Market politics

[peopleofcolor]

Absolutely incorrect. I interpreted it as "Do you understand that a police officer in the US is a lot more likely to shoot an African-American than to shoot a white American", because that is a sensible question, rather than a stupid question. What you actually asked was a stupid question.

Obviously I knew that total numbers of white people shot by police were larger than the total numbers of black or Native American people shot, I just figured you weren't asking a stupid question. Shockingly, you were asking a stupid question, and trying to mislead while doing so.

I answered it with a citation from the CDC which gave percentage data, and pointed out that Native Americans (an even tinier fraction of the population) are even more likely to get shot. It's pretty clear what my understanding of the question was.

If you had been asking an honest question, you would have asked:
"How many of you think that the total number of African Americans killed by the police in the US per year is larger than the total number of white Americans killed by the police in the US per year?"

That would have made it clear that you were asking the stupid question, and would have been neutrally phrased. ("Think" is neutral, "understand" isn't)

You were instead using a contorted phrasing for the purpose of trying to confuse people. I have no problem with getting emotional. GTFO.

(As an aside, I'm not 100% sure whether the total number of African Americans killed by police in the US over its entire history is smaller than the total number of white Americans killed by the police over the whole of US history, due to the period before 1865 -- I had to edit this comment to add the "per year". Precision matters, and your original question was in broken English.)

I'm not trying to confuse you. Quite the opposite. It is clear to me that you thought that the police shot far more African Americans that white, and I have disabused you of that falsehood. Too bad you don't acknowledge my contribution.
Oh and now your getting violent, please don't hit me. I's go pick da coten masta.

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

And now back to market politics. Any more posts on racial issues will be removed.

Mod

 

[JRP3]

Koch brothers willing to support Democrats for the first time, if they are incumbents who will "get good things done", i.e. do what we want. Progressives need not apply.
Koch brothers float possibility of backing congressional Democrats in 2020 primaries

The latest memo nonetheless reflects a surprising shift in the Koch network’s priorities. However, AFP’s stated support for politicians of any party appears to be limited to incumbent candidates facing primary challengers. “AFP or AFP Action will be ready to engage contested U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and state-level primary races, including Republican, Democrat, Independent or otherwise, to support sitting legislators who lead by uniting with others to pass principled policy and get good things done,” the memo says.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Koch brothers willing to support Democrats for the first time, if they are incumbents who will "get good things done", i.e. do what we want. Progressives need not apply.
Koch brothers float possibility of backing congressional Democrats in 2020 primaries

10:1 odds that Biden gets their support?

 

[adiggs]

Koch brothers willing to support Democrats for the first time, if they are incumbents who will "get good things done", i.e. do what we want. Progressives need not apply.
Koch brothers float possibility of backing congressional Democrats in 2020 primaries

The 4 specific issues mentioned at the end of the article as particular areas the Koch brothers have advocated before - those are ones I can get behind:

AFP has previously fought for Right to Work laws and been involved with issues of free speech on college campuses. It has also opposed tariffs, advocated for embracing immigration as a way to supplement an aging labor force and supported criminal justice reform with the goal of reducing mass incarceration.

 

[Paracelsus]

Great clip of John F Kennedy advocating Universal Health Care (Medicare for All):

 

[MikeQ]

The 4 specific issues mentioned at the end of the article as particular areas the Koch brothers have advocated before - those are ones I can get behind:

Too bad the Koch brothers are one of the largest corporate polluters on the planet and don't support any policy that doesn't support their fossil fuel agenda and libertarian ideology.

 

[neroden]

The 4 specific issues mentioned at the end of the article as particular areas the Koch brothers have advocated before - those are ones I can get behind:

If you go through it:

"right to work" == "right to union bust" == lower wages, raise working hours, lower benefits -- of course the Kochs support this. More power for corporate CEOs.

"free speech on college campuses" sounds good -- but it's bullshit code for allowing pro-rape, pro-slavery agitators (who have often *actually been convicted of assault*) to come on campus with gangs of bullies and threaten people, when nobody on campus wants to hear their pro-violence, pro-crime "speeches". That sort of BS is not free speech, it's "freeze peach", as some people have taken to calling it. "Free speech" doesn't mean that you get to invade other people's platforms to spew hate. They can spew hate on their own time on their own soapboxes (and they do). They need to get off of college campuses unless the college community is actually interested in hearing their pro-rape, pro-slavery BS (which might be the case at, say, Liberty University, I don't know, but is not the case at the colleges they are trying to force themselves onto).

immigration as a solution for finding cheap, more easily abused labor -- of course the Kochs support this. More power for corporate CEOs.

I find it interesting that the Kochs actually support criminal justice reform and want to end mass incarceration. That I actually do support and there don't seem to be any strings attached, unlike the other three, which are all tricks. I'd expect them to support mass incarceration and farming out prison labor to private companies, since that's compatible with the rest of their pro-CEO, anti-worker, suppress-wages policies. So it's good that they don't.

 

[peopleofcolor]

The Koch brothers are advocating maximum fossil fuel consumption as usual.

 

[bhtooefr]

There's an implication in main that Musk should buy a newspaper... how about no.

That's not going to help his image, it's just going to cause that newspaper to be branded as a propaganda mill for an out-of-touch billionaire. (Just look at the Washington Post.)

 

[traxila]

There's an implication in main that Musk should buy a newspaper... how about no.

That's not going to help his image, it's just going to cause that newspaper to be branded as a propaganda mill for an out-of-touch billionaire. (Just look at the Washington Post.)

That looks like a fairly effective propaganda mill to me, as they pretty much all are.

 

[traxila]

I find it interesting that the Kochs actually support criminal justice reform and want to end mass incarceration. That I actually do support and there don't seem to be any strings attached, unlike the other three, which are all tricks. I'd expect them to support mass incarceration and farming out prison labor to private companies, since that's compatible with the rest of their pro-CEO, anti-worker, suppress-wages policies. So it's good that they don't.

Lemme see if I can find a reason....OK, labor shortage at the dirty fossil jobs (and everywhere else) so like immigration they figure ex cons can be a source of willing cheap labor (prisons usually far from where they need them to work so gotta let em out) to keep down wage inflation. Plus, it is easier to train assassins from that demographic. And there is always a real need for good assassins. Oh, and they hate that guy that put all his money into the private prison industry. They want to see him go down.

 

[bhtooefr]

Could be simpler: even prisoners in actual slavery (which is 100% legal for prisoners) don't use much in the way fossil fuels.

Even when they're working in groups outside of the prison, they're put in a van/bus to and from the worksites, so passenger miles per gallon are quite good.

Release them and get them jobs, and they pour money into buying fossil fuels to propel their private car to get to work every day, because wage slavery is legal.

Basically, this could simply be about enlarging Koch's customer base.

 

[JRP3]

And let's be honest. Most Dems can only say that they are "a little better than Republicans" on these types of issues. They are politicians. Until their local constituents demand something then they will focus their efforts elsewhere.

Not to go too far off topic but Progressive Dems are listening, and getting elected, and not taking PAC money. Further discussion can be had in the politics thread if desired.

 

[jerry33]

Not to go too far off topic but Progressive Dems are listening, and getting elected, and not taking PAC money. Further discussion can be had in the politics thread if desired.

All three of them.

 

[trentbridge]

1. Many Dems do get contributions from big oil. (A very few don't accept them)
2. Some (not sure how many) Dem politicians are car dealers.
3. All Dems get contributions from car dealers (and so do all Republicans)
This is not what is happening..

1) Many Dems get large contributions from public sector employees like teachers
2) Illinois has a severe problem with funding public pensions
3) Raising taxes is the only way Illinois can give pay increases to public sector workers and fund their pensions.
4) Illinois raised the gas tax from $0.19/gall to $0.38/gal.

So anyone doing 10,000 miles at 20 mpg is buying 500 gals and paying $0.38/gal tax or $190 annual total in state gas tax. Therefore the BEV owner is paying their share of the taxes...in their registration fee. I don't think Dem politicians are anti-EV they are just aware that 98% of the voters don't own a BEV and resent the BEV owner for avoiding gasoline taxes...

 

[Unpilot]

1. Many Dems do get contributions from big oil. (A very few don't accept them)
2. Some (not sure how many) Dem politicians are car dealers.
3. All Dems get contributions from car dealers (and so do all Republicans)
This is not what is happening..

1) Many Dems get large contributions from public sector employees like teachers
2) Illinois has a severe problem with funding public pensions
3) Raising taxes is the only way Illinois can give pay increases to public sector workers and fund their pensions.
4) Illinois raised the gas tax from $0.19/gall to $0.38/gal.

So anyone doing 10,000 miles at 20 mpg is buying 500 gals and paying $0.38/gal tax or $190 annual total in state gas tax. Therefore the BEV owner is paying their share of the taxes...in their registration fee. I don't think Dem politicians are anti-EV they are just aware that 98% of the voters don't own a BEV and resent the BEV owner for avoiding gasoline taxes...

And some BEV resent the ICE owner for not paying for the true cost of the poison they put in the air.
And almost all BEV owners pay tax on the electricity they use.

 

[Nocturnal]

So anyone doing 10,000 miles at 20 mpg is buying 500 gals and paying $0.38/gal tax or $190 annual total in state gas tax. Therefore the BEV owner is paying their share of the taxes...in their registration fee. I don't think Dem politicians are anti-EV they are just aware that 98% of the voters don't own a BEV and resent the BEV owner for avoiding gasoline taxes...

I really don't think anyone ever thinks about that. I've never heard a single person tell me I don't pay enough in gas tax.

And some BEV resent the ICE owner for not paying for the true cost of the poison they put in the air.
And almost all BEV owners pay tax on the electricity they use.

This. Owners of gas cars should pay an extra fee for maintenance of the electrical grid because they aren't paying their share now. Plus many Tesla owners bought more expensive cars than they would have and paid more in things like property taxes. (I certainly did)​

 

[peopleofcolor]

This is why Koch industries oppose Trump:
1. Trump tariffs reduce shipping and its fuel consumption.
2. Trump tariffs increase prices in the us reducing consumption including fuel consumption.
3. When people migrate from less developed cultures to the us they change from going to work, and the market, by mass transit, or on foot, to gas hog personal vehicles. The more people who are moved into the us the higher the fuel consumption.
4. Many migrants worked at subsistence formerly and didn't use fossil fuel at all, becoming big consumers in the us.
5. Trump has reduced development assistance which goes almost entirely to fossil fuel. Subsistence people have cultures which survived for centuries without handouts. They have food, water, shelter, and leisure. What they want money for is fuel and fuel burners like they see in American movies.

 

[gene]

New Mexico in the news yesterday stating it will go fossil free by 2050.

Yet New Mexico allows no Tesla stores. Here is a note I emailed to the governor this morning:

Contact the Governor | Office of the Governor - Michelle Lujan Grisham

"Dear Governor Grisham,
I commend you for going fossil free by 2050. But can you please tell me why Tesla is not permitted to have stores in New Mexico? Tesla has the best and farthest range EV's which will decrease fossil fuel use to the greatest degree over the other shorter range Ev's.. In addition Tesla is the most "Made in America" car a person can buy.

Gene xxxx"

I suggest if you have time please write the governor of New Mexico.