Brock Beauchamp

My biggest problem with the banning of AR-15s is that banning single models of rifles is short-sighted. Someone can design something that's just like an AR-15 but not an AR-15 and we're back at square one. And an AR-15 isn't terribly different than many hunting rifles (provided it hasn't been modded for automatic fire, obviously). Though restricting magazine size is pretty obvious. I have yet to see a hunter need or use a 25 round magazine.

Okay, this is my last post on the subject but seriously, man... Did you even read the link you used to respond to me? This is literally the first sentence: "It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus." https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Yeah, appealing to the "popular authority" when that authority literally spends their life studying the subject is a real logical fallacy. Never mind that I said right there in the post that science sometimes gets it wrong. I can post cute links to logical fallacies in your post but I won't because it's unproductive and boring. I suggest you do the same. (BTW, the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy is only a fallacy when the quoted person is NOT actually an authority. If you're going to be smug with a response, at least try to get it right.)

Fair points all around. I believe Trump fracturing the party will have a greater effect than Hillary hate - which I think will diminish as she presents her case and looks presidential doing it - but I wouldn't bet money on it, either. I think it's going to become increasingly problematic that people like Graham, Romney, Bush, etc aren't just refusing to endorse Trump, they're declaring all-out war on the guy. If you haven't seen it already, look up Romney's latest Trump statements. They're brutal.

Very fair and troubling points. What may be the biggest factor in all of this is how Trump has fractured the GOP's base. I'm not sure it will be as easy for the GOP to "rally the troops' as it has been in the past. I'm hoping that extends all the way down the chain through Congress and local legislatures.

I tend to agree. I think Trump has said and done too much that he can't walk back from and who knows what he'll say and do in the next five months. I still can't believe he made those comments about the judge. The man has no restraint whatsoever. What odds can I get on Donald calling Hillary a bitch before all is said and done?

I think you're underestimating just how few non-white people will vote for Trump. The guy locked up the nomination - which turns most candidates to "presidential" attitude and temperament - and he opened by accusing a Federal judge of not being able to treat him fairly because the judge had Mexican parents. The guy is going to turn into a train wreck once the spotlight shines brightest. I thought he'd reel it in and possibly become a threat but he's choosing to double down and continue his juvenile nonsense. Hillary barely has to campaign at this point. She can show Trump speeches on TV, sit back, and reel in ~240 electoral votes.

Yes, all sorts of this. The climate change argument reeks of the tobacco argument from the 60s and 70s. If there was a way to disprove man-made climate change, we'd already have the data in hand. There are literally trillions of dollars on the line in this debate. If a corporation could spend $10 billion - an ungodly amount - to disprove it, they would have done it years ago. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the current scientists are right, either. We constantly flub scientific discovery and circle the truth for years before we finally figure it out. I personally believe in man-made climate change but I try to keep an open mind about it. Science sometimes gets it wrong before they get it right. But to accuse the scientists and government of rigging the game? No, man. You're just building a Reality Distortion Field, plugging your ears, and yelling "LALALALALALALA" at that point. This research has been going on for decades across dozens of disciplines and tens of thousands of scientists funded by both private organizations and dozens of independent countries. Are the Swedes corrupt, too? What about the Brits? The French? And the Germans, too? Well, ****... At that point, who isn't corrupt in your eyes? You have to toss Bill Gates in there as well. He obviously stands to gain a lot by funding climate research. What a jerk, that Bill Gates. He may be well on the way to eradicating polio but I just know he's screwing us on this climate thing. There is no way to make the logic leap that energy producers - who stand to lose trillions - are benevolent about this subject while individual scientists - who stand to lose *maybe* a grant - are corrupt and intentionally skewing results. It's sheer lunacy.

It'll be interesting, for sure. A good example is Utah. They vote Republican in a bloc but the Mormon hatred of Trump could turn them into a swing state when all is said and done. I expect a lot of chaos in the coming months.

I agree on both states but their state map is pretty hilarious. Minnesota is only light blue while AZ, NC, OR, and NH are "toss-ups". I think we can pretty much call all those states without thinking about it too hard.

I don't think that for a few reasons: 1. Historic is Reagan. No one is duplicating that ass-kicking. 2. This country is too divided. Some states will refuse to consider anything other than their traditional party. The NE and Pacific states are guaranteed to Clinton. As are MN, IL, and a few others. Most of the midwest and rural states are guaranteed Trump victories. The upside is that all Hillary has to do is hold her nearly-guaranteed states and pick up two mid-sized swing states or one large swing state. That gets her to 270.

Good point, thanks for the reminder. I actually thought I was in the election thread.

No arguments from me. I'm only looking a few years into the future, not decades. God only knows what will come 20 years down the road. But I'm becoming more convinced that a basic income is a "kill lotsa birds with one stone" style of argument. Also, that second article posted pointed out the differences between "basic income", "guaranteed income", and "minimum income". I've been using the terms a little too interchangeably, which muddies the conversation a bit. I think a small basic income is the short-term solution.

I scanned the list for that and got a chuckle as well. I think software engineers will be one of the later jobs to suffer from automation but at some point, they'll feel the pressure like everyone else.

And I should note that this has already begun to happen. A few months ago, I posted a picture of the Foxconn assembly line for iPhones. It looked like this: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HL6DN3F9Qyk/TycR25QqE8I/AAAAAAAAC48/Vx_geagDTaI/s640/Foxconn+factory.PNG As of last month, all of those people became unemployed, replaced by machines. 60,000 people.

I don't know if it's necessarily like spitting in the wind. We're not talking about future technology... We're talking about technology on hand today, much less the advancements that will come tomorrow. But I agree that, today, this should be sold as a fix for both government and poverty... With the added bonus of protecting us from what is inevitably coming our way. I just found this article, which mentions many of the points I brought up earlier. It's a good read. We're barely scratching the surface of AI's potential and, like most tech over the past 40 years, the rate it is improving is accelerating much faster than people thought just a few years ago. It's more than a little bit scary to think where it can be five years from now. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/you-cant-talk-about-robots-without-talking-about-basic-income?trk_source=homepage-lede

Pretty much agreed across the board. At least initially, the minimum income would have to be quite small to encourage work while there is work to be had. As more jobs move to automation, taxes would need to increase along with the minimum income. Capitalism has served us well for a few centuries but its days are numbered, at least in its current incarnation. Removal of the need for a labor force breaks the entire thing in half.

The big problem I have with a fair tax is that it really shafts the unemployed and poor. My goal is to increase governmental efficiency while improving the lives of everyone in the country. I don't see a fair tax accomplishing that goal; the most positive studies I've seen on the fair tax is that overall tax revenue remains flat. That doesn't really fix any problems, it only shuffles the deck. Now, if we talked fair tax AND some kind of minimum income, that could pay huge dividends in streamlining the government while returning a larger chunk of money to all Americans, not a select few.

I found this article several months back but was reminded of it this morning. It presents the guaranteed income argument from the perspective of Libertarian principles and it's pretty damned convincing. Much more so than the far left arguments I've seen on the same subject. http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income At some point in our lifetimes, we will see some form of guaranteed income. It's the only solution to the burgeoning "problem" of automation and how we simply won't need the entire population to work as machines begin doing everything from driving our roads to farming to building the things we use on a daily basis. The only other option is mass unemployment leading to class inequality on par with a Middle East oil-rich monarchy... And I think we can agree that's not really the course we want society to take. But in this society, what happens to the global economy if western nations begin adopting minimum incomes while corporations flee to Africa and other undeveloped parts of the world to avoid taxes? I think a return to import tariffs is the only real solution but I'm interested to hear what others think on the subject. Because, at some point, we're going to need to close corporate tax loopholes as corporations pay less into labor costs, which is the most fundamental aspect of capitalistic wealth redistribution. What can we do to stop a corporation from hoarding all the money and leaving virtually nothing to its work force because it has no work force?

Last Week Tonight is probably the best takedown show on television right now. It doesn't matter whether you're conservative or liberal, Oliver attacks real issues and points out the damaging effects they have on Americans. It's the stuff no one else is talking about most of the time (for-profit universities, drone strikes, debt collection, payday loans, TV evangelism... the list goes on).

I don't really care for any of the "rebels", faux or otherwise, to tell the truth. I think they're a mix of whiny and annoying most of the time. Each character has their moments but they're not frequent enough for me to really latch onto them as a viewer. For example, I was much more interested in the Japanese police officer storyline (the one routinely at odds with the Trade Minister) than any of the rebel storylines. And the police officer storyline was maybe my third or fourth favorite storyline of the show.

I was really impressed how intricately they wove the politics into the show and how complex (and surprising) many of the characters' actions were as it progressed and everyone became more embroiled into the situation. The one flaw of the show - and I don't think this is very uncommon in this type of show - is that the main characters are the least interesting. They're flitting around on the outskirts of society and the really interesting stuff involves the characters knee-deep in the system. The Japanese Trade Minister is easily my favorite character but the New York Nazi is also very interesting.

Jesus H Christ. Okay, here we go. 1. I have NOT told people how to live their lives. In fact, I've said that people often have reasons to "overconsume" in certain regards and that's okay. My point is that we, as a SELF-SERVING PEOPLE, should VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE to consume less because it's in our best interests. 2. In no way, shape, or form have I even hinted that I support the creation of some hydra-esque governmental institution to force Americans to comply. Christ almighty. 3. Ignoring that you're implying I don't know enough about this subject to speak about it but you know enough to tell me I'm wrong, there are so many benefits to consuming less that climate change is only a slice of the reasoning. Consume less oil and plastic, prop up fewer horrible Middle Eastern regimes! Consume less electricity (and coal by default), get cleaner air and water! Consume less natural gas, maybe less Texans can light their tapwater on fire and Oklahomans will suffer fewer earthquakes! In short, I'm sorry I implied that it's in humanity's best interest to look beyond our own noses once in awhile.

Sure, I expect everyone to fall in line over the course of the next few weeks leading up to the convention, just idly asking a question whether Bernie has a shot at VP. A good alternative is Warren, though she comes with her own issues. She's a woman (that shouldn't be an issue but god knows it will be), she's from a firmly Democratic state, and she's old.

I don't think it'd be extortion. Bernie as VP would signify to his supporters that Clinton is willing to listen to those left of her and put someone in place to steer her in that direction when possible. I think that'd mean a lot to the 45% of people who are afraid of Clinton, her hawkishness, and centrism.