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

[musiqsoulchild]

18 murders in 24 hours?

85 shot in one weekend?

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2020/6/8/21281998/chicago-violence-murder-history-homicide-police-crime

Not sure what to say.

What do you propose?

Easy to state the problem. What is your solution?

[dice]

Watch on YouTube

[dougthonus]

I don't understand why we need to pay elected officials enough to be set for life. It would cause people to run for all the wrong reasons. It shouldn't be a financial sweepstakes. It should be fairly paid, so people won't shy away from it, but not overpaid either.

The theory is that if you are set for life when elected that you wouldn't be beholden to special interests. I think in practice, that rich people want ever more money though and no matter how much you paid them they would just be even greedier. We already see this in all of our policies as it is.

As for direct democracy, that works on some issues, but other issues are too complex for people to decide. Like I wouldn't want people voting on whether to go to war or not. Or a lot of the complex policy decisions/legislation that gets made. It also gives too much influence to PR people, and that would just introduce money into the equation again. For instance, you can imagine how much would be spent on trying to persuade people whether or not to vote for a national health care system by the people who now stand to lose should that be put in place.

The assumption that issues are too complicated for individuals to decide may be valid, but those people still may be more likely to get it right than people whom are deciding based strictly on who pays them more which seems to be how issues are primarily decided now.

On the other hand, it would probably end up like stockholders voting for their board by proxy where almost everyone universally just votes down some type of party line without knowing what they're voting for. At the same time, things that had true public mandate would get passed, which I think is a problem now.

[Ccwatercraft]

18 murders in 24 hours?

85 shot in one weekend?

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2020/6/8/21281998/chicago-violence-murder-history-homicide-police-crime

Not sure what to say.

What do you propose?

Easy to state the problem. What is your solution?

I'm not aware of any turnkey solution.

[League Circles]

I don't understand why we need to pay elected officials enough to be set for life. It would cause people to run for all the wrong reasons. It shouldn't be a financial sweepstakes. It should be fairly paid, so people won't shy away from it, but not overpaid either.

The theory is that if you are set for life when elected that you wouldn't be beholden to special interests. I think in practice, that rich people want ever more money though and no matter how much you paid them they would just be even greedier. We already see this in all of our policies as it is.

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

[dougthonus]

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

I don't think the candidates we have are poor or that greater financial compensation would shore up the types of weaknesses they have.

[League Circles]

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

I don't think the candidates we have are poor or that greater financial compensation would shore up the types of weaknesses they have.

Fair enough. I generally think that 95%+ of politicians are very bad and that doesn't surprise me, as, financially, it's generally a terrible career choice. Though maybe I'm presuming that more of them get started early in terribly paid positions at the local and state level than is actually the case. I know for myself and multiple friends, compensation is the primary thing that kept us out of politics entirely.

Let's put it this way - I think some of the people who come out of school making 200-300k (these are many of our best and brightest and most diligent) would be great politicians but would never consider it because the "entry level" is basically poverty line compensation in many places.

[TheStig]

I think democracy can be made much better with a few key reforms: campaign finance reform to limit the amount of money that goes into running for office, stop gerrymandering, so that we have a more representative legislature, and reform the electoral college, for the same reason.

If you look at opinion polls, Americans really are in favor of a more equal society, with things like universal health care and less of an income gap. What's holding us back is the corrupt political system which allows the minority (the rich), to have an outsized voice.

Individuals favor all kinds of positive things, but they don't vote people in who vote or create those things and for the most part have no option to vote in people who would vote in their interests. I don't know how you change that. Politicians for years have enacted policy that is against the interests of the people who voted for them and instead in the interest of those who gave them money to run for office.

The idea of democracy is good, but our current implementation means that politician best interests are not in line with the voters and populace but instead inline with the donors and special interests. You have to fix that problem and while things you mentioned might help if you could actually get them passed without loopholes, I'm not sure if it does enough.

It's certainly a start. Of course the problem is politicians themselves aren't in favor of fixing the system either, because its also against their best interest. That really is a big part of the problem is that everyone involved in fixing this would need to act directly against their self interest to do so.

I think you have to start by getting the money out of politics. You need to eliminate super pacs, corporations are not people with free speech and regulate lobbyists. Lastly, you need to get rid of the speeches these guys give after they move on to private life from politics. None of them are worth 250k a pop.

We've moved to more money into politics instead of less. Obama was the first president off the presidential election fund and the money in these campaigns and local ones like our last governor election were crazy.

[dougthonus]

Fair enough. I generally think that 95%+ of politicians are very bad and that doesn't surprise me, as, financially, it's generally a terrible career choice. Though maybe I'm presuming that more of them get started early in terribly paid positions at the local and state level than is actually the case. I know for myself and multiple friends, compensation is the primary thing that kept us out of politics entirely.

Let's put it this way - I think some of the people who come out of school making 200-300k (these are many of our best and brightest and most diligent) would be great politicians but would never consider it because the "entry level" is basically poverty line compensation in many places.

Most people in politics don't start their career in politics, which is also probably a good thing because they are also practictioners of something then. I don't know if its true of all political jobs, but many of them are also not full time work on the entry level side either.

[League Circles]

Fair enough. I generally think that 95%+ of politicians are very bad and that doesn't surprise me, as, financially, it's generally a terrible career choice. Though maybe I'm presuming that more of them get started early in terribly paid positions at the local and state level than is actually the case. I know for myself and multiple friends, compensation is the primary thing that kept us out of politics entirely.

Let's put it this way - I think some of the people who come out of school making 200-300k (these are many of our best and brightest and most diligent) would be great politicians but would never consider it because the "entry level" is basically poverty line compensation in many places.

Most people in politics don't start their career in politics, which is also probably a good thing because they are also practictioners of something then. I don't know if its true of all political jobs, but many of them are also not full time work on the entry level side either.

It would be interesting to see data on how many career politicians there are among politicians at a given level. But even of you're correct, the horse **** nature of modern politics makes it such that, IMO, most of the policy is indeed actually written by career politicians (political support staff), often naive ideologues on both sides of the fence IMO.

And yes you're nominally correct that many entry level jobs aren't theoretically full time, but in expectations and practice, IMO, they often are. I come from a city that has a permanent population of about 260,000, which bumps to close to 300,000 for most of the year (lots of college students aren't permanent residents). It's also a bigger city, economically, politically, development wise, etc than it's population would indicate. It might have changed but last I looked into it, the city council members got paid like 8k per year. Really? A vibrant, relatively affluent city of 300,000 people is supposed to be managed by a few people contributing a few hours each per week??? Yes of course there is a mayor and other government management personnel who surely get paid somewhat decent full time salaries, but that's my point. We're asking the actual elected officials making peanuts to essentially defer management of society to OTHERS. That's a huge problem IMO. We tend to think of congress people as writing the laws. IMO, laws are probably much moreso written by lobbyists and commission employees. These politicians don't have time to read or write most bills IMO. They have to pander all the time for the scraps they need to get re-elected. Another absurdly is how short terms are. 2 years in the house???? Please. What on earth would make us think that in 2020 our problems are simple enough to be solved in a year or 2.

[musiqsoulchild]

18 murders in 24 hours?

85 shot in one weekend?

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2020/6/8/21281998/chicago-violence-murder-history-homicide-police-crime

Not sure what to say.

What do you propose?

Easy to state the problem. What is your solution?

I'm not aware of any turnkey solution.

That's what we are calling systemic racism.

It's so inbuilt into everything that we dont even see it as the problem.

For example, 14 percent of the country is Black.

Guess how many Black Senators we have had since Emancipation?

10

Of almost 2,000 Senators we have had thus far....only 10 have been Black.

That is HOW RIDICULOUSLY lopsided race is in this country.

It's not hyperbole when we say that there is systemic racism.

[TheSuzerain]

What do you propose?

Easy to state the problem. What is your solution?

I'm not aware of any turnkey solution.

That's what we are calling systemic racism.

It's so inbuilt into everything that we dont even see it as the problem.

For example, 14 percent of the country is Black.

Guess how many Black Senators we have had since Emancipation?

10

Of almost 2,000 Senators we have had thus far....only 10 have been Black.

That is HOW RIDICULOUSLY lopsided race is in this country.

It's not hyperbole when we say that there is systemic racism.

DC not becoming a state after Obama was elected the first time is exhibit A as to why the Dems suck. Completely unwilling to wield power.

[League Circles]

What do you propose?

Easy to state the problem. What is your solution?

I'm not aware of any turnkey solution.

That's what we are calling systemic racism.

It's so inbuilt into everything that we dont even see it as the problem.

For example, 14 percent of the country is Black.

Guess how many Black Senators we have had since Emancipation?

10

Of almost 2,000 Senators we have had thus far....only 10 have been Black.

That is HOW RIDICULOUSLY lopsided race is in this country.

It's not hyperbole when we say that there is systemic racism.

I don't disagree with your intent musiq, but I think you have to be careful to select numbers like that, as others could do so in an equally selective way to try to prove their side. For example:

Black people are over-represented among all federal employees (like 18% vs 12%)

Black people have been over-represented in the presidency since roughly the end of ww2 (8 years vs expected time span that would proportionally yield 8 years).

Black people are currently roughly proportionally represented in congress (10.8% vs 12.1% of population by my googling - over-represented in the house and under represented in the senate).

I only point out these facts because I think too few people know them, too few people frankly understand what they mean to those on the other side of the political aisle, so to speak, and especially because looking at outcomes alone is a very questionable way to inspect society IMO.

[Michael Jackson]

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.

[League Circles]

I'm not aware of any turnkey solution.

That's what we are calling systemic racism.

It's so inbuilt into everything that we dont even see it as the problem.

For example, 14 percent of the country is Black.

Guess how many Black Senators we have had since Emancipation?

10

Of almost 2,000 Senators we have had thus far....only 10 have been Black.

That is HOW RIDICULOUSLY lopsided race is in this country.

It's not hyperbole when we say that there is systemic racism.

DC not becoming a state after Obama was elected the first time is exhibit A as to why the Dems suck. Completely unwilling to wield power.

I agree the dems (and repubs) are inept and suck, but you don't think there are good reasons for why DC isn't a state?

[TheSuzerain]

That's what we are calling systemic racism.

It's so inbuilt into everything that we dont even see it as the problem.

For example, 14 percent of the country is Black.

Guess how many Black Senators we have had since Emancipation?

10

Of almost 2,000 Senators we have had thus far....only 10 have been Black.

That is HOW RIDICULOUSLY lopsided race is in this country.

It's not hyperbole when we say that there is systemic racism.

DC not becoming a state after Obama was elected the first time is exhibit A as to why the Dems suck. Completely unwilling to wield power.

I agree the dems (and repubs) are inept and suck, but you don't think there are good reasons for why DC isn't a state?

No important reasons.

[League Circles]

DC not becoming a state after Obama was elected the first time is exhibit A as to why the Dems suck. Completely unwilling to wield power.

I agree the dems (and repubs) are inept and suck, but you don't think there are good reasons for why DC isn't a state?

No important reasons.

Idk, I think having almost the entire federal government living part time to full time in one state would be something of an inherent conflict of interests. They'd ALL be incentivized to favor legislation which would benefit DC relative to other states, indefinitely. It's not like it was an accident that it wasn't made a state. Also worth considering that notions of racist gerrymandering (if that's what you were getting at) weren't a concern in any way when these decisions were made.

[TheSuzerain]

I agree the dems (and repubs) are inept and suck, but you don't think there are good reasons for why DC isn't a state?

No important reasons.

Idk, I think having almost the entire federal government living part time to full time in one state would be something of an inherent conflict of interests. They'd ALL be incentivized to favor legislation which would benefit DC relative to other states, indefinitely. It's not like it was an accident that it wasn't made a state. Also worth considering that notions of racist gerrymandering (if that's what you were getting at) weren't a concern in any way when these decisions were made.

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.

[musiqsoulchild]

I'm not aware of any turnkey solution.

That's what we are calling systemic racism.

It's so inbuilt into everything that we dont even see it as the problem.

For example, 14 percent of the country is Black.

Guess how many Black Senators we have had since Emancipation?

10

Of almost 2,000 Senators we have had thus far....only 10 have been Black.

That is HOW RIDICULOUSLY lopsided race is in this country.

It's not hyperbole when we say that there is systemic racism.

I don't disagree with your intent musiq, but I think you have to be careful to select numbers like that, as others could do so in an equally selective way to try to prove their side. For example:

Black people are over-represented among all federal employees (like 18% vs 12%)

Black people have been over-represented in the presidency since roughly the end of ww2 (8 years vs expected time span that would proportionally yield 8 years).

Black people are currently roughly proportionally represented in congress (10.8% vs 12.1% of population by my googling - over-represented in the house and under represented in the senate).

I only point out these facts because I think too few people know them, too few people frankly understand what they mean to those on the other side of the political aisle, so to speak, and especially because looking at outcomes alone is a very questionable way to inspect society IMO.

I picked the Senate because it is the most powerful group of people in the country. If not the world.

Black under-represented powers in the highest areas include:

1) Presidency
2) Senate
3) Supreme Court

I dont care if my local DMV has higher proportion of Black people. That's NOT helping that community frame laws that bridge the systemic racial divide.

[League Circles]

No important reasons.

Idk, I think having almost the entire federal government living part time to full time in one state would be something of an inherent conflict of interests. They'd ALL be incentivized to favor legislation which would benefit DC relative to other states, indefinitely. It's not like it was an accident that it wasn't made a state. Also worth considering that notions of racist gerrymandering (if that's what you were getting at) weren't a concern in any way when these decisions were made.

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.