~46~ Lame Duck Unfit Uncle Joe Biden ~46~

[a fan]

I suppose I am far too optimistic afan...I guess I should resign to being a pessimist b/c I have been an optimist for so long. It just rubbed me the wrong way that any percentage of casualties was acceptable. By comparison, roughly 100 soldiers/year in the 20 year War in Afghanistan. 13 died in one day in the recent separation of the overnight vacancy.

Meh. Both of our hearts are in the right place. Stuff went poorly, no question. But we can't ignore that stuff goes poorly every day in a combat zone.

It's why I wanted our troops out of there. 2022: zero casualties.

Biden got us out of there fast, yes. And if you ask me? It's because he's been around the block, and he knows that if he didn't take the "rip the band aid off" approach? His generals would NEVER let us leave. As old salt likes to say: perfect is the enemy of the good.

2022 casualties in Afghanistan? Not only are they good....they're perfect. 1.000 batting average.

And as I wrote before: I put this on Obama. He had the PERFECT time to get out of there, and help thousands of soldiers with PTSD.

What do I mean by that? Obama could have pulled everyone out when they got OBL, and hold a huge freaking parade. Soldiers and Americans would have been reminded of why we invaded in the first place. And soldiers get closure, as best as we can give it to them. End the parades at the 9/11 sites.

He didn't do that. And I'm angry at this choice.

[youthathletics]

Both of our hearts are in the right place.

Appreciate you!

[old salt]

As far as the laws enacted by the GOP, at the federal level I think afan might agree that they have done a very "good" job of doing nothing and leaving no fingerprints. They simply don't seem to want to govern. At the state level, they are enacting laws that their constituents want and not enacting laws they don't want (as in KS with abortion rights). Just like California democrats are enacting laws their citizens want. Some of those laws may not be desired by the majority of all Americans, but that is a FEATURE of the US political experiment, not a bug. Texas and California should have slightly different laws.

The tyranny of the masses is a very real phenomenon - which is what I Kram was getting at in his post. That tyranny can be measured at many levels - federal, state, county, town.... The thing to do is have your system (we happen to have the best one in the world) and let it do its thing. You might be pleasantly surprised at what happens when you let people govern themselves (like in KS) rather than dictate from on high.

Yep !

[NattyBohChamps04]

My family has a bit of military involvement:
Father served USN
Mother served USN triage.
Brother served USN Medic (service related death)
Brother in Law USN SEAL ret. MCPO.

Not counting uncles, cousins, or history

+1

My point, was when you have skin/family in the game, it can certainly change ones perspective. Sure, they know what they are signing up for, and would certainly die for all the right reasons.....those reasons can become questionable when political theatre is the motive.

Enjoy the Holiday, OCanada!

I've got plenty of skin in the game along with most of my neighbors and immediate family. I don't brag about it though.

It's kind of funny that you're criticizing the guy who executed our withdrawal from the USA's longest war for being militaristic. The withdrawl with 12 casualties vs. nearly 1,000 when the USSR withdrew from Afghanistan decades ago.

Political theater indeed.

[Farfromgeneva]

Two separate issues in my reply to natty. Much like his reply that inserted additional talking points.

It is not just a race issue...unless you make it one. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/08/check-o ... polls.html

Correction: Republicans make it a race issue. Stop mucking with access to elections, and the complaint goes away. Simple.

My question was about the comment that he was accepting a 1% casualty.

That's bad math. You don't get to compare it to zero, my man. You MUST compare Biden's exit casualties with the cost of life had he chose to keep troops there.

Wanna go over those numbers? The US annual deaths from when we got OBL, until we bailed...... 2012-2020? I'd guess that you don't. Because it makes Trump and Obama look like they don't care about our troops.

And since we're looking at the numbers: do you know how many US soldiers died in Afghanistan in 2022?

I most certainly can compare it to zero, each situation presents its own circumstances; we are not baking the same cake each time. You guys and your scoreboard....who's winning again?

You’d have to prove or get some serious agreement that doing nothing would equate to zero in order to use that as the “opportunity cost”.

[Farfromgeneva]

My son discussed his views post speech as 'there's two parties, one is "majoritarian" and one is "anti-majoritarian". One party wants more people to vote, another wants fewer people to vote. One supports polices that a majority of Americans hold, one opposes those policies.

IMO, that didn't use to be the case for the GOP, but I find it really hard to now find a view or a policy position recently enacted, when the GOP is in full control (as exists in some states now and was the case for the first 2 years of the Trump Presidency) that is desired by a majority of all Americans.

this is a really weird take. The "traditional" GOP - the one beholden to corporate America, the one everyone pines for - was quite clearly the party of limited access to voting. As far as the laws enacted by the GOP, at the federal level I think afan might agree that they have done a very "good" job of doing nothing and leaving no fingerprints. They simply don't seem to want to govern. At the state level, they are enacting laws that their constituents want and not enacting laws they don't want (as in KS with abortion rights). Just like California democrats are enacting laws their citizens want. Some of those laws may not be desired by the majority of all Americans, but that is a FEATURE of the US political experiment, not a bug. Texas and California should have slightly different laws.

The tyranny of the masses is a very real phenomenon - which is what I Kram was getting at in his post. That tyranny can be measured at many levels - federal, state, county, town.... The thing to do is have your system (we happen to have the best one in the world) and let it do its thing. You might be pleasantly surprised at what happens when you let people govern themselves (like in KS) rather than dictate from on high.

Not so sure about the local legislative movements given gerrymandering plus other aspects of local organization.

https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2022 ... can-policy

Arguably the greatest innovation in our grand experiment is the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. But like in any aspect of life it’s been bastardized with the amorphous “social costs/externalities as sufficient to justify substantial legislative change”-see ACA. (consider the original intended use of derivatives, to hedge risk, compared with the late 2000s where there was not enough “product”, ie financial assets, in the cash markets so the street started creating “synthetic” backed assets that were secure by credit insurance contracts, derivatives of the cash assets, and the system became filled with a bunch of unwitting financial insurers with out reserves or oversight-all from the original intent of structuring a way to manage or mitigate risk)

[OCanada]

I would suggest the opposite is also true.

TY

[Farfromgeneva]

Not clear but ok

[Brooklyn]

Yeah, somehow it's Biden who is the great "divider":



https://i0.wp.com/www.dailycartoonist.c ... 09/mac.png

[OCanada]

NattyBoh

I think you either need stop the Nattys or have a couple more,

Seems you have a problem w objective fact. FYI I was on laxpower since inception and same here. First time i have ever referenced it but it seemed called for. Telling comment though. Thx for making it

[NattyBohChamps04]

NattyBoh

I think you either need stop the Nattys or have a couple more,

Seems you have a problem w objective fact. FYI I was on laxpower since inception and same here. First time i have ever referenced it but it seemed called for. Telling comment though. Thx for making it

My comment was in response to YA being chirpy a few times about having skin in the game.

You're quite welcome.

[HooDat]

Arguably the greatest innovation in our grand experiment is the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. But like in any aspect of life it’s been bastardized with the amorphous “social costs/externalities as sufficient to justify substantial legislative change”

It is unclear to me which "side" of this you are coming out on? In my book the interstate commerce clause is the great tragedy of our system. It is a critical component and a key to our country acting like a country rather than an alliance. But it (as you note) been bastardized to open virtually everything to federal control. It is a shame people lack the ability to maintain a state of nuance. It is why we can't have nice things....

There is a big difference between regulating rail, making sure a pint in ME is the same size as a pint in NM and we can dictate your drinking laws....

[MDlaxfan76]

Arguably the greatest innovation in our grand experiment is the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. But like in any aspect of life it’s been bastardized with the amorphous “social costs/externalities as sufficient to justify substantial legislative change”

It is unclear to me which "side" of this you are coming out on? In my book the interstate commerce clause is the great tragedy of our system. It is a critical component and a key to our country acting like a country rather than an alliance. But it (as you note) been bastardized to open virtually everything to federal control. It is a shame people lack the ability to maintain a state of nuance. It is why we can't have nice things....

There is a big difference between regulating rail, making sure a pint in ME is the same size as a pint in NM and we can dictate your drinking laws....

mmm, you really think there was no interstate implication of differential, by state, standards? People driving to the nearby state to obtain alcohol and then driving back, potentially intoxicated? The remedy was to withhold federal highway dollars if a state didn't comply, right?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

Is there another example where you think federal powers go too far, based on the interstate commerce clause, or other justification?

[HooDat]

Arguably the greatest innovation in our grand experiment is the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. But like in any aspect of life it’s been bastardized with the amorphous “social costs/externalities as sufficient to justify substantial legislative change”

It is unclear to me which "side" of this you are coming out on? In my book the interstate commerce clause is the great tragedy of our system. It is a critical component and a key to our country acting like a country rather than an alliance. But it (as you note) been bastardized to open virtually everything to federal control. It is a shame people lack the ability to maintain a state of nuance. It is why we can't have nice things....

There is a big difference between regulating rail, making sure a pint in ME is the same size as a pint in NM and we can dictate your drinking laws....

mmm, you really think there was no interstate implication of differential, by state, standards? People driving to the nearby state to obtain alcohol and then driving back, potentially intoxicated? The remedy was to withhold federal highway dollars if a state didn't comply, right?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

Is there another example where you think federal powers go too far, based on the interstate commerce clause, or other justification?

There are interstate implications in EVERYTHING. Was that the intent of the commerce clause? Of course not.

That same commerce clause was used to return run-away slaves to their "masters" - that might have been a bit too far, don't ya think?

[MDlaxfan76]

Arguably the greatest innovation in our grand experiment is the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. But like in any aspect of life it’s been bastardized with the amorphous “social costs/externalities as sufficient to justify substantial legislative change”

It is unclear to me which "side" of this you are coming out on? In my book the interstate commerce clause is the great tragedy of our system. It is a critical component and a key to our country acting like a country rather than an alliance. But it (as you note) been bastardized to open virtually everything to federal control. It is a shame people lack the ability to maintain a state of nuance. It is why we can't have nice things....

There is a big difference between regulating rail, making sure a pint in ME is the same size as a pint in NM and we can dictate your drinking laws....

mmm, you really think there was no interstate implication of differential, by state, standards? People driving to the nearby state to obtain alcohol and then driving back, potentially intoxicated? The remedy was to withhold federal highway dollars if a state didn't comply, right?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

Is there another example where you think federal powers go too far, based on the interstate commerce clause, or other justification?

There are interstate implications in EVERYTHING. Was that the intent of the commerce clause? Of course not.

That same commerce clause was used to return run-away slaves to their "masters" - that might have been a bit too far, don't ya think?

Yup, there are individual rights that should, and do, trump the commerce clause. But at that point in time, those individual rights hadn't been established. Pretty awful. Individual rights should be federal, not up to the states.

But back to "interstate implications"...my general argument is that we should do federally what doing so most efficiently and fairly achieves the public good versus individual state determinations that are otherwise creating inefficiencies and inequities. (not sure I've articulated that well, but hopefully clear).

That needn't mean that there aren't variations enacted at state levels, but when there is demonstrable benefit to common expectations and standards that people can rely upon when moving from state to state, that's beneficial...if that can't be demonstrated then probably should be up to the state.

This is all the more true given the advances in technology, travel, etc over these past 200 years.

What decisions made in the past 2 or 3 decades, utilizing the interstate commerce claim, would we say should have been done at the state level, not federal legislation?

[HooDat]

But back to "interstate implications"...my general argument is that we should do federally what doing so most efficiently and fairly achieves the public good versus individual state determinations that are otherwise creating inefficiencies and inequities. (not sure I've articulated that well, but hopefully clear).

That needn't mean that there aren't variations enacted at state levels, but when there is demonstrable benefit to common expectations and standards that people can rely upon when moving from state to state, that's beneficial...if that can't be demonstrated then probably should be up to the state.

I sympathize with your desire for efficiency, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As the saying used to go - the trains ran on time.... More importantly it flies in the face of that pesky thing the Constitution - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[MDlaxfan76]

But back to "interstate implications"...my general argument is that we should do federally what doing so most efficiently and fairly achieves the public good versus individual state determinations that are otherwise creating inefficiencies and inequities. (not sure I've articulated that well, but hopefully clear).

That needn't mean that there aren't variations enacted at state levels, but when there is demonstrable benefit to common expectations and standards that people can rely upon when moving from state to state, that's beneficial...if that can't be demonstrated then probably should be up to the state.

I sympathize with your desire for efficiency, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As the saying used to go - the trains ran on time.... More importantly it flies in the face of that pesky thing the Constitution - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Yeah, but those powers have been delegated to the United States.

You are saying you don't like that the interstate commerce clause is the foundation for that grant, yet, it's in the Constitution and has been repeatedly upheld as providing such grant.

And you seemed to suggest that there were situations in which that seems to you to be wholly inappropriate or wrong (if I understood you correctly).

So, I was just trying to figure out what decisions made through federal legislation you think should have been made at the state level instead.

I quite agree about "good intentions" but that's what democracy is all about. We try, with all good intentions (hopefully) to decide things that will work well...if they do not, we adjust. We get lots of swings at the ball.

But the question is whether such democratically made decisions should be at the federal level or whether they're better made at the state level.

I presented a construct that is a rational explanation for why the interstate implications should matter, I haven't heard your explanation for why state preferences should trump that logic...and some examples.

By contrast, I can give you plenty of examples of decisions made at a state level that you and I would agree were terrible and needed to be overturned one way or another by a federal authority, whether Congress or SCOTUS.

[Farfromgeneva]

Arguably the greatest innovation in our grand experiment is the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. But like in any aspect of life it’s been bastardized with the amorphous “social costs/externalities as sufficient to justify substantial legislative change”

It is unclear to me which "side" of this you are coming out on? In my book the interstate commerce clause is the great tragedy of our system. It is a critical component and a key to our country acting like a country rather than an alliance. But it (as you note) been bastardized to open virtually everything to federal control. It is a shame people lack the ability to maintain a state of nuance. It is why we can't have nice things....

There is a big difference between regulating rail, making sure a pint in ME is the same size as a pint in NM and we can dictate your drinking laws....

Innovation is a value neutral term but of all the evolution from the baseline of our system that is the most impactful and, at the time, elegant analysis/solution to what was pursued.

[Farfromgeneva]

But back to "interstate implications"...my general argument is that we should do federally what doing so most efficiently and fairly achieves the public good versus individual state determinations that are otherwise creating inefficiencies and inequities. (not sure I've articulated that well, but hopefully clear).

That needn't mean that there aren't variations enacted at state levels, but when there is demonstrable benefit to common expectations and standards that people can rely upon when moving from state to state, that's beneficial...if that can't be demonstrated then probably should be up to the state.

I sympathize with your desire for efficiency, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As the saying used to go - the trains ran on time.... More importantly it flies in the face of that pesky thing the Constitution - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Yeah, but those powers have been delegated to the United States.

You are saying you don't like that the interstate commerce clause is the foundation for that grant, yet, it's in the Constitution and has been repeatedly upheld as providing such grant.

And you seemed to suggest that there were situations in which that seems to you to be wholly inappropriate or wrong (if I understood you correctly).

So, I was just trying to figure out what decisions made through federal legislation you think should have been made at the state level instead.

I quite agree about "good intentions" but that's what democracy is all about. We try, with all good intentions (hopefully) to decide things that will work well...if they do not, we adjust. We get lots of swings at the ball.

But the question is whether such democratically made decisions should be at the federal level or whether they're better made at the state level.

I presented a construct that is a rational explanation for why the interstate implications should matter, I haven't heard your explanation for why state preferences should trump that logic...and some examples.

By contrast, I can give you plenty of examples of decisions made at a state level that you and I would agree were terrible and needed to be overturned one way or another by a federal authority, whether Congress or SCOTUS.

I’d allow insurance to sell across state borders freely, gambling and weed.

[a fan]

But back to "interstate implications"...my general argument is that we should do federally what doing so most efficiently and fairly achieves the public good versus individual state determinations that are otherwise creating inefficiencies and inequities. (not sure I've articulated that well, but hopefully clear).

That needn't mean that there aren't variations enacted at state levels, but when there is demonstrable benefit to common expectations and standards that people can rely upon when moving from state to state, that's beneficial...if that can't be demonstrated then probably should be up to the state.

I sympathize with your desire for efficiency, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As the saying used to go - the trains ran on time.... More importantly it flies in the face of that pesky thing the Constitution - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Yeah, but those powers have been delegated to the United States.

You are saying you don't like that the interstate commerce clause is the foundation for that grant, yet, it's in the Constitution and has been repeatedly upheld as providing such grant.

And you seemed to suggest that there were situations in which that seems to you to be wholly inappropriate or wrong (if I understood you correctly).

So, I was just trying to figure out what decisions made through federal legislation you think should have been made at the state level instead.

I quite agree about "good intentions" but that's what democracy is all about. We try, with all good intentions (hopefully) to decide things that will work well...if they do not, we adjust. We get lots of swings at the ball.

But the question is whether such democratically made decisions should be at the federal level or whether they're better made at the state level.

I presented a construct that is a rational explanation for why the interstate implications should matter, I haven't heard your explanation for why state preferences should trump that logic...and some examples.

By contrast, I can give you plenty of examples of decisions made at a state level that you and I would agree were terrible and needed to be overturned one way or another by a federal authority, whether Congress or SCOTUS.

I’d allow insurance to sell across state borders freely, gambling and weed.

Nothing in the Constitution says that the States can't band together and form an EU style trade organization that isn't the Federal Government.

And yes, that sounds stupid, but the amount of pointless paperwork and red tape you have to deal with to simply sell things in different States is absurd.

We are SO bad at capitalism in America. We prefer monopolistic, "good ol' boys" "you ain't from around here" capitalism, where being the governor's buddy is 100 times more important than building a better mousetrap.