filtered comment under your threshold
0000 said[1] @ 7:07pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
bbqkink said @ 7:46pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2 Trollfood]
filtered comment under your threshold
C18H27NO3 said @ 7:59pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:0 Insightful]
Dumpster and the right used a school yard tactic to goad Warren into trying to debunk the heritage question.

At the same time, everybody and their mother in this country likes to tout their indian american heritage as though it were something important. My miserable sister in law likes to say she is part american indian. And she has absolutely nothing to do with american indians, but this is coming from someone that thinks appearances and perception is everything. Just like a politician. Therefore, boast of your indigenous blood line. I have little doubt that Warren was guilty of this. What effect it had on her career is irrelevant, as it probably had as much to do with her advancement as the color of her nail polish. But is it important in the end? Fuck no. The conservative right made it important, and she fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
bbqkink said @ 8:15pm GMT on 23rd Oct
Have been reading about this. The Hack Gap June 21, 2011 is what it is being called. Was going to make a post about it but this as good of place to put it as any other.



The Hack Gap Rears Its Ugly Head Yet Again October 9, 2012

0000 said @ 8:45pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
bbqkink said @ 8:57pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2 Trollfood]
filtered comment under your threshold
0000 said @ 9:05pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
bbqkink said[1] @ 9:08pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2 Trollfood]
filtered comment under your threshold
0000 said[1] @ 9:16pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
bbqkink said @ 9:28pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2 Trollfood]
filtered comment under your threshold
0000 said @ 11:20pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2]
filtered comment under your threshold
bbqkink said @ 11:46pm GMT on 23rd Oct [Score:-2]
filtered comment under your threshold
rylex said @ 4:38am GMT on 21st Oct
Tax credit instead of welfare or ubi. I see what they did there.
bbqkink said @ 5:04am GMT on 21st Oct
Oh and I thing it is time to hear this pearl of wisdom again.

Why America isn't the greatest country in the world anymore.

and it should be updates we have sliped some more.
conception said @ 10:05pm GMT on 21st Oct
I forget why, but Tulsi Gabbard is terrible.
apomorph said @ 12:04am GMT on 22nd Oct
This? https://web.archive.org/web/20140303000354/http://www.ourhonolulu.org/council/update/172 or maybe her outright antagonism of homosexual rights activists and previous opposition to same sex marriage?
hellboy said @ 2:04am GMT on 22nd Oct [Score:1 Insightful]
She grew up super religious; serving alongside gay soldiers changed her mind. I prefer politicians who are willing to reconsider their positions based on new experience.

Some of her other positions I don't agree with, but my jury is still out on her.
conception said @ 2:57pm GMT on 22nd Oct
Well, it changed her mind that the government shouldn't be involved, not on the morality of it, as far as I've read.
conception said @ 2:57pm GMT on 22nd Oct
I think it was the "war is cool if Americans don't die"-ness?

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party

In any case, pass.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.



Posts of Import
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
arrowhen
HoZay
lilmookieesquire
XregnaR