A Black Falcon Wrote:Seriously, he's always been an awful person, but now... now he's gone too far, to a crazy degree.

So, Paul LePage, Governor of Maine and just re-elected last November because the people in this state made some bad decisions in the voting booth, basically is throwing a massive fit right now. Fortunately the State House stayed Democratic, so while the Republicans picked up the State Senate, they don't hold all the power.

This most recent set of incidents started with him getting mad that the state representatives won't pass the tax plan he wants. The Republicans and Democrats in the statehouse worked together and passed a budget, without his regressive tax changes included. He vetoed it (back to vetoes soon), and they overrode the veto and passed it. This made him mad.

So, he vowed to veto every single bill that had a Democratic co-sponsor until the Dems cave in and give him his stupid tax plan. They refused, so the vetoes started mounting up. And when Republicans in the statehouse decided to support over-riding some of those vetoes, he ... promised to veto almost every single bill with either a Republican OR Democratic sponsor! Yes, that means pretty much everything. Wonderful. He also put 72 line-item vetoes in to try to change that budget to cut things he disliked; the statehouse overrode all 72. Now, some of his numerous vetoes of bills did hold up, but most have been overridden. This whole veto-everything idiocy made me seriously start wondering if he's lost it.

And then... then he did something worse than anything he's done before: He got the Democratic leader in the statehouse fired from his new job. Now, state legislators don't make nearly enough money to live off of that salary, so they need other jobs. This guy, Mark Eves, is a teacher, and got a job at a charter school for disadvantaged children. Charter schools are an idea the right love but liberals do not (basically, most charter schools draw students and money out of the public school system, hurting most students), and only were approved for the first time fairly recently. Eves opposed allowing charter schools when they came up to vote, but it did pass, and now he was going to work at one... until LePage decided that he didn't want that to happen.

So, LePage threatened the school, telling them that he would REVOKE THEIR STATE FUNDING if they let Eves stay at his new job, purely because of his personal dislike of Eves' politics. So, the school was forced to fire Eves, they don't want to be shut down. But this didn't stay hidden, and the news of this insane overreach has become something of a scandal. I hope it hurts LePage badly, you cannot get someone fired just because you dislike them for their political opinions, that's insane!

Some talk is starting up of impeachment, but that would require a 2/3rds majority in the Republican-led state Senate, so that'll be difficult. It sure would be nice if LePage would go, though.

Oh, in other news about LePage, he just made a hilarious joke about shooting a Bangor Daily News cartoonist who he disagrees with. Isn't he just a riot? :bummed:

Some relevant articles:
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/06/25/eves-charter-school-said-lepage-threatened-to-cut-funding-unless-he-was-fired/
http://www.wcsh6.com/story/news/local/augusta-waterville/2015/06/25/michael-thibodeau-senate-president-responds-to-blackmail-allegations/29270647/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/25/1396580/-LePage-doesn-t-deny-threatening-school-s-funding-to-punish-rival-and-lawmakers-consider-impeachment?showAll=yes
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/06/25/maine-attorney-general-troubled-by-allegations-against-lepage/

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/06/25/lepage-jokes-about-shooting-maine-political-cartoonist/

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/06/10/maine-lawmakers-override-9-of-10-lepage-vetoes/
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/06/18/lepage-vetoes-64-lines-worth-60-million-in-6-7b-budget/

Great Rumbler Wrote:Can't you do any better than this clown, ABF? Geez.

alien space marine Wrote:If they go to the courts and the press grills him, the republicans will be forced to pressure him to resign If he becomes a liability to the party. The best the public can do is to continue provoking and pushing his buttons, so he'll pull a tantrum and shoot himself in the foot.
Eventually Maine will turn the Page ;)

Quote:The right wing for all their talk of freedom this and freedom that, there always the first to expand the power of the state security Apparatus And hack away at rights, with Orwellian bills like the patriot act or Bill C-51,They always leave vaguely worded loopholes in Anti-terrorism bills to enable them to be used against opposition groups who clearly Are not al-Qaeda or even violent, such as environmentalists ,native american activists, labor unions.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:ABF, why did you do this? It's all your fault!

Sorry, but people hold me responsible for Inhofe all the time, so I had to throw that in there.

On balance, Inhofe's crazier than your guy.

Weltall Wrote:How did a guy like that ever get elected in Maine?

But, then again, I ask the same thing about Kentucky. How in the hell does a state with Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul as U.S. Senators also have a popular, two-term Democrat governor who succeeded (with barely a fight, even) in setting up a state version of the ACA?

Quote:Like, if I told you that I live in a town that actually has transgender anti-discrimination employment laws, would you think that town was in Kentucky?

Weltall Wrote:You know, I don't really think there are too many people out there who are strictly partisan such that they'll always vote for a Democrat because they love all Democrats, or vice versa. I know that I've voted for a few candidates simply because the alternative seemed a lot worse.

If I end up casting a vote for Hillary Clinton next year, it'll be for that reason.

But, there's really no getting around the fact that the average Republican politician is much more extreme and willing to erode our liberties and freedom than the average Democrat politician. Though nobody loves using the words "liberty" and "freedom" as much as a hardcore GOPstick, few of them even bother pretending that freedom and liberty should only belong to a select group of people who are just about entirely white, Christian, heterosexual and most of all, wealthy.

Democrats can be extremely disappointing, but Republicans are a total disaster. It's a shitty choice, but not a difficult one.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:ABF, the democrats have proven themselves often too unwilling to actually pursue their own agenda for fear of not being able to pursue their agenda in the future. They've got a reputation among progressives for being limp wristed. Hillary is not the best presidential candidate running right now, but she's the one that's going to win the primary (as ridiculous a system as that is), and every republican candidate is just SO MUCH WORSE that she looks amazing in comparison. Frankly, I don't expect her to actually live up to her campaign promises any more than Obama has, but at least her promises aren't gut wrenchingly terrible like everything the republicans promise.

The democrats are not leftists, they are centrists. Check in with pretty much any leftist party in europe to confirm this. It's just that our "right" is so FAR right that a centrist platform looks progressive in comparison.

A Black Falcon Wrote:Bernie can't win (if nothing else, the word "socialist" alone dooms him), and I'm fine with Hillary too (in '08 I supported her over Obama), but it's great that a definite liberal is running, and getting attention.

A Black Falcon Wrote:... student loan forgiveness, free college, and such.

I certainly like that he opposed invading Iraq in '03, anyway.

So yeah, it was good, I liked it. My two main issues would be that while Bernie is a good speaker he probably isn't a really inspiring one, and while it is really important I don't find economics all that interesting.

Obama has his issues (it's awful that he fell for the pro-TPP argument!.

nickdaddyg Wrote:Are you surprised that a Democrat would vote for a big business plan?

Quote:They (and along with Republicans on some of these) more or less supported the financial institution bailouts, TARP, Affordable Care Act...

And furthering my point on civil liberties, both parties more or less supported the Patriot and Freedom Acts, Affordable Care Act applies here as well.
EDIT: and let me add that both parties more or less supported providing surplus military equipment to police agencies.

Weltall Wrote:No, there are still a lot of corporate Dems.



I think this is disingenuous, to an extent. There was support from both parties for these things, but hardly in equal measure. The ACA is the most obvious example.

"Both parties are too similar on some issues" is too frequently conflated with "both parties are the same". The latter argument is too simple to be true.

A Black Falcon Wrote:It hasn't.

nickdaddyg Wrote:It forces people to buy health insurance.

Weltall Wrote:No, it doesn't. You can choose to simply pay the tax penalty.

nickdaddyg Wrote:It forces people to buy health insurance.

Great Rumbler Wrote:Virtually all laws force people to do something or not do something. If you want total freedom, go live in Somalia.

nickdaddyg Wrote:Weltall: The point of libertarianism is liberty and self-ownership. These are very similar concepts, but I say them both because "liberty" best implies our universal rights, those being rights that can apply to all people and do not contradict themselves... thus leading to freedom from violation. And the term "self-ownership" implies responsibility for one's actions taken.

Quote:Weltall: The point of libertarianism is liberty and self-ownership. These are very similar concepts, but I say them both because "liberty" best implies our universal rights, those being rights that can apply to all people and do not contradict themselves... thus leading to freedom from violation. And the term "self-ownership" implies responsibility for one's actions taken.

Quote:Great Rumbler: A government isn't necessary to incentivize against violations of rights that may arise from your concerns. Whoever it is that you worry may break your standards has their reputation and the price they pay for insurance on the line, i.e. builders, water providers. Also intrusive pollution is a violation of universal rights to begin with.

nickdaddyg Wrote:Weltall: You may understand the implications of some half-assed or quarter-asssed libertarians, or you don't understand libertarianism at all.
So libertarians seek a justification for not contributing to society? Do you think charity just about "looking good?" A libertarian knows that a charitable contribution is a purchase of happiness.
I can entertain you with a pissing contest between various charitable contributors:
I believe the top 10% wealthy people/entities already contribute over 50% of the govt's tax collections. Yes, it's by force, so maybe that isn't "good". Aside from this, think of how much these dreaded wealthy people contribute to the politicians you support.

Quote:"Libertarians want to remove government from the picture because the government helps other people."Like my last sentence, why would libertarians care what other people do peacfully? They wouldn't stop anyone from helping people. By definition they would not interfere someone helping other people. Voluntary transactions between A &B only arise when they benefit both parties... unless someone is on a self-destrucitve kick. Competition (when it arises) may offer B with greater benefit than A can provide at a price that C is perfectly happy with. I could say party C is being helpful if it's cheaper than Party A.
Libertarians have beef w/ their govts because govts are not peaceful entities.

Obama Wrote:Because their theory does not change. It really doesn’t. It’s a theory that says, if we do little more than just cut taxes for those at the very top, if we strip out regulations and let special interests write their own rules, prosperity trickles down to the rest of us. And I take the opposite view. And I take it not for ideological reasons, but for historic reasons, because of the evidence.We know from the facts that are there for all to see that America does better, our economy does better, everybody does better when the middle class does better and we’ve got more ladders for people to get into the middle class if they're willing to work hard. We do better when everyone grows together -- top, middle, bottom. We do better when everyone has a chance not only to benefit from America’s success, but also to contribute to America’s success. And we know from more recent history that when we stray from that ideal it doesn't turn out well. We’ve now got evidence there is a better way, there is a better approach. And I’m calling it middle-class economics.

Quote:Labor movement: Heck yeah, people should definitely leave of abusive jobs. Or they should rally their coworkers to strong-arm the employer right back! Put abusive employers on blast! There's no slander when it's the truth!

Great Rumbler Wrote:But there's the thing, the reason the labor movement took so long to get off the ground in the early years was that they had no government protection at all. Corporations crushed fledgling unions before they could take root [often employing violence or threats of violence] and the employees were left with no recourse. It was not until efforts by union-friendly Presidents and Congresspeople to actually put into place laws that protected unions that the labor movement finally took hold and solidified its place as a check on corporate abuse.

And the biggest threat to unions today is far-right politicians rolling back those protections one law at a time, using the argument that unions are no longer needed or are even harmful.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:That, in my opinion, puts the lie to the whole thing. Unions are free-market as applied to labor, aren't they? Why would groups that are so very in favor of corporations being able to do whatever they like suddenly opposed to workers basically making labor corporations?

Dark Jaguar Wrote:Taking care of "one's self" is barely a contribution at all. It's the absolute bare minimum, in that you aren't being a burden. Living in the woods as a survivalist accomplishes the same goal. Trying to point out how selfish interest actually benefits others is just a selfish post-hoc rationalization. So yes, I reject your claim.

Further, how DOES a homeless person take care of themselves? Explain the actual logistics. The actual steps.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:Taking care of "one's self" is barely a contribution at all. It's the absolute bare minimum, in that you aren't being a burden. Living in the woods as a survivalist accomplishes the same goal. Trying to point out how selfish interest actually benefits others is just a selfish post-hoc rationalization. So yes, I reject your claim.

Further, how DOES a homeless person take care of themselves? Explain the actual logistics. The actual steps.

nickdaddyg Wrote:Weltall: Don't insult me with that "You probably think" non-sense. Yes, my accomplishments are 100% of my efforts. And if something wasn't 100% my effort then it's not my accomplishment.

Quote:That Obama quote sounds like a critique of the Republicans, who lead the corporate welfare state. I'm against them too. I don't think his quote is any sort of attack on libertarianism.

Quote:Is that a list of Bernie Sanders contributors? So he's supported by Big Labor? Labor unions are essentially corporations (except in legalese): separate legal entities intending to benefit their stakeholders. They sell labor. Don't get me wrong I'm for the freedom to organize, but it looks like Sanders is supported by some wealth.

Quote:Lack of government =/= death & starvation. Nature = death & starvation. I don't see how pre-20th century is any argument because there was government then. n the 1800s, the Mormons trekked out west without government aid and established cities that thrive today. Even earlier the Mayflower pilgrims went on their own. The farther you go back the deadlier such expeditions were ... due to lower tech.

Quote:Or you can agree with both of of our propositions. Mine: Taking care of oneself is a contribution to society, and Yours: no one can reasonably expect people to do so. The people that do not contribute to society by being self-sustainable deserve everyones' contributions via a strong aparatus (government funded, I presume?). Without this aparatus, people will starve and die, because like you said, we can't expect people to keep themselves alive.

Quote:It is getting difficult to converse with you. I have to respond to each sentence individually because they don't build to any point or the are contradictory.

Weltall Wrote:Yeah? You grow your own food? Make your own clothes? Construct your own vehicles? Provide your own education?

Of course not. And, you think that because you paid some money for these things, that the efforts of the countless people who had to deliver all these things to you somehow do not contribute to whatever success you have achieved. You are nothing on your own. You are just one grain of sand. You've had the good fortune to have (presumably) a good job, and the physical and mental health to allow you to do it.

Your successes are the result of many people's work, plus a lack of disastrous bad luck.



Libertarians want a minimized government that 'can't interfere with the freedom to conduct commerce'. Which is only going to make sure that the wealthiest people won't need to worry about bribing government. They will, essentially if not literally, be the government. It's pretty much where we are right now.



I can't discuss the finer points of labor with someone who seems to know virtually nothing about it. The man, himself, is worth about $300,000 and the vast majority of his campaign funds come from personal, small donations.



Lack of government = death and starvation for anyone who lacks the means to provide for themselves, or defend themselves. It has always been true.

..

You make this insane assumption that people who don't fend for themselves do so by choice. And you make that assumption because you have to. The entire fundament of libertarianism rests upon the assumption that everybody is fully capable and the losers are losers entirely by choice. There isn't enough time in the day to explain all of the nuance of this reality, but it wouldn't matter. You're an entitled individual who has clearly never faced any real hardship. Or, you have, and you've made it out for reasons entirely different from what you believe they are.



They build to the point that libertarianism is an unrealistic, childish and psychopathic fantasy that seems to be really popular only by people who would benefit from it.

alien space marine Wrote:it takes money to build and maintain public infastructure and institutions, Voluntary contributions are not a reliable or sustainable sources of revenue to fund their upkeep, freeloaders are the reason we have taxes.

If you privatize law enforcement and defence you've essentially handed the monopoly on the use of force to billionaires or warlords who head private security contractors.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:I live in a state with a very random sort of natural disaster. Tornadoes are only just barely predictable, in that you can predict when the conditions are right for them. Beyond that, the best you can hope for is a few hour's warning at best. Some have wondered why Oklahomans don't "evacuate" during tornado season, and that's why. Tornadoes just don't have enough lead time to make evacuation a realistic possibility. This is actually a massive improvement on past ability to predict tornadoes (basically your only chance at all was actually seeing one with your own eyes).

The other simple matter is tornadoes are VERY pinpoint in their destruction. Those who live in hurricane or earthquake areas aren't familiar with that sort of thing, hence why EVERY tornado commentatorfrom out of state is always amazed at how one side of a street has houses leveled to the ground while the other has completely undamaged houses. That's par for the course. A simple fact is that MOST tornadoes hit nothing but empty plains without hurting anyone (except whatever plants are in the way).

Why do I say all this? To point out that when someone gets hit by a tornado, it's a matter of completely bad luck, terrible luck, an event that can't be blamed on the victim of it. The neighbor who got lucky will almost always try to do SOMETHING to help the neighbor who didn't. Can you imagine if they didn't do that? Can you imagine for a second the neighbor who's house is still standing looking at the neighbor who's house was leveled and just shrugging it off saying "sucks to be them, but I paid my dues"? Of course you can, and of course that's monstrous. A single unpredictable change in the atmosphere 5 mintues earlier, and the other neighbor would be the one with the flattened house. Understanding that basic fact, neighborhoods with such a mix will pull together and support each other after events like this.

The only thing to add is the matter of them having consented to help. That's the sticking point for most libertarians, that they CONSENTED to aiding a neighbor in need rather than being forced by the government to do so. However, at a certain point you have to just consider the hierarchy of needs. The right not to have your aid forced out of you (which in this case, is nothing more than taxes) is simply not nearly as fundamental as the right to not die of exposure and/or starvation. There's a reason Robin Hood is considered a hero after all.

I think what really gets me is how "armchair" any debate over which rights matter comes off. Emotions DO play a part and MUST play a part in deciding this, and when you've got no emotional stake in it, because you've never actually struggled in a real way where society's pressure makes you question whether it's even worth continuing to live day to day or that you might just actually be as worthless as your bank account (you should BE so lucky) says you are.

Discussing issues of morality without any sort of emotional connection to the moral issues at stake is like two immortals discussing just how evil murder REALLY is any way. After all, that person you're deciding to murder just won't shut UP about how much they want to live, so overly emotional about life, aren't they? They clearly aren't looking at life and death with the detached objectivity you are.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:I live in a state with a very random sort of natural disaster. Tornadoes are only just barely predictable, in that you can predict when the conditions are right for them. Beyond that, the best you can hope for is a few hour's warning at best. Some have wondered why Oklahomans don't "evacuate" during tornado season, and that's why. Tornadoes just don't have enough lead time to make evacuation a realistic possibility. This is actually a massive improvement on past ability to predict tornadoes (basically your only chance at all was actually seeing one with your own eyes).

The other simple matter is tornadoes are VERY pinpoint in their destruction. Those who live in hurricane or earthquake areas aren't familiar with that sort of thing, hence why EVERY tornado commentatorfrom out of state is always amazed at how one side of a street has houses leveled to the ground while the other has completely undamaged houses. That's par for the course. A simple fact is that MOST tornadoes hit nothing but empty plains without hurting anyone (except whatever plants are in the way).

Why do I say all this? To point out that when someone gets hit by a tornado, it's a matter of completely bad luck, terrible luck, an event that can't be blamed on the victim of it. The neighbor who got lucky will almost always try to do SOMETHING to help the neighbor who didn't. Can you imagine if they didn't do that? Can you imagine for a second the neighbor who's house is still standing looking at the neighbor who's house was leveled and just shrugging it off saying "sucks to be them, but I paid my dues"? Of course you can, and of course that's monstrous. A single unpredictable change in the atmosphere 5 mintues earlier, and the other neighbor would be the one with the flattened house. Understanding that basic fact, neighborhoods with such a mix will pull together and support each other after events like this.

The only thing to add is the matter of them having consented to help. That's the sticking point for most libertarians, that they CONSENTED to aiding a neighbor in need rather than being forced by the government to do so. However, at a certain point you have to just consider the hierarchy of needs. The right not to have your aid forced out of you (which in this case, is nothing more than taxes) is simply not nearly as fundamental as the right to not die of exposure and/or starvation. There's a reason Robin Hood is considered a hero after all.

I think what really gets me is how "armchair" any debate over which rights matter comes off. Emotions DO play a part and MUST play a part in deciding this, and when you've got no emotional stake in it, because you've never actually struggled in a real way where society's pressure makes you question whether it's even worth continuing to live day to day or that you might just actually be as worthless as your bank account (you should BE so lucky) says you are.

Discussing issues of morality without any sort of emotional connection to the moral issues at stake is like two immortals discussing just how evil murder REALLY is any way. After all, that person you're deciding to murder just won't shut UP about how much they want to live, so overly emotional about life, aren't they? They clearly aren't looking at life and death with the detached objectivity you are.