2020 Elections

[Parasaurolophus]

There are lots of moderates, but they tend to keep their heads down and their mouths shut because they're tired of being villified by both sides, including the media who pander to one side or the other. A nuanced position which doesn't have an immediate, simple, emotionally satisfying "solution" to any specific problem is unacceptable.

They should try being right, for a change.  Or being more interested in using their power for the common good than simply seeking out power.


A nuanced position that doesn't achieve anything significant is not worth very much. Case in point:  How about $20 000 in student debt relief for Pell Grant recipients who start a business in a disadvantaged community and operate that business for at least three years? That's nuanced and moderate! And a recipe for forgiving approximately three people's loans--in other words, for doing nothing.

[Kron3007]

To get back to drugs; part of the reason for making posession illegal is that it makes it easy to arrest dealers without having to catch them actually selling; if they have the drugs, they're guilty. If posession is legal, then my example of the person claiming the garage full is their personal stash is the kind of thing that becomes untouchable.

Is drug dealing something that should be illegal? If so, how can it be stopped if posession is perfectly OK?

Regarding dealers, most of this would naturally disappear with legalization and what doesn't would still be a crime.  With legalization, there would be a limit on how much you can have on you, which is less than a dealer would have.  If you have more than the limit, especially in small pre-packaged amounts, it is pretty clear.    So, if you have a garage full, you have exceeded the personal amount and could be charged.  Admittedly, this is not the case with Cannabis in Canada as we are allowed to grow out own and have as much as we want, but there is a limit on how much we can carry.

Easy-peasy. The drugs are delivered to my garage by the manufacturer. Clients have to come to my garage to pick up their purchases. I never "carry" any.

But then why wouldn't they just order it from the distributor themselves instead of buying it from you for more?  Also, in the case of Cannabis (which serves as a model), you can only order what is legal to ship/carry, so if you wanted to start dealing you would need to order many small packages, which would be flagged.   

This just dosn't make sense... 

[FishProf]

In our neighborhood there is a conspicuously red-and-blue yard sign that says "Jesus 2020." 

You don't VOTE for (King of) Kings!

[marshwiggle]

Easy-peasy. The drugs are delivered to my garage by the manufacturer. Clients have to come to my garage to pick up their purchases. I never "carry" any.

But then why wouldn't they just order it from the distributor themselves instead of buying it from you for more?  Also, in the case of Cannabis (which serves as a model), you can only order what is legal to ship/carry, so if you wanted to start dealing you would need to order many small packages, which would be flagged.   

This just dosn't make sense...

So what kind of restrictions would there be on becoming a heroin (fentanyl, crack, etc.) distributor?

[marshwiggle]

A nuanced position that doesn't achieve anything significant is not worth very much. Case in point:  How about $20 000 in student debt relief for Pell Grant recipients who start a business in a disadvantaged community and operate that business for at least three years? That's nuanced and moderate! And a recipe for forgiving approximately three people's loans--in other words, for doing nothing.

What kind of business, after operating for three years, wouldn't have provided enough income for the owner to pay off $20 000 in debt?

[Parasaurolophus]

A nuanced position that doesn't achieve anything significant is not worth very much. Case in point:  How about $20 000 in student debt relief for Pell Grant recipients who start a business in a disadvantaged community and operate that business for at least three years? That's nuanced and moderate! And a recipe for forgiving approximately three people's loans--in other words, for doing nothing.

What kind of business, after operating for three years, wouldn't have provided enough income for the owner to pay off $20 000 in debt?

A restaurant? Anything with razor-thin profit margins? I dunno. My business imagination is stunted.

But you're only illustrating the point: it's a nuanced policy designed by and for moderates, and it achieves nothing. It was rightly criticized. Simply "being moderate" doesn't ensure your ideas are any good, or inure you from criticism (and nor should it).

[waterboy]

Some of us are repulsed by the extremes on either side. I guess that makes me a useless moderate.

[Parasaurolophus]

Some of us are repulsed by the extremes on either side. I guess that makes me a useless moderate.

I suppose it depends on what repulses you and how useless your touted policies are.

[mahagonny]

Some of us are repulsed by the extremes on either side. I guess that makes me a useless moderate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTbViyH3vp0

[marshwiggle]

But you're only illustrating the point: it's a nuanced policy designed by and for moderates, and it achieves nothing. It was rightly criticized. Simply "being moderate" doesn't ensure your ideas are any good, or inure you from criticism (and nor should it).

OK, now I get it. Communism or Fascism are the only options that achieve anything. That simplifies matters.

[Parasaurolophus]

But you're only illustrating the point: it's a nuanced policy designed by and for moderates, and it achieves nothing. It was rightly criticized. Simply "being moderate" doesn't ensure your ideas are any good, or inure you from criticism (and nor should it).

OK, now I get it. Communism or Fascism are the only options that achieve anything. That simplifies matters.

False dichotomies simplify matters a lot more.

You yourself acknowledged it was worthless as a policy. So what's your point?

[Kron3007]

Easy-peasy. The drugs are delivered to my garage by the manufacturer. Clients have to come to my garage to pick up their purchases. I never "carry" any.

But then why wouldn't they just order it from the distributor themselves instead of buying it from you for more?  Also, in the case of Cannabis (which serves as a model), you can only order what is legal to ship/carry, so if you wanted to start dealing you would need to order many small packages, which would be flagged.   

This just dosn't make sense...

So what kind of restrictions would there be on becoming a heroin (fentanyl, crack, etc.) distributor?

The process would likely be modeled after the pharmaceutical industry, who already produce and distribute morphine, codeine, oxyconton, and any number of other drug and have extensive QA and security requirements.  We already do this...

[Kron3007]

A nuanced position that doesn't achieve anything significant is not worth very much. Case in point:  How about $20 000 in student debt relief for Pell Grant recipients who start a business in a disadvantaged community and operate that business for at least three years? That's nuanced and moderate! And a recipe for forgiving approximately three people's loans--in other words, for doing nothing.

What kind of business, after operating for three years, wouldn't have provided enough income for the owner to pay off $20 000 in debt?

Most businesses are not profitable for the first 2-3 years, so probably a lot of them.

[marshwiggle]

But you're only illustrating the point: it's a nuanced policy designed by and for moderates, and it achieves nothing. It was rightly criticized. Simply "being moderate" doesn't ensure your ideas are any good, or inure you from criticism (and nor should it).

OK, now I get it. Communism or Fascism are the only options that achieve anything. That simplifies matters.

False dichotomies simplify matters a lot more.

You yourself acknowledged it was worthless as a policy. So what's your point?

You were the one who seemed to suggest that "moderate" was somehow synonymous with useless, so presumably only more "extreme" measures are the only ones that are effective. My point was that the farther measures go toward one extreme or the toher, the worse they get. A moderate position is one which ackowledges that both extremes overemphasize something and underemphasize something else.

So in the example of student debt, simply forgiving all student debt would be finacially ruinous, while at the same time being unfair to all of the people who worked part-time, etc. to avoid taking on student debt. On the other hand, education costs rising above the inflation rate is unsustainable. There is a real probelm, but something like "make all education free!" ignores all kinds of realities that need to be taken into account, as does making education all funded by tuition.

[clean]

On the other hand, education costs rising above the inflation rate is unsustainable. There is a real probelm, but something like "make all education free!" ignores all kinds of realities that need to be taken into account, as does making education all funded by tuition.

Is it really?  I am not sure that the costs are rising above inflation, but I could be wrong.  The majority of the costs of higher education flow to faculty. I have certainly not been getting raises above inflation, and I doubt that many of my coworkers are either. 

I will agree that the fee paid by STUDENTS HAS increased.  BUT that is because states, mine in particular, have changed their view of the benefits of education, and decided that IF the benefits flow directly to the student, then the tuition should flow from them (and less so from the state).

AS student loans have been more available, states have reduced their funding of higher education, thus the percentage of the 'cost' of education has been shifted to the students. 

However, I wonder IF the cost has truly increased above inflation?

(On the other hand, I can certainly see that while faculty salaries are not moving much, that some administration salaries just might be!!)