Just Sad, "Chicago sees deadliest Memorial Day weekend in four years"

[Dresden]

The theory is also just as much that the greatly increased compensation will attract a much better pool of candidates to begin with.

The problem is solely how people are funded TO become candidates and civil servants, not how they are funded once they become civil servants.

I agree that might be a bigger problem, but I strongly disagree that it's the sole problem.

Bottom line, I want our best people in politics. I think it's illogical to expect to draw our best people when we don't pay even remotely competitively with their other options, unless they compromise their ethics and act in a corrupt fashion.

It's only illogical if you think people are drawn to pubic service for the money. It used to be considered a duty to work in govt., something you did to give back to the county or state that helped you be successful. I don't see why someone like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or Michael Jordan wouldn't be willing to be a senator or president for 4-8 years. Money is not a consideration anymore for them. the thing that really holds them back, IMO, is all the BS you have to do to get elected- the fund raising, the endless campaigning, the mud slinging.

[Dresden]

This is the kind of stupid reasoning one falls for that keeps the number of black senators in US history at 10.

Are the reasons you list worthy of preventing 2 additional, permanent black senators? Of course not.

Maybe if you want to have a good discussion, idk, address the logic instead of dismissing it as stupid without any reasoning?

2 additional permanent black senators? Huh? Because black people would only be capable of or interested in voting for black candidates? That's racist as hell IMO. Against blacks. Who, btw, don't constitute a majority in DC anyways.

DC is 49% black. City with the 9th highest population of black people in America.

You know what's actually racist? Denying that population's right to full representation and political power. DC has a higher population than Wyoming and Vermont. Basically the same as Alaska and the Dakotas.

And of course both DC Senators would be black. That's literally why the Republicans would hate DC statehood. Which is exactly why the Dems are idiots for not doing it.

You make solid points.

[dice]

Watch on YouTube

I always thought this was a “Training Day” style thing. Looks like they had beef, and he was going to teach him a lesson. Brought his “crew” over to initiate them and but a little fear of god in Floyd. Chauvin is a uncontrollable psychopath though and took it to farther than the other officers thought it was going to go. I would bet them asking him to ease up only made him go harder. The real question is why would the other guys be reluctant to stop or say anything? Basically because they end up being dead on a future tour of duty. It’s a lose/ lose position for them. They either play ball with the force or their lives get ruined. If they play ball then end up killing a dude over a personal beef. Yeah the police system isn’t broken, really it’s normal for a rookie to be involved in a personal beef and have the fear of losing his job or his life over not playing ball. Nope, no corruption that needs to be changed here.

Don’t get me wrong I need to see the other officers go down with this, but at the same time I can have some empathy that the system effed them too. They are the perfect example of how this system has failed.

the 2 rookies have been punished enough. they lost their jobs, will live with the guilt for the rest of their lives, and have their names permanently associated with a tragedy, which is known worldwide. and one of them is black. think about that. it would be ironic if the life of another black man is unfairly and permanently ruined in the name of black equality

[dice]

The problem is solely how people are funded TO become candidates and civil servants, not how they are funded once they become civil servants.

I agree that might be a bigger problem, but I strongly disagree that it's the sole problem.

Bottom line, I want our best people in politics. I think it's illogical to expect to draw our best people when we don't pay even remotely competitively with their other options, unless they compromise their ethics and act in a corrupt fashion.

It's only illogical if you think people are drawn to pubic service for the money. It used to be considered a duty to work in govt., something you did to give back to the county or state that helped you be successful. I don't see why someone like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or Michael Jordan wouldn't be willing to be a senator or president for 4-8 years. Money is not a consideration anymore for them. the thing that really holds them back, IMO, is all the BS you have to do to get elected- the fund raising, the endless campaigning, the mud slinging.

they certainly wouldn't need to do fundraising

[Dresden]

Further Edit:

There are other reasons why it makes sense to not make DC a state. For example, it would be the only state that would not be directly concerned with rural (agricultural) interests, which is kind of a big deal in the sense that agriculture keeps us all alive and is a major, major export last I checked.

This point makes no sense at all. How many states don't have auto manufacturing plants? Does that mean it's wrong for them to get to vote on policies affecting auto manufacturing? Many states don't have much of an urban area to speak of- Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska. Should they be restricted from voting on matters of urban policy?

[League Circles]

The problem is solely how people are funded TO become candidates and civil servants, not how they are funded once they become civil servants.

I agree that might be a bigger problem, but I strongly disagree that it's the sole problem.

Bottom line, I want our best people in politics. I think it's illogical to expect to draw our best people when we don't pay even remotely competitively with their other options, unless they compromise their ethics and act in a corrupt fashion.

It's only illogical if you think people are drawn to pubic service for the money. It used to be considered a duty to work in govt., something you did to give back to the county or state that helped you be successful. I don't see why someone like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or Michael Jordan wouldn't be willing to be a senator or president for 4-8 years. Money is not a consideration anymore for them. the thing that really holds them back, IMO, is all the BS you have to do to get elected- the fund raising, the endless campaigning, the mud slinging.

That's the point. The ultra logical people don't go into politics because going into politics is mostly illogical. Take Bill Gates. He's surely doing more to help the world than he could as a politician. But I also wouldn't ignore the human tendency to seek material rewards. I don't think there's anything wrong with factoring in whatever the large pay discrepancies are when choosing careers. Surely many or most people do so.

[Dresden]

I agree that might be a bigger problem, but I strongly disagree that it's the sole problem.

Bottom line, I want our best people in politics. I think it's illogical to expect to draw our best people when we don't pay even remotely competitively with their other options, unless they compromise their ethics and act in a corrupt fashion.

It's only illogical if you think people are drawn to pubic service for the money. It used to be considered a duty to work in govt., something you did to give back to the county or state that helped you be successful. I don't see why someone like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or Michael Jordan wouldn't be willing to be a senator or president for 4-8 years. Money is not a consideration anymore for them. the thing that really holds them back, IMO, is all the BS you have to do to get elected- the fund raising, the endless campaigning, the mud slinging.

they certainly wouldn't need to do fundraising

They would, unless they are willing to put in a billion or two or 10 of their own money, which IS asking a lot. The answer is to severely limit campaigning, so money is not an issue in running for office.

[Dresden]

I agree that might be a bigger problem, but I strongly disagree that it's the sole problem.

Bottom line, I want our best people in politics. I think it's illogical to expect to draw our best people when we don't pay even remotely competitively with their other options, unless they compromise their ethics and act in a corrupt fashion.

It's only illogical if you think people are drawn to pubic service for the money. It used to be considered a duty to work in govt., something you did to give back to the county or state that helped you be successful. I don't see why someone like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or Michael Jordan wouldn't be willing to be a senator or president for 4-8 years. Money is not a consideration anymore for them. the thing that really holds them back, IMO, is all the BS you have to do to get elected- the fund raising, the endless campaigning, the mud slinging.

That's the point. The ultra logical people don't go into politics because going into politics is mostly illogical. Take Bill Gates. He's surely doing more to help the world than he could as a politician. But I also wouldn't ignore the human tendency to seek material rewards. I don't think there's anything wrong with factoring in whatever the large pay discrepancies are when choosing careers. Surely many or most people do so.

Even as powerful Bill Gates is as a private citizen, it dwarfs the impact he could have as president. His foundation could still continue to do it's work, which is his major avenue of influence. I think it's more the nuisance of everything that goes with getting elected that keeps people like him away. And most guys like him are making more off their stocks in a single year than anything you could pay him as president. Although I agree that a salary of say, 10 million a year would not be out of line for president. If Satoransky can make that much, surely the POTUS should, too.

[League Circles]

Further Edit:

There are other reasons why it makes sense to not make DC a state. For example, it would be the only state that would not be directly concerned with rural (agricultural) interests, which is kind of a big deal in the sense that agriculture keeps us all alive and is a major, major export last I checked.

This point makes no sense at all. How many states don't have auto manufacturing plants? Does that mean it's wrong for them to get to vote on policies affecting auto manufacturing? Many states don't have much of an urban area to speak of- Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska. Should they be restricted from voting on matters of urban policy?

Agriculture is so DRASTICALLY more fundamentally important as a human endeavor than auto manufacturing I don't know where to start.

All states have cities. DC has no rural area at all.

FWIW, though I think the merits of the electoral college are debatable, I think people often overlook that is intended, to some extent, to represent the LAND, not just the people. DC is essentially zero land.

If people are concerned with those residents being represented in the senate, maybe they could be absorbed into Maryland and Virginia, so as to maintain the disincentive for politicians to favor DC.

[League Circles]

It's only illogical if you think people are drawn to pubic service for the money. It used to be considered a duty to work in govt., something you did to give back to the county or state that helped you be successful. I don't see why someone like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or Michael Jordan wouldn't be willing to be a senator or president for 4-8 years. Money is not a consideration anymore for them. the thing that really holds them back, IMO, is all the BS you have to do to get elected- the fund raising, the endless campaigning, the mud slinging.

That's the point. The ultra logical people don't go into politics because going into politics is mostly illogical. Take Bill Gates. He's surely doing more to help the world than he could as a politician. But I also wouldn't ignore the human tendency to seek material rewards. I don't think there's anything wrong with factoring in whatever the large pay discrepancies are when choosing careers. Surely many or most people do so.

Even as powerful Bill Gates is as a private citizen, it dwarfs the impact he could have as president. His foundation could still continue to do it's work, which is his major avenue of influence. I think it's more the nuisance of everything that goes with getting elected that keeps people like him away. And most guys like him are making more off their stocks in a single year than anything you could pay him as president. Although I agree that a salary of say, 10 million a year would not be out of line for president. If Satoransky can make that much, surely the POTUS should, too.

See I want more people like Bill Gates (we'll assume he's some kind of genius for discussion purposes) to be politicians from age 25 forward. THOSE are the people I want to increasingly draw into politics.

The 10 million a year is basically exactly what I have in mind. I'd like to see something like 3-4 million a year for congress.

[dice]

This is the kind of stupid reasoning one falls for that keeps the number of black senators in US history at 10.

Are the reasons you list worthy of preventing 2 additional, permanent black senators? Of course not.

Maybe if you want to have a good discussion, idk, address the logic instead of dismissing it as stupid without any reasoning?

2 additional permanent black senators? Huh? Because black people would only be capable of or interested in voting for black candidates? That's racist as hell IMO. Against blacks. Who, btw, don't constitute a majority in DC anyways.

DC is 49% black. City with the 9th highest population of black people in America.

You know what's actually racist? Denying that population's right to full representation and political power. DC has a higher population than Wyoming and Vermont. Basically the same as Alaska and the Dakotas.

And of course both DC Senators would be black. That's literally why the Republicans would hate DC statehood. Which is exactly why the Dems are idiots for not doing it.

yeah, i'm not sure what the holdup is if democrats have control of congress and the presidency. no valid petition for statehood has ever been denied by congress. the people of puerto rico have also consistently expressed majority preference for statehood in recent years

[dice]

It's only illogical if you think people are drawn to pubic service for the money. It used to be considered a duty to work in govt., something you did to give back to the county or state that helped you be successful. I don't see why someone like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or Michael Jordan wouldn't be willing to be a senator or president for 4-8 years. Money is not a consideration anymore for them. the thing that really holds them back, IMO, is all the BS you have to do to get elected- the fund raising, the endless campaigning, the mud slinging.

they certainly wouldn't need to do fundraising

They would, unless they are willing to put in a billion or two or 10 of their own money, which IS asking a lot.

BILLIONS? the most expensive senate race in history was $214 million. the next highest was $137 million. and that's both sides combined along with outside groups

as for president, the record expenditure was 1.3 billion for the democrats to get obama elected in 2008

[rodneykm]

How many of those deaths involved an officer killing someone?

[Dresden]

they certainly wouldn't need to do fundraising

They would, unless they are willing to put in a billion or two or 10 of their own money, which IS asking a lot.

BILLIONS? the most expensive senate race in history was $214 million. the next highest was $137 million. and that's both sides combined along with outside groups

as for president, the record expenditure was 1.3 billion for the democrats to get obama elected in 2008

What did Bloomberg spend this year? And barely got a delegate.

[dice]

I agree that a salary of say, 10 million a year would not be out of line for president. If Satoransky can make that much, surely the POTUS should, too.

it should not be an amount that incentivizes someone to run for office for the money. and if you're paying someone $40 mil a term you're certainly going to get people who run for the money. and govern solely with an eye on reelection. besides, former presidents have the opportunity to make boatloads of money. why add taxpayer money on top of that?

[Dresden]

Further Edit:

There are other reasons why it makes sense to not make DC a state. For example, it would be the only state that would not be directly concerned with rural (agricultural) interests, which is kind of a big deal in the sense that agriculture keeps us all alive and is a major, major export last I checked.

This point makes no sense at all. How many states don't have auto manufacturing plants? Does that mean it's wrong for them to get to vote on policies affecting auto manufacturing? Many states don't have much of an urban area to speak of- Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska. Should they be restricted from voting on matters of urban policy?

Agriculture is so DRASTICALLY more fundamentally important as a human endeavor than auto manufacturing I don't know where to start.

All states have cities. DC has no rural area at all.

FWIW, though I think the merits of the electoral college are debatable, I think people often overlook that is intended, to some extent, to represent the LAND, not just the people. DC is essentially zero land.

If people are concerned with those residents being represented in the senate, maybe they could be absorbed into Maryland and Virginia, so as to maintain the disincentive for politicians to favor DC.

You're missing the point. A state doesn't have to have a direct interest in something to be able to vote on it. Whether agriculture is more important than the automotive industry, or whether Anchorage Alaska qualifies as an urban area in the same way Chicago does, to say that DC does not deserve statehood because they don't farm is really a stretch.

And for the record, auto exports are worth around 120 billion a year. Agriculture, around 135 billion. Maybe you can start there.

[dice]

They would, unless they are willing to put in a billion or two or 10 of their own money, which IS asking a lot.

BILLIONS? the most expensive senate race in history was $214 million. the next highest was $137 million. and that's both sides combined along with outside groups

as for president, the record expenditure was 1.3 billion for the democrats to get obama elected in 2008

What did Bloomberg spend this year? And barely got a delegate.

not really relevant to what is required to run a campaign

[Dresden]

I agree that a salary of say, 10 million a year would not be out of line for president. If Satoransky can make that much, surely the POTUS should, too.

it should not be an amount that incentivizes someone to run for office for the money. and if you're paying someone $40 mil a term you're certainly going to get people who run for the money. and govern solely with an eye on reelection. besides, former presidents have the opportunity to make boatloads of money. why add taxpayer money on top of that?

If someone has the ability to put together an organization that can get him/her elected president, they probably have the ability to make that much in other areas.

And just based on comparative worth- who is worth more to the country- Thomas Satoransky, or the POTUS? Even if you give Sato the benefit of the doubt and say that his 3 point shooting will improve....

[Dresden]

BILLIONS? the most expensive senate race in history was $214 million. the next highest was $137 million. and that's both sides combined along with outside groups

as for president, the record expenditure was 1.3 billion for the democrats to get obama elected in 2008

What did Bloomberg spend this year? And barely got a delegate.

not really relevant to what is required to run a campaign

Presidential campaigns run into the billions. So do some senate races.

[dice]

I agree that a salary of say, 10 million a year would not be out of line for president. If Satoransky can make that much, surely the POTUS should, too.

it should not be an amount that incentivizes someone to run for office for the money. and if you're paying someone $40 mil a term you're certainly going to get people who run for the money. and govern solely with an eye on reelection. besides, former presidents have the opportunity to make boatloads of money. why add taxpayer money on top of that?

If someone has the ability to put together an organization that can get him/her elected president, they probably have the ability to make that much in other areas.

And just based on comparative worth- who is worth more to the country- Thomas Satoransky, or the POTUS? Even if you give Sato the benefit of the doubt and say that his 3 point shooting will improve....

thomas satoransky is not being paid by the united states of america to play basketball. he is being paid the minimum that his employer can in order to profit off of him

i don't think that many people believe that the quality of presidential candidates would go up much by drastically increasing salary. the current package is $400K in salary, $50K expense account, $100K travel account and $19K in entertainment. only the salary is taxable. along with the best health care anyone could hope for. and living in the white house, with its housekeepers, world class chefs, home theater, sports and health facilities. and then there's camp david, air force one and marine one. then there's the over $200K annual pension after leaving office

if a person isn't set for life before becoming president, they are after becoming president. and if they WERE already set for life, an increased presidential salary isn't much incentive to get put through the meat grinder