• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PeterMP

  1. In my experience, pretty low to zero. It wasn't like I couldn't get some of whatever we were serving for myself if I wanted, and after working in a restaurant for a while, you'd eaten pretty much everything they served so it wasn't like there was something you hadn't tried where curiosity was a part of of the driving factor. I can see with a delivery driver not associated with a particular restaurant and are consistently getting knew things from knew places and can't get food on their own from the restaurants they are picking up from where that becomes an appealing option.
  2. " He opens another IPA and takes a swig. “If someone is proposing free college, which is a regressive policy, or debt forgiveness, which is a regressive policy—.” He stops and shakes his head. “I mean, single-payer, that’s been a progressive view forever. But now it’s embodied by Bernie’s very particular Medicare for All, which is an actual legislative proposal that has become the emblem for whether you’re woke or not woke, or progressive or not progressive during this primary.” He continues, “The equities that are being satisfied are the responses that you get on social media and your ability to raise money on the internet. And that has led to people offering up policies that—.” He stops himself again. “You know, when Obama ran in 2008, there was an outer edge, because that political market could only bear so much. But this political Twitter market can never bear too much; the more extreme you are, the more rewarded you are.” When I mention the cautionary tale of what has become of the modern Republican Party, Bennet acknowledges the parallels. But he sees one key difference. “Trump and McConnell don’t need a functioning democracy to achieve what they’re trying to achieve. Trump doesn’t care whether he has a functioning democracy or not, and McConnell doesn’t need one because it’s all about putting judges on the courts,” the senator says. “But if you actually want to fix the health care system, or deal with climate, or do the other things we want to do, you have to have a durable coalition of people that support you. … There’s been a complete breakdown in our exercise in self-governance. And that has created a vacuum into which the anti-government impulses of the country have flown, and now, the over promising impulses have flown.""
  3. The fundamental problem with college costs is that the states haven't kept up funding of colleges with inflation and the increased demand for college. In most states, when corrected for inflation most colleges are being funded at below levels they were 30 or 40 years ago even though they are educating more people and education has a larger costs because of increases in technology. The answer is simple. Vote for state politicians that support funding higher education in a manner consistent with the costs and number of people going to college. And you already see some states making moves to make college more affordable (e.g. NY). (Private colleges are funky because most people don't pay full price. When you look at increases in private college tuition, the numbers are meaningless because you have no idea how many people are actually paying that.)
  4. I do feel like it needs to be said the way the phrase medicare for all is being used in the Democratic primary is not literally medicare for all (e.g. there's nothing about being on medicare that says you can't have private insurance that covers some of the same things that Medicare does, but Sanders' plan would do just that). Sanders is a good politician. He's defined his health care plan using a phrase/concept that was popular, and then the media lazily also uses that phrase to describe his health care plan to the point where the two get intertwined, which essentially forces everybody else to as well. I guess if I were Buttigieg I'd be running ads pointing out that the Sanders plan is not literally medicare for all.
  5. Interesting take on the wealth tax that I had not considered before (though I'm also not sure of all of the details of Warren's plan): "Since the bulk of the money comes from a very small group of people, this small group of people has the option to announce that they will not pay the tax, by renouncing their citizenship. If that sounds strange to people, they have not been following the political behavior of the very rich in recent years. Can anyone say it’s worth $5 billion a year to Jeff Bezos to be a U.S. citizen? Suppose 1,000 very rich people, representing $10 trillion in wealth, sent a letter to Congress proclaiming their plan to renounce their citizenship if lawmakers moved ahead with President Warren’s wealth tax? My guess is that Congress would not move forward (even if it otherwise were inclined to endorse such a measure). If Congress did move forward, and a substantial share of these billionaires carried through with their threat, the Warren administration would face a major embarrassment. It’s great to see leading presidential contenders proposing measures to seriously address the rise in inequality over the last four decades. However, the implications of these policies have to be considered carefully. A financial transactions tax is likely to prove far more effective than a wealth tax." Another piece on the effects of marriage on a wealth tax:
  6. PeterMP

    Worst Song Lyrics

    This might seem bad that I know this, but it isn't Taylor Swift (I don't know who it is off the top of my head, but it isn't Taylor Swift). In my defense, I have a tween and early teen daughters. ""We should take this back to my place" That's what she said right to my face 'Cause I want you bad Yeah, I want you, baby I've been thinking 'bout it all day And I hope you feel the same way, yeah 'Cause I want you bad Yeah, I want you, baby Slow, slow hands Like sweat dripping down our dirty laundryNo, no chanceThat I'm leaving here without you on me" The hands are like sweet dripping down dirty laundry? Sweat doesn't really even drip down laundry. This doesn't even seem to be case where it is a rhyming issue, and they just were looking for a word that rhymed. Laundry doesn't rhyme with anything else in the song. He just couldn't think of better imagery for slow hands. And really, somebody with sweat dripping down their dirty laundry is somebody you want to be with? Or does the sweat go with the next line? I guess that makes a little more sense, but still couldn't think of two things that go on each other than sweat and dirty laundry. Two things that might be more sexually appealing.
  7. Long story short, it was most likely psychosomatic affects induced by stress followed by mass hysteria egged on by government officials, like Rubio. The recorded noise appears to have been crickets that have are not known to cause any issues.
  8. PeterMP

    The Forthcoming Recession

    "No Recession for 2020"
  9. Should car companies have to pay for accidents that they know are going to happen because they sell cars. (I'm going to readily admit that I don't know all of the details of the case, but J&J seems to have been in a different category than some of the other companies that knew a lot of their drug was going into illegal markets and did nothing. And even more general, this looks like case where government messed up and now are looking for somebody to blame/fund their mistake. Doctors are licensed by states. The FDA regulates the pharma industry. Etc.)
  10. PeterMP

    The Forthcoming Recession

    I'll point out that recession doesn't mean massive economic or stock market decline. Also, obviously after months of growth, eventually, we will see months where the economy doesn't grow. And as you spread it over time, it becomes more likely (somebody said a recession in next 22 months). I think it is likely @tshile is right that the yield curve is not really currently a good predictor of a recession, and we'll enter a recession (in the next 22 months) just due to random chance. But I generally don't see a lot of evidence that we are sitting in 2007 as compared to 2008 or that we'll enter a recession in the next few months (3 or 4).
  11. Economic boycotts have proven to be very successful. Much of the progress of the Civil Rights movement were the result of economic boycotts.
  12. Okay, but that's because society hasn't adapted to that general model. An the adaption to taking away guns that fire lots of bullets is pretty simple as bringing more pre-loaded guns.
  13. If you had started with that post, I probably wouldn't have even commented. But you started with just saying more. @twa is right. Tactics will change, and it is possible eventually some body will come up with a set of tactics that are more lethal. I don't think it will happen right away or commonly, but somebody will. And at that time, we'll have to adjust. (There is a reason why we haven't seen another OK style bombing. And that's because we changed. There is much more work being done today to track fertilizes and other things that could be used as explosives then there were.)
  14. First, I think @twa is right tactics will change. And while none of these people individually are especially creative or effective planners, you do see different wrinkles in things that affect out comes. And they do study what other people do and will adopt what seems to have worked well in the past. You see that with the Stoneman Douglas shooting. You see an adoption of tactics there. He knows what Lanza did won't be very effective because schools have adapted to what Lanza did so he goes at the end of the school day, and he pulls the fire alarm. Those two things eliminate the lock down drill and other things schools have done to prevent school shooting. He doesn't have to worry about being buzzed in because the doors are open. The teachers aren't going to lock kids in classrooms because of the fire alarm. Nobody's trying to replicate Lanza did because most of these people understand that if they do, they aren't going to be effective because society changed. The other thing is I think you can do things to make them harder to attempt (see my post on what to actually do).
  15. Your post suggest (implies) that you wanted more done then what I said because it wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook. But you aren't (likely) to get more done so the end result is nothing.
  16. You aren't going to get more pass or approved by the courts currently. @twa might even be right in that I'm not sure you can get that passed or approved by the courts. But I think there's at least a chance of it. (There are 2 bad things the Democrats could do right now: 1. Not do anything because they can't get anything that is "good enough" done. Which is what you are suggesting. 2. Do something that won't do any good so in 5 years the GOP can talk about how dumb the Democrats are on gun laws and they pass laws that don't do any good, but restrict the rights of honest and good citizens. The Democrats need to focus and push on a small set of things that will actually do some good and get passed. Focusing on the Sandy Hook case (right now in the present) in either way is a waste.)
  17. It wasn't a comparable situation. Like 9/11, that was a long term planned attack by somebody that had support. That isn't the comparison. (Like 9/11 and planes. Other people have flown planes into building, but none have killed nearly as many as on 9/11. The Nice attack is an exception of what can be done with car (in that case a truck) when the person actually plans carefully and has support. Luckily, we haven't seen an example of that in the US with guns.) The enemy of good is perfect. The Sandy Hook case is one of the hardest cases to do something about, but just because we can't solve every shooting doesn't mean we should do nothing.
  18. Easiest thing to do would make it illegal to buy a gun under the age of 25, go after people and stores involved in illegal purchases, and require people to get a license approved by local law enforcement. That makes much more sense than going after magazine size or assault weapons. The Va Tech shooter only used a couple of hand guns. Would gun deaths and mass shooting go to 0? No, but we'd see an effect.
  19. Okay, but you get the point. And the guy in Texas only killed one other person so it wasn't very effective. I'm not saying they aren't, but they also aren't going to carry out a 9/11 like attack easily. The guy last 2 shooters aren't (likely) more dangerous without guns because they are going to self-fund and organize a 9/11 like attack if they don't have guns. Everywhere else in the developed western world, they (generally) use something like a knife and manage to attack a few people. There's little reason to believe the US would be any different.
  20. Guns aren't additive the way that drugs are. My confidence comes from the evidence of every other developed western country in the world where these types of attacks are much more rare. Without evidence, there is no reason to believe the US is different than every other developed western country and that if we adopted their gun laws, there is no reason why the result wouldn't be pretty much the same. And there is no evidence of such a difference between Americans and other populations. Generally, when the US does something that the European nations were doing or vice versa at the population level, the essentially effect is the same. There's no reason to believe that guns would be any different.
  21. Knives and blunt objects are not more deadly (in general). Planes was a one time thing that is not equivalent to these attacks and attackers. In general, isolated individual people that want to kill lots of people are not more successful in other countries than in the US. In general, they are less effective. Comparing the guys that carried out the last two shootings to an organized plan by a terrorist organization is a false comparison.
  22. It is very unlikely you would develop a black market guns outside of the drug market. Unlike drugs, guns are not addictive and guns are much harder to do things like ship (generally they are larger for the profit). Every other developed western country has gun laws and drug laws. They have substantial problems with black market drugs and very little problems with black market guns outside of the black market drug community. The illegal gun market in Mexico is heavily tied to the illegal drug market, and the fact that they neighbor us and guns are easily had here doesn't help. To suggest the US would be different than every other western country in the world with no evidence, makes no sense.
  23. What do you thin they would use? I think more is extremely unlikely. People with these issues aren't specific to the US, and through most of the western developed world, you don't see people with these issues getting more deadly weapons in general. Instead, you get things like this: (The only comparable attacks in other countries are with cars and ramming attacks, and they certainly aren't more deadly. MAYBE they are just as effective, but they aren't more.) Just because we can't solve every problem today, doesn't mean we should solve the ones we can. This is an argument to do nothing for any problem because you can never solve every problem completely.
  24. On what planet is Gary Johnson the sensible moderate on any issue? Gary Johnson is in lock step position with Republicans on gun control. (People would be safer it was easier to carry a gun in public.)
  25. I guess I'm just not sure what her beliefs are that make her dangerous. Is not being involved in the ME, not striking at Iran, etc. a threat to NATO? (If Russia wants to spread its influence of the ME, I say let it. In the long run, I think that's going to be a losing position. Though I don't think Putin cares about the long run. He's looking at the here and now, his bank account, and staying in power.) She seems to have a pretty good record of supporting the Ukraine. (Now, IMO there are some red flags here. She's been slow to criticize Assad. I think (@No Excuses) there appears to be some issues with her flavor Hindu (she gets a lot of support from Indian Hindu nationalism organizations (but I wonder if that's just because she's not familiar with Hinduism on an international stage and she has moved back from that some). She's not somebody I'd be excited to vote for, but she doesn't seem as bad as people are making her sound either.) I have another question on the idea of decriminalizing illegal border crossings. Is that akin to open borders? Let's say: 1. Somebody crosses the border illegally. 2. They are picked up by border patrol, ICE, etc. What happens next?