Trump impeached for 'inciting' US Capitol riots:
The US House of Representatives has impeached President Donald Trump for "incitement of insurrection" at last week's Capitol riot.
Ten Republicans sided with Democrats to impeach the president by 232-197.
He is the first president in US history to be impeached twice, or charged with crimes by Congress.
Mr Trump, a Republican, will now face a trial in the Senate, where if convicted he could face being barred from ever holding office again.
But Mr Trump will not have to quit the White House before his term in office ends in one week because the Senate will not reconvene in time.
Mr Trump will leave office on 20 January, following his election defeat last November to Democrat Joe Biden.
The Democratic-controlled House voted after several hours of impassioned debate on Wednesday as armed National Guard troops stood guard inside and outside the Capitol.
[...] Impeachment charges are political, not criminal.
Also at Newsweek, c|net, Al Jazeera, Washington Post.
[Ed Note - The linked article has been revised since submission. The quoted text has been revised accordingly. - Fnord]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:19PM (66 children)
Imma trying to stay alive for at least 20 years and see how the day is remembered in the future.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:29PM
https://catchymemes.com/post/639675589788319744 [catchymemes.com]
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:33PM (6 children)
What's going to happen on the first of June? Should I be worried?!
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:15PM (5 children)
See, https://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com] for relevant meme. Personally, I'd go with YYYYMMDD.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:57PM (3 children)
https://xkcd.com/1179/ [xkcd.com] possibly more relevant.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:16AM (1 child)
I like This Strip [ibb.co] of XKCD, it's very relevant for the times.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:37AM
I tricked my roommate into clicking that link, based on their horrified expression I wouldn't recommend anyone subject themselves to it. Wouldn't tell me what it was, just vomited into the toilet so I presume it was a dick pic.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:11PM
Definitely, I just went with one that I remembered. That's a good one.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday January 14 2021, @09:52AM
same here
YYYYMMDD make finding the right log/backup files a lot easier.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:23PM (57 children)
Imma trying to stay alive for at least 20 years and see how the day is remembered in the future.
It'll either be the day America became a laughingstock, or a hypocrite, or both. After this, we have zero business lecturing other countries about democracy or what form their government should take. And we definitely have no business claiming our Constitution is some kind of holy document, or that it has any kind of functional "checks and balances". The thing should be thrown out and a new one drawn up, preferably with a parliament this time. The concept of popularly electing a President, separately from the elections for legislators, obviously doesn't work in real life.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:37PM (1 child)
I kinda think this event will be remembered as the inflection point in American history.
Rose onto global dominance after WWII, decline into a banana republic after this date.
It's an "interesting" time we live in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:43PM
Yes but THE greatest Banana republic the World has ever seen. Still No. 1 baby!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:02AM (51 children)
Parliament means you get a mediocre yes-man for the desires of corrupt politicians.
If you have a weird desire for "normal", meaning that your corporate overlords fully approve and have nothing to say while you're getting robbed blind, that might be to your taste. Ugh. We don't need that kind of "normal", even if it is strangely comforting to have the talking heads all peaceful.
We had something more parliamentary, with senators and electors chosen by state legislators. We could go back to that... but people hated it. Every idiot wants to vote, and we even banned the literacy tests and taxes that used to block clueless people. We have drug-addicted homeless bums voting.
We certainly could make improvements.
One fix would be to do the elections as multiple rounds of randomized approval voting. Split lists of candidates according to the binomial distribution or Pascal's triangle, so that the list is typically cut near the midpoint but isn't so predictable. Each round of voting gets rid of approximately half the candidates, but the unpredictability limits the bad effects of strategic voting. Require the same of voters, on penalty of the vote being tossed out, with each ballot randomly marked with the required number of candidates to approve. (so I must vote for 4 out of 11, and you must vote for 7 out of 11, and somebody else must vote for 6 out of 11, and so on...) After the vote we determine, by random chance, what portion of the candidates to toss out. If more than one remain, we vote again. So the number of candidates in each round of voting might be 30, 17, 6, 5, 2, 1. On a different occasion starting from the same 30 it might go 30, 14, 7, 4, 3, 1.
Another fix would be to have our bicameral legislature vote and debate together, at the same time, in the same room. It's OK to count the votes in two separate groups, one for senate and one for house, but it's not OK to have a vote that isn't done by both groups. The problem of the two groups passing different versions of the same bill is absurd.
Another fix would be to raise the voting age to 28. We have idiots voting. Some of these people have never paid taxes. Most don't have kids. Since people without kids don't have reason to care about future generations, they shouldn't get to vote either.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by srobert on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:18AM (1 child)
"Since people without kids don't have reason to care about future generations, they shouldn't get to vote either."
Since people who reproduce do so mostly by accident, they are incapable of planning ahead. So they shouldn't get to vote either.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 14 2021, @10:49AM
My partner and I are easily in the top decile of the people I know when it comes to environmental concerns, both awareness and actions, we are accutely aware that degrading the habitat for future generations is morally unacceptable (but we're moral relativists, you may select your own morals, I reserve the right to view you as a selfish short-termist sociopath). We're also happily - very happily - childfree. (Don't have them, don't want them, never have, never will.) Thank you for putting forward such an amusing and succinct counter to your parent poster's drivel.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:12AM (5 children)
You don't get to vote unless you have kids. You have one vote per kid under 18. (Kids only count if you are supporting them.)
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:34AM
Grown kids are still a share of the future, but not if they get old.
Make it this: one vote per descendant who hasn't reached age 32. You can count the great grandchildren, but not the 40-year-old manchild still living in your basement.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:12AM (3 children)
> You don't get to vote unless you have kids. You have one vote per kid under 18.
By any chance, are you a mormon or a catholic?
(Score: 3, Funny) by deimtee on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:48AM (2 children)
Geez. I was going for funny, and I got two insightfuls.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:53PM (1 child)
I guess your not as funny as you think.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @02:18AM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:17AM (1 child)
Raising the voting age won't change that. As long as you allow any people to vote, half or more of them will be idiots.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:41AM
Thus the saying "There ain't no fool like an old fool".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:51AM (19 children)
WOW you have some bad ideas. We take far too many rights away from young people already, and you don't purchase the right to vote with taxes. And people without kids aren't all sociopaths who don't give a shit about anybody else.
Also, it seems that young people in the US are far more concerned than previous generations about the long-term effects of polluting the environment. I don't think cutting them out of the voting pool would help the government thing more long-term.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:37AM (18 children)
Voting isn't the same kind of right as freedom from search, skipping church, having a gun, or being tried by a jury. It isn't so personal. The goal here is to elect good people. You are hurt when the voters select bad people, not when you are turned away for being unwise. A better right is the right to have good people in elected office.
You can't really feel the problem of government excess until you've paid taxes. If you don't pay, it's like letting homeless people vote to have caviar and $1000/bottle wine served at the homeless shelter. I could be harsher. Maybe you should own a house and a car, and not have any student loans. That almost always shows some mix of responsibility, hard work, and intelligence.
Concern for the long-term effects of polluting the environment needs to be balanced by an understanding that we need to be able to build houses and factories. There needs to be an understanding that regulations in the USA cause jobs to move offshore, but the wind and waves bring the pollution back to us. The huge container ships add more. Those foreign factories pollute far more than lightly-regulated ones in the USA would.
Collapsing the economy is not long-term thinking. The rest of the world won't just stop. The rest of the world pulls ahead, polluting like crazy. Recovery is extremely difficult because the supply chains and skills are located overseas.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by helel on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:39AM (11 children)
Your argument makes a kind of theoretical sense but falls apart in the face or real world facts. For example, older voters overwhelmingly vote for politicians that run up the national deficit than younger voters. Likewise voters without student loans are more likely to vote for politicians that run up the deficit than those voters who do still have student loans.
If anything, the metrics you've presented of building economic growth and balancing the governments budget would suggest we should stop older people and people without higher education from voting. The favored candidates of the uneducated and elderly almost always hurt the economy and fuck up the budget while the young and well educated routinely support candidates who, when elected, at least try to balance the budget and who's terms are economically better, even when they inherit a massive recession from the war criminal before them.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:23PM (10 children)
So the small government Republicans must be the younger voters, then? How does that explains all their grey hair.
TIL Ron Paul was 17 and is looking forward to getting the vote.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by helel on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:24PM (9 children)
Ah, I see you don't understand how statistics work. Let see...
Some old people vote for candidates who try to balance the budget. More old people vote for candidates who expand the deficit by orders [huffpost.com] of magnitude [newsweek.com].
Some young people voted for candidates who can't balance the budget. More young people vote for candidates who reduce [factcheck.org] the deficit [newsbreak.com].
So, one of the metrics you chose for good voting decisions was selecting candidates who are fiscally responsible. If you banned all younger voters from voting it's likely we would not get any fiscally responsible candidates elected. On the other hand if we banned all older voters from voting it's likely we would get only fiscally responsible candidates elected.
Does that make it any clearer or is there something you're still not understanding?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @10:59PM
I would just like to add that it seems to be more of a generational and culural disparity and not a simple age.difference. I don't think it is true that statistically old people will prefer fiscally irresponsible candidates, and it is more that they are a product of the times and who is targeting them with propaganda. In 40 years maybe liberals will become overly tax and spend and the fiscal conservatives will be the sane voices in the room.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @02:43AM (1 child)
Budget bills originate in the US House of Representatives. Obama and Clinton both had GOP running the house for 6 of the 8 years.
Clinton also had GOP running the senate for 6 or 8 years, and Obama had that for a couple years.
Both had things slightly more GOP than Bush Jr., much more GOP than Trump, and much more GOP than republicans of the post-WWII 1900s.
So really, by the numbers, it looks like the answer is a GOP congress. Ignore the president. If you care about the budget, you need a GOP congress.
(Score: 3, Informative) by helel on Friday January 15 2021, @05:34AM
Actually the process starts with the presidential budget request, then it's passed off to both house and senate budget comities to decided what modifications to make. It's not like the president doesn't play a major, if not the single largest, roll in setting the budget.
As for your analysis, Bush Jr and Trump both spend half their term with full Republican control of both house and senate and still somehow managed to increase their deficit spending, allot. In theory your analysis suggests that the best mix is Democrats in the Oval Office and Republicans in the legislature so you have somebody responsible writing the budget request and greedy old pricks trying to cut anything they can cuz when it's Republicans everywhere they just can't seem to figure out how the whole revenue vs expenses thing works.
Then again judging by conservative talking points the deficit doesn't even exist while a Republican is in the White House so that might have something to do with it...
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 15 2021, @10:44AM (5 children)
There's a *huge* difference between voting for someone who later through incompetence is fiscally irresponsible, and voting for someone who has fiscal irresponsibility in his manifesto.
Your argument is entirely dependent on assuming that (a) politicians don't lie; and (b) politicians are competent, and keep their promises.
Neither of those are in evidence, in fact, the contrary is evident.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by helel on Friday January 15 2021, @03:53PM (4 children)
My argument is based on the outcomes of past presidencies. Nowhere did I reference anything a politician said, only what they did.
I would suggest you take a long hard look at your beliefs. Democrats routinely, at the national, state, and local levels, do a better job of balancing budgets than Republicans. It's not a trick or an accident. It's a result of monetary policy that (mostly) breaks along party lines.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 15 2021, @05:05PM (3 children)
And this might explain why you're only understanding half of the argument, you're ignoring half of it.
> I would suggest you take a long hard look at your beliefs.
My beliefs are irrelevant. You don't even know what my beliefs are, as I've not even expressed any, all I've done is reported facts that cover a wider range of things than you've been bothered to look at, which is why you're getting confused.
> Democrats routinely, at the national, state, and local levels, do a better job of balancing budgets than Republicans. It's not a trick or an accident. It's a result of monetary policy that (mostly) breaks along party lines.
It may shock you to realise that that is also totally irrelevant. The topic at hand is *what voters vote for*, not *what politicians do*. If you can't understand the difference between the two, you 're out of your depth in this argument.
You're also not just irrelevant but not even particularly on the money - have you forgotten QE1, QE2, and QE3? The last thing that saw monetary expansion that massive was a freaking world war. Ooops!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by helel on Friday January 15 2021, @10:01PM (2 children)
The original argument was about how to elect "good people" with fiscal responsibility being one of the metrics used to judge which political leaders are "good people" and which are not. I interpreted your post through that lens.
Given your clarification let me say that if leaders who you would describe as having "fiscal irresponsibility in (their) manifesto" routinely achieve better fiscal outcomes it's probable that your views on what consists fiscal responsibility probably need some rethinking.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday January 17 2021, @10:11AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by helel on Sunday January 17 2021, @02:18PM
Bush, and the Republican controlled house and senate loved easy credit and hated government oversight. In fairness, apparently Bush did try to get the Republican legislature to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but government regulation is the kind of things Republicans don't like and over in the executive branch when his own bureaucracy tried to crack down on predatory lending Bush reigned them in and even when to court to stop the states from doing anything about the growing problem.
So, Republicans created a nation wide economic collapse leaving the US in crisis as Obama took office. Any solution to the kind of dumpster fire Republican presidents like to leave behind would have cost enormous piles of money.
The same is true right now, by the way. Trump was so eager to save a billion dollars a year on the CDC that he axed our pandemic response team. Sure hope the economic fallout of that doesn't end up costing us three trillion dollars or something!
I think this might actually play into what you consider "fiscally irresponsible manifestos." I understand how it's easy to criticize a Democrat who wants to spend a billion dollars a year fighting disease in other countries and "fiscally irresponsible." It makes a kind of intuitive sense that "that's allot of money" and "if it isn't helping us it should be cut." The thing that requires a little deeper thinking is realizing "oh, a disease is like a fire - It's easy to fight when it's small but very ver hard to fight once it gets big."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:53AM (2 children)
Not so far from history. The franchise was originally limited to males who owned property.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:22AM (1 child)
But were those males buttery? And if so, was it salted or unsalted?
Inquiring mind want to know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:42PM
The buttery males are definitely going to be #salty on 1/21.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:48PM (1 child)
The goal is a public demonstration of approval of the elected officials. Being "good people" is not a requirement. If most of the present day public can't vote, then you no longer can have the public's approval of your government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:56PM
That's why we need to strip voter rolls down and make it harder to vote. For the sake of legitimacy, you see?
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @02:30AM
Demanded no homeless person ever.
Homelessness is a drag on the economy. Homelessness people are obviously going to have a hard time getting any sort of job, or even dealing with personal problems that may have led to homelessness in the first place.'
Never mind the people who became homeless because of layoffs or cutbacks in their hours, medical problems, or relationships breaking down.
Libertarians are the ultimate believers in predestination, a cruel religious belief. "Bad things happen to you because you're not trying hard enough."
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Tokolosh on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:38AM (3 children)
No representation without taxation. If you don't pay tax, or receive a subsidy, you have no skin in the game and no incentive to vote for ever more largesse.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @02:32AM (2 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @12:50PM
It seems you are still stuck in history. There are far too many voters who don't do any thing to make shit happen. They need to stop living on other people's dime.
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Friday January 15 2021, @04:21PM
Whoosh!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by driverless on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:14AM (14 children)
The problem isn't the voting system, it's the environment it runs in. The Soviet Union had a pretty reasonable constitution and a fair voting system (secret polls, universal suffrage, etc), but that didn't make it a good place to live. The problem in the US isn't the electoral system, that's just a symptom, the problem is the electorate. And I don't think anyone has any idea how to fix that. Traditionally it's been done through a reformat and reinstall, typically taking centuries (Roman empire) or a catastrophic loss (Germany).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:42AM (9 children)
You're right, but not for the reasons you posit.
The "environment" that's the problem is our *political* system, not the electorate.
Leaving aside (although we should address that too) first-past-the-post elections, the biggest issue is the role that *money* plays in our political system.
That gives more power to those with more money. There are a bunch of reasons for this. TV ads, lack of transparency (think SuperPACs), corporate lobbying and the inexplicable (and yes, it's true) fact that candidates can *keep* any campaign contributions they don't spend.
By having money at the heart of our political system, we attract the greedy and amoral like flies to shit. The average House member spends about 1/3 of his or her time fundraising for their next election campaign.
If we remove money from the political system (banning lobbyists and *monetary* political donations of any kind), limit the length of campaigns and implement publicly funded election campaigns (this would cost much less than you think), there would be more people who are interested in helping their constituents than raking in the cash.
No. That doesn't address first-past-the-post elections, gerrymandering or the strength of partisan blocs.
We should seriously look at other systems (like Ranked Choice Voting) and professionalized non-partisan redistricting.
National and state parties would lose much of their power if they didn't have all that money to direct to their preferred candidates.
There would be more chances for folks who just want to do good for all of us to get on ballots and succeed.
And the electorate would have a wider selection of voices to from which to choose.
Would that solve all our problems? No, that requires more serious action [youtube.com].
But it can make a real difference. And most of that has to be done at the state and local levels. Let's do this thing!
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:04AM (2 children)
At best it would make bugger-all difference - just as the determined programmer can write FORTRAN IV in any language, so the electoral climate in the US can make a mess of any political system. Canada also has FPP, and they don't have anything like the issues the US has. Conversely, Italy has proportional representation and they're a mess. Changing the electoral system is just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, it's a distraction from the real issues. As long as people are willing to vote for a philandering atheist multiple-bankrupt narcissist on the basis that he's secretly fighting a bunch of satan-worshipping baby-eaters, it doesn't matter what electoral system you have, you're fucked.
(Incidentally, reread that last sentence. If you proposed that as a movie plot and you weren't Trey Parker they'd probably send you to a loony bin, but this is our current reality. That's how badly broken things are).
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:07AM (1 child)
AC you replied to here.
I understand you pessimism, although I don't accept or agree with it.
As for your statement that "As long as people are willing to vote for a philandering atheist multiple-bankrupt narcissist on the basis that he's secretly fighting a bunch of satan-worshipping baby-eaters,"
you're referring to a small, but significant, fraction of Trump voters. Many Trump voters just wouldn't vote for a Democrat. Especially with the constant drumbeat of "socialism!" from the far right media conglomerates that control most of the *local* TV and radio stations across the midwest, south and southwest.
That's a big problem too.
But I don't agree that it's impossible to have change. Especially since most of that change has to come from the grassroots. At the local and state levels.
You can throw up your hands and give up, but then you're part of the problem and not the solution, even if you tacitly support cleaning up our political system.
I refuse to do so. Maybe I'll fail, but I'd rather fail while trying to do some good than just sit around and watch. Maybe that's because I *hate* popcorn?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @08:48PM
“As for your statement that "As long as people are willing to vote for a philandering atheist multiple-bankrupt narcissist on the basis that he's secretly fighting a bunch of satan-worshipping baby-eaters,"
you're referring to a small, but significant, fraction of Trump voters.”
That they had different reasons for their willingness does not negate their willingness. They still occupy the circle on the Venn Diagram labeled “people willing to vote for a philandering atheist multiple-bankrupt narcissist” and that circle has 100% reciprocal coverage of “Trump voters.”
They are not just equivalent sets, they are equal sets. So, no, the reference is to every Trump voter with precisely zero exceptions.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:12AM
Separate reply because it's a separate point: Like the subprime mortgage crisis, I can't see this ever happening because everyone all the way up and down the food chain has their head too far in the trough. We (meaning you and I) can see it's broken and want to change it, but most of the people involved in the process don't. There are a few politicians who seem to be genuinely interested in reform, but look at where that got the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she's dismissed as "radical left" by most people for wanting such radical, practically communist things as free healthcare, fair taxation, dealing with poverty, looking after the environment, all the things that are normal in most other functioning democracies but regarded as extremist views in the US.
Thus my comment that it's going to take a reformat and reinstall to fix things. The lightbulb has to want to change.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:04AM (3 children)
Politicians have lots of power but very little pay. Corruption is ensured.
We don't like the politicians, so we think they don't deserve the pay, but that is the wrong attitude. It gives us corruption. If we won't pay anything close to the market rate, we deserve the corruption. Somebody else will be glad to pay our politicians.
Another part of the problem is that the pay seems high to the median American voter. Somebody looks at their own $60,000 and the senator's $195,000 and thinks the senator is well-paid. No dummy, look at CEO pay. Elon Musk gets about $500,000,000 for his pay, without even a fraction of the power and responsibility. Even our president gets only $400,000. That's just FAANG software developer pay. It's less than 0.1% of what Elon Musk makes, yet the president is responsible for so much more: nuclear weapon usage, tariffs, millions of employees, regulations that affect hundreds of millions of people, etc.
Pay some serious clean money, and the dirty money problem goes away.
Right now it is dirt cheap for China to bribe our politicians. That should terrify every American.
On a per-GDP basis, there isn't a single non-trivial nation in the entire world that pays the leader less. (combine the salary of head-of-state with head-of-government for places with separate people, exclude micronations like the Vatican, exclude places that don't report GDP reliably like North Korea, etc.)
On an absolute basis, the USA pays less than Ireland and Iceland. Running those countries literally pays better than running the USA. Reminder: the USA is largest economy in the world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:10PM (2 children)
If they REALLY loved America, they'd do it for free.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @02:40AM (1 child)
They should do it for the pay of the average voter. This gives them the incentive to raise the pay and standards of living for the average voter, and not the 0.01%.
A $15 minimum wage would pass really easily under such conditions. There would also be more interest in creating long term jobs and not shit "gigs."
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @07:41AM
Maybe you should have specified "average" more carefully. (arithmetic mean, geometric mean, harmonic mean, median, mode...)
In any case, when an election costs a member of congress a few million dollars, what would a low salary even count for? Might as well donate it to charity to look good, then pay for the campaign with bribes!
Even $500/hour is nothing much for a senator. It's unprofitable compared to taking bribes, and very unprofitable compared to being a CEO.
Oh, and on the matter of "creating long term jobs and not shit", you seem to be confused about what congress does. Congress kills the jobs created by industry. Take the health care situation for example. By mandating expensive health care for workers doing 30 hours per week, congress effectively mandated a work week of less than 30 hours for the typical worker. Yeah, less work! Uh, well, two jobs with two commutes, because humans compete and will thus run up the cost of everything if they can. Another great example is environmental regulation, also known as pushing factories out of the country.
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Friday January 15 2021, @04:35PM
Removing money from politics means removing the power of politicians to craft legislation and regulations that favor a particular person, business or industry, to discriminate for or against, to give hand-outs. Why do you think so much is spent on elections and lobbying? Whatever rules you make, money will find its way to those who have this power. The only way is to remove power from politicians. If a big business cannot buy a handout or a tax break, money in politics will dry up instantly.
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -- P. J. O'Rourke
(Score: 3, Touché) by FatPhil on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:27PM (1 child)
And free polonium for all those who run against the incumbent!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:05PM
Free polonium?!? Sign me up! Can I get an extended warranty too?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:51PM
A "pretty reasonable constitution" that it never followed. A "fair voting system" that it never used for anything other than propaganda purposes.
The present day electorate didn't create the first-past-the-post voting system (for a glaring counterexample).
Neither which was due to problems with the electorate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2021, @12:01AM
The problem with the electorate is due to the Jews. Who owns the monetary system, controls the government, the schools, the media, pop culture, the churches, etc. All due to the Jews.
Germany was on the right track, but the Jew slave states had to murder them for daring to free themselves of the parasitic infection.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:28PM (1 child)
How about this? One vote, if you're me, and zero votes, if you're anyone else?
My take on this is that having kids demonstrates preparedness, awareness, and care of/for the future and issues facing us (which apparently is suggested here as a qualification for the right/privilege to vote), much like jumping out of an airplane demonstrates preparedness, awareness, and care of/for skydiving and having a parachute. Some key steps are missing.
People have already noted that there's a fair number of people for which having a kid demonstrates lack of awareness and care of the future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:14PM
*Except for octomom. But otherwise 100% infallible logic.
(Score: 1, Troll) by crafoo on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:01AM (2 children)
Democracy was a mistake. They warned us about it in the Federalist Papers. This country was never intended to be a democracy, and we are finding out first-hand why that is.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 14 2021, @07:30AM
Stop being such a fucking idiot and go read a dictionary.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @07:37AM
Theeerrre it is, the facists want to do away with democracy. SHOCKING!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:20PM (6 children)
What even is CNET anymore?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:28PM (5 children)
ZDNet is still a decent read, a modern site with little-to-none of the woke preachiness you'd find in formerly-good shitholes like ArsTechnica.
Was watching this on the TV in the liquor store earlier, and had never seen such a horrible circle-jerk of a shitshow. I'd be seriously fucking embarassed to be a Democrat having my name attached to that, especially that bad stereotype of a fat Black lady who said that Trump was an "Innasectionist...er...in-surr-ec-tionist!" It was the same mindless and hysterical drivel of the annoying all-reaching Jew-bot that sprung up suddenly over internet forums a few weeks ago. It sounds horribly desperate, and Nancy Pelosi's face gets worse everytime I see it -- now she looks like my grandpa did when half his face was sagging from his cranial radiation therapy. If they could only invoke the 25th on her with the reasoning that she's basically a piece of meat propped up on a stick.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:33PM (2 children)
Pretty fresh looking for an 80 year old piece of meat.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:13PM (1 child)
So is Chuck Norris.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:45PM
Careful now, nobody wants to see EF post his Vogon love poetry here.
(Score: 4, Touché) by RamiK on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:26PM
My rab-bot [theinfosphere.org] informed me that unless it had its bot-mitzvah [wikipedia.org], it's a golem.
compiling...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:33AM
Whine, she doesn't look like me. Whinge, they don't talk like me. You sound like you're a fat, pale, undereducated loser living in your momma's basement. Try to get out more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:21PM (11 children)
Orange juice, with two shots of peach schnaps.
Add plenty of ice and a white Russian to it, along with sour grapes and Angostura bitters. You'll have to nurse that more slowly than you would probably like, which is very appropriate.
(Score: 5, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:23PM (2 children)
A bleach injection with a hydroxychloroquine back.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:25PM (1 child)
We just want to stop the pain tonight, not forever.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:01AM
Speak for yourself. Pass the bleach.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:32PM (5 children)
A bottle of clonazepam washed down with a fifth of Vodka and a shot of propofol to take the edge off. And that's just to get her going in the morning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:50PM (4 children)
At least now we know what you're doing to rot that brain so thoroughly. Yes I know you accused Pelosi of that, but by the law of conservative truthiness we know that all your accusations are actually admissions.
Gaslight
Obstruct
Project
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:07PM (3 children)
Typical liberal projection. We all know that if a liberal accuses a conservative of something, it's because the liberal is the one actually doing it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:24AM (2 children)
Can't tell if satire or stupid.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:58AM
Attempted satire, they don't like us pointing out their standard tactics of blaming others for their own bad actions. Also, they like to copy insults because as we've seen they aren't the best at coming up with clever ones themselves. It is much easier when you have the truth as a template ;-)
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:00AM
But you agree rioters and incitement should be prosecuted? [babylonbee.com]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:40PM (1 child)
I'd have thought it would be a tall glass of Russian prostitute piss. A Yellow Russian, as it were.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:47PM
I think Melania's disgust for him has ruined that particular kink. Now I gotta go watch that compilation of her smacking his hands away! Poor Donnie, nobody loves him, so sad!
(Score: 5, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:29PM (13 children)
You know, I wasn't going to even bother having an opinion on the folks busting into the capitol until something important was brought to my attention. The capitol now has a security fence and armed guards. So now I'm thinking it all worked out for the best. I mean, it's long past time we threw Congress in prison.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:35PM
It's to keep out the riffraff like you.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:36PM (9 children)
Took a whole week. When BLM looked at the White House crooked that shit was up in about 25 minutes!
(Score: 0, Troll) by hemocyanin on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:08AM (8 children)
BLM actually got a fire burning in an old church across the street from the Whitehouse and it's ideological forerunners exploded a bomb in the Senate in the 80s, but I understand you. You're on the side that thinks that violence in the furtherance of leftist causes is ethical/moral and thus not worth noting, and that violence in the furtherance of rightist causes is not and thus condemnable.
My approach is different of course because as a liberal humanist -- not a leftist authoritarian such as yourself -- I oppose politically motivated violence from the left or the right.
As an aside, when a person resorts to molotovs and looting, it is a demonstration of that person's poor skills at thought and reason. For an example, listen to interviews of the Viking dude explaining shamanism, drumming, and the physics of the universe -- the inescapable conclusion is that he could have been doing hippy yoga with crystals up is ass under a pyramid just as easily as a he could have been a Qtard. Only the randomness of the universe had him running through the halls of Congress as opposed to burning down a police station, but his underlying susceptibility to crazy (whether left or right) was always there (or induced by some awesome drugs). He thinks he's thinking, but is not.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:13AM (7 children)
If you need to go back 40 years to find an example of leftwing violence you might just be a cherry picker.
(Score: 1, Troll) by hemocyanin on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:22AM (6 children)
Were we talking about the capital building? I mean if you want to broaden things, how about the billion or so in damages, dozens of lives lost, countless small business dreams destroyed -- in the last six or seven MONTHS.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:44AM (3 children)
Actually, your false equivalence is the problem but there is still nothing wrong with pointing out the errors of it. No one is saying the riots were OK. Explaining why people are rioting and how the grievances are legitimate? Not the same as condoning them.
Now we have grievances from conservatives over the election, and all of you that cried about BLM violence are now excusing RWNJ violence? You are free to peacefully protest like the vast majority of BLM folks did, but insurrection will be condemned.
I am so tired of rightwing lies and bad faith arguments. Again, we liberals agreed that rioters should be arrested while saying protesters should not be assaulted for exercising their Constitutional rights. You conservatives refuse to condemn the insurrection in the capitol that resulted in 5 deaths in one afternoon while at the same time using liberal violence as some kind of excuse.
Do you not see what is wrong with your thinking? Also, even if some liberal cheered on the riots that doesn't excuse you doing the same thing for your side. Two wrongs don't make a right remember?
"My approach is different of course because as a liberal humanist -- not a leftist authoritarian such as yourself -- I oppose politically motivated violence from the left or the right."
So do that? You replied to DM who said "Took a whole week. When BLM looked at the White House crooked that shit was up in about 25 minutes!"
If you are truly a liberal humanist then you would agree with DM here, the disproportionate responses are inhumane and illiberal. So you're either a liar or an idiot, you tell us! But hey, people can change, so maybe if you come to grips with reality you can return to sanity.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:38AM
Hemocyanin is both a liar and an idiot! That is what all the false equivalence is about! Massacre in Bowling Green! Carnage in America! And hemo's back story is that he used to be sane, but now is anti-antifi, which, when you do the math, if pro-fascist. He's "special". But it is more of a downward spiral, and most never recover.
(Score: 0, Troll) by hemocyanin on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:59AM (1 child)
It's not a false equivalence.
You are applying Repressive Tolerance, which means you are willing to use violence to secure certain political aims while condemning violence to secure political objectives with which you disagree.
This makes you a person not interested in equality under the law, fairness, or justice. It makes you a person who is solely concerned with power and who does not care who is hurt in your pursuit of power, and one who has total faith in the righteousness of your cause. You are nothing but the modern equivalent of medieval Crusader, a pogrom leader, an authoritarian. In your heart lies the seed of every mass atrocity the world has seen.
https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publications/1960s/1965-repressive-tolerance-fulltext.html [marcuse.org]
That's you. You accept evil. You embrace it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @07:32AM
Yes it is and you're projecting. I specifically condemned leftwing violence, but you ignore that and continue with your false equivalence.
Either you're too upset about my rudeness and just lashing out, or you are deliberately engaging in intellectual dishonesty to push a narrative.
Don't really care, you've been pushing the rightwing narrative hard for a while and claiming to be a "real humanist liberal" so I guess we're back to "Ok boomer" but If it makes you feel better the worst thing I want to do is imprison criminals, rioters and insurrectionists alike. Please try and store that in long term memory.
(Score: 3, Informative) by helel on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:21AM (1 child)
Ah yes, this lie conservatives love spreading about. Yes, there have been a few protesters [usatoday.com] killed by right winger terrorists, but that hardly seems like an indictment of the left, now does it?
Police injuries are hard to measure but the one's I've seen specifically reported on were either self inflicted (maybe don't use chemical weapons if you don't like breathing them when the wind shifts) or were the result of self defense on the part of the protesters they were brutally [oregonlive.com] attacking [twitter.com]. When you're surrounded by cops any direction you try to kick [rt.com] a teargas container will become felonious assault on an officer.
So, don't just throw vague numbers around. Can you link to specific cases of protesters being the perpetrators, rather than victims, of violence or killings? How bout those "countless small businesses" destroyed? Can you give me a list of a few?
I'll even help you out: When Aaron Danielson stabbed Antifa protester Michael Reinoehl and his friend Michael shot Aaron in self defense, ultimately killing him [vice.com]. Whether or not using a gun in self defense is acceptable behavior I'll leave to the experts in the 2A crowd.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Friday January 15 2021, @11:30PM
Are you serious? Did you pay no attention to the people killed CHAZ? Have you really not seen pictures or videos of the devastation in your favored media?
Here, pick your preferred links from a relatively unbiased search engine:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=2020+riot+damage&atb=v211-1&iax=images&ia=images [duckduckgo.com]
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=2020+riot+damage+costs&t=lm&atb=v211-1&ia=web [duckduckgo.com]
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=CHAZ+killings&t=lm&atb=v211-1&ia=web [duckduckgo.com]
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:51PM (1 child)
But did Mexico^h^h^h^h^h^h Russia pay for the new wall?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:20PM
Nasty cough you got there. Up to doing the bleach skit again?