What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Articles of Discussion: The Cabinet (11/19) (1 Viewer)

hagmania

hagmania

Footballguy
November Discussion: https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/781540-articles-of-discussion-the-cabinet-1119/?do=findComment&comment=22282379

--------------------------

Aside from an uptick in substantive posting, I think a real blessing of Maurile's provisional suspension rules highlighted to me that there are other topics we'd like to discuss... but given the noisy nature of our current political theater, these topics are often lost in the sea of current events.

What I'd like to propose:

I volunteer to host a discussion thread that rotates topics monthly (could be changed if so desired). This will be very similar to a book or movie club (I think the movie club in the FFA gets decent enough traffic). I volunteer to take discussion member submissions for next month's topic. I volunteer to create polls to decide what next to discuss. I volunteer to help find links to kickstart discussions (others' help in this would be greatly appreciated, natch). I volunteer to keep an updated catalog of discussion topics. I volunteer to learn and participate.

Basically, let me do the dirty work, and the good minds here get to show up and discuss.

Is there interest in such a thing? As I wrote my post, perhaps this is better suited as an "Article of the Month" type club. And it can be that. It will only really succeed with participation, so I'm willing for the members to set the rules. I'll strive my best to enforce what is voted upon.

GUIDELINES:

  • Please keep the focus on policy rather than politicians.

    Good post: "I think Policy A is a bad idea because I believe it provides the wrong incentives and will lead to the following unintended consequences..."
  • Bad post: "Politician X is such a moron for proposing Policy A!"

[*]Each person only gets one submission for voting per month

[*]All submissions receiving x% (based on participation in the first poll) will automatically be renewed for next month

  • The original poster is free to submit a new topic

[*]Any submission below the threshold may be submitted again

  • The original poster is free to re-submit their topic

 
Last edited by a moderator:
November Poll: https://forms.gle/38BZEeZCM8quYnRr6

  • Education Policy/Reform: "Not about college debt forgiveness"
  • The Economy: "Deficit spending is not sustainable long-term.  How can the next president tackle big initiatives, while simultaneously re-building the economy?"
  • Setting the basis for future discussion: "A quick civics lesson to start us off."
  • Job Automation: What is it and what are its ramifications?
  • Peter Zelhan talk: "[T]he fall of the global order established at the end of WW2 and what that might look like.  Geography, energy, demographics, finance are all touched, if lightly."
  • Fairness & Opportunity: a bostonfred piece
  • Energy Policy: focus on carbon-free policy
  • Revisiting the War on Drugs: how does state-level decriminalization of marijuana change today's federal political landscape?
  • The need to repeal the 17th Amendment
  • Is corporate consolidation a threat to free markets? And if so, how do we fix it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now taking submissions for November's discussion.

My suggestion centers around education. In my mind, this wouldn't be to talk about college debt forgiveness, but instead to learn more about the differing viewpoints on education policy/reform. I'll go hunt up a couple of links as an example.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am afraid to post.  Joe is already mad at me.

I like education.  But, I was thinking about something else this morning that might (might not) make for an interesting conversation.  The Economy.

Specifically, I was thinking about Dem proposals - all of them, not limited to any specific candidates - they all have big plans of varying degrees.  To pay for those plans, most of the thoughts center around rolling back the Trump corporate tax cuts and/or taxing the wealthy (either a wealth tax or higher marginal income tax rates).  But, I was drawn to the idea that the economy is in a bit of trouble - and it is being propped up by the tax cuts, and deficit spending.  Its a long set-up - but are all the Dem proposals from healthcare, education, climate change all DOA because we won't have the funding for any of them? 

Deficit spending is not sustainable long-term.  How can the next president tackle big initiatives, while simultaneously re-building the economy?

 
Thanks SF :thumbup:

I'll put a deadline on Friday for topic submissions. We can then vote over the next couple of days, and hopefully the plan will be to start talking early next week.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I am afraid to post.  Joe is already mad at me.

I like education.  But, I was thinking about something else this morning that might (might not) make for an interesting conversation.  The Economy.

Specifically, I was thinking about Dem proposals - all of them, not limited to any specific candidates - they all have big plans of varying degrees.  To pay for those plans, most of the thoughts center around rolling back the Trump corporate tax cuts and/or taxing the wealthy (either a wealth tax or higher marginal income tax rates).  But, I was drawn to the idea that the economy is in a bit of trouble - and it is being propped up by the tax cuts, and deficit spending.  Its a long set-up - but are all the Dem proposals from healthcare, education, climate change all DOA because we won't have the funding for any of them? 

Deficit spending is not sustainable long-term.  How can the next president tackle big initiatives, while simultaneously re-building the economy?
Click to expand...
:confused:   Not mad in the least. Over the last few weeks, I've sent multiple PMs and tried to ask you about them in threads tagging you and haven't heard anything. But not mad in the least. :shrug:  

 
hagmania said:
Now taking submissions for November's discussion.

My suggestion centers around education. In my mind, this wouldn't be to talk about college debt forgiveness, but instead to learn more about the differing viewpoints on education policy/reform. I'll go hunt up a couple of links as an example.
Click to expand...
I would add here - I'd like to include some discussion around pre-college education - from Elementary to High School.  Things like how things are changing - what are we doing at that level to prepare kids for the future.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I would add here - I'd like to include some discussion around pre-college education - from Elementary to High School.  Things like how things are changing - what are we doing at that level to prepare kids for the future.
Click to expand...
Yes! These are the types of things I'd like to extrapolate on, particularly as someone that is considering parenthood in the relatively soon future.

 
hagmania said:
Aside from an uptick in substantive posting, I think a real blessing of Maurile's provisional suspension rules highlighted to me that there are other topics we'd like to discuss... but given the noisy nature of our current political theater, these topics are often lost in the sea of current events.

What I'd like to propose:

I volunteer to host a discussion thread that rotates topics monthly (could be changed if so desired). This will be very similar to a book or movie club (I think the movie club in the FFA gets decent enough traffic). I volunteer to take discussion member submissions for next month's topic. I volunteer to create polls to decide what next to discuss. I volunteer to help find links to kickstart discussions (others' help in this would be greatly appreciated, natch). I volunteer to keep an updated catalog of discussion topics. I volunteer to learn and participate.

Basically, let me do the dirty work, and the good minds here get to show up and discuss.

Is there interest in such a thing? As I wrote my post, perhaps this is better suited as an "Article of the Month" type club. And it can be that. It will only really succeed with participation, so I'm willing for the members to set the rules. I'll strive my best to enforce what is voted upon.
Click to expand...
Sure. That sounds like a great idea if we keep this forum alive. If we shutter this one, it might be a great way to include and focus topics if we host specific topics in the FFA. 

A focused and curated topic can be super helpful.

I'm a fan of Eater.com and they included this article recently in their email. Why I Send An Article To My Guests Before A Dinner Party.  I thought it was an excellent idea and will try it soon.

So yes, absolutely, please do something like this.

But also have the understanding if we have it on our forums, it has to be inclusive to everyone and all the content will have to fit in line with all the rest of the site. Thanks. 

 
Something I've been thinking about since the killing of the ISIS dude...the success of that was based on our presence and relationships in the area.  Those are now gone, so what happens when the replacement for this guy is named and identified.  US hands seem to be essentially tied moving forward in this scenario making things vastly more difficult.  I am genuinely left wondering if there wasn't a plan already in place to get this guy, but with our removal they had to move forward with a half baked approach given the time constraints of our suddenly new foreign policy and I wonder what that does in terms of putting our military personnel in unnecessary danger.

I offer this as a topic for the future....respectfully and humbly,

The Commish

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
Sure. That sounds like a great idea if we keep this forum alive. If we shutter this one, it might be a great way to include and focus topics if we host specific topics in the FFA. 

A focused and curated topic can be super helpful.

I'm a fan of Eater.com and they included this article recently in their email. Why I Send An Article To My Guests Before A Dinner Party.  I thought it was an excellent idea and will try it soon.

So yes, absolutely, please do something like this.

But also have the understanding if we have it on our forums, it has to be inclusive to everyone and all the content will have to fit in line with all the rest of the site. Thanks. 
Click to expand...
At the very least, if you sunset this forum, would you allow a couple days' worth of time for me to collect any links that have been shared for future reading?

 
The Commish said:
Something I've been thinking about since the killing of the ISIS dude...the success of that was based on our presence and relationships in the area.  Those are now gone, so what happens when the replacement for this guy is named and identified.  US hands seem to be essentially tied moving forward in this scenario making things vastly more difficult.  I am genuinely left wondering if there wasn't a plan already in place to get this guy, but with our removal they had to move forward with a half baked approach given the time constraints of our suddenly new foreign policy and I wonder what that does in terms of putting our military personnel in unnecessary danger.

I offer this as a topic for the future....respectfully and humbly,

The Commish
Click to expand...
Agreed. Maybe for future. Today, I've little reason to think this won't turn into the equivalent of the "with all due respect"...

 
Joe Bryant said:
The Commish said:
Something I've been thinking about since the killing of the ISIS dude...the success of that was based on our presence and relationships in the area.  Those are now gone, so what happens when the replacement for this guy is named and identified.  US hands seem to be essentially tied moving forward in this scenario making things vastly more difficult.  I am genuinely left wondering if there wasn't a plan already in place to get this guy, but with our removal they had to move forward with a half baked approach given the time constraints of our suddenly new foreign policy and I wonder what that does in terms of putting our military personnel in unnecessary danger.

I offer this as a topic for the future....respectfully and humbly,

The Commish
Click to expand...
Agreed. Maybe for future. Today, I've little reason to think this won't turn into the equivalent of the "with all due respect"...
Click to expand...
:confused:

Until I went to the front page and saw a thread...locked.  Read it.  I understand.  I didn't know that thread was there when I posted this.  This is why we can't have nice things :kicksrock:  

A few bad apples.....

 
hagmania said:
That's the intent really. I don't want to exclude anyone from participating, but I'd prefer discussions not to devolve into critiques of the current administration.
Click to expand...
Right. A focus on policy rather than politicians should be a guideline. For example, posters should say things like "I think Policy A is a bad idea because I believe it provides the wrong incentives and will lead to the following unintended consequences..." rather than "Politician X is such a moron for proposing Policy A! X is clearly a socialist/racist/whateverist!"

 
dgreen said:
Right. A focus on policy rather than politicians should be a guideline. For example, posters should say things like "I think Policy A is a bad idea because I believe it provides the wrong incentives and will lead to the following unintended consequences..." rather than "Politician X is such a moron for proposing Policy A! X is clearly a socialist/racist/whateverist!"
Click to expand...
This sounds like the first guideline to instate for the OP imo.

 
hagmania said:
That's the intent really. I don't want to exclude anyone from participating, but I'd prefer discussions not to devolve into critiques of the current administration.
Click to expand...
Good luck with this GB.  Here's the problem you're going to run into.  In the past, policy discussions could be held because the parties generally had platforms that were generic enough that they could be attributed to the party.  That is no longer.  If you are going to discuss policy and how things should change, there is going to be comparison to the current policy and the current policy is unique to Trump and the decisions he's made personally on behalf of everyone.  Take the topic I suggested above.  That topic only exists because of Trump and his decisions.  It's literally impossible to separate the policy from him and people will lazily attribute that reality to "critiques of the current administration".  This will apply to 99% of what's discussed here for the foreseeable future until his nonsense cycles off and we return to a bit of normalcy in our politics.  My prediction is, even if Trump loses, we will be AT MINIMUM including him in many of the policy discussions for the next four year term, if not longer because of the long last impacts of his poorly thought out decisions.

 
Both Education and The Economy are good topics. I do worry about the scope of The Economy, though. As someone who studied Economics in undergrad, I see economics everywhere and consider everything to be "The Economy". So, I think narrowing that a bit would be good.

Another potential topic is Transportation. There's been a lot of talk about infrastructure for years and transportation is a big part of that.

Now that I think about it, each cabinet-level department is probably a topic at some point. And now that I think about this even a little more, maybe an initial topic about the structure/organization of our government might be good. Gathering all of the mission/vision/values of each department and highlighting some of the work each department is involved in. How long has each department/cabinet seat been around? What % of the federal budget goes to each department? A quick civics lesson to start us off.

 
The Commish said:
Good luck with this GB.  Here's the problem you're going to run into.  In the past, policy discussions could be held because the parties generally had platforms that were generic enough that they could be attributed to the party.  That is no longer.  If you are going to discuss policy and how things should change, there is going to be comparison to the current policy and the current policy is unique to Trump and the decisions he's made personally on behalf of everyone.  Take the topic I suggested above.  That topic only exists because of Trump and his decisions.  It's literally impossible to separate the policy from him and people will lazily attribute that reality to "critiques of the current administration".  This will apply to 99% of what's discussed here for the foreseeable future until his nonsense cycles off and we return to a bit of normalcy in our politics.  My prediction is, even if Trump loses, we will be AT MINIMUM including him in many of the policy discussions for the next four year term, if not longer because of the long last impacts of his poorly thought out decisions.
Click to expand...
The hope would be that one can critique current policy without starting a flame war. And perhaps the topic each month doesn't necessarily have to be America-centric or current. We could discuss The New Deal or how the Industrial Revolution brought about labor reform.

 
hagmania said:
The hope would be that one can critique current policy without starting a flame war. And perhaps the topic each month doesn't necessarily have to be America-centric or current. We could discuss The New Deal or how the Industrial Revolution brought about labor reform.
Click to expand...
I'm game GB.  You have my commitment to help make it work.  :thumbup:  

 
Proposing a couple of guidelines for submission and voting:

  • Each person only gets one submission for voting per month
  • All submissions receiving x% (based on participation in the first poll) will automatically be renewed for next month

    The original poster is free to submit a new topic

[*]Any submission below the threshold may be submitted again

  • The original poster is free to re-submit their topic

 
dgreen said:
Right. A focus on policy rather than politicians should be a guideline. For example, posters should say things like "I think Policy A is a bad idea because I believe it provides the wrong incentives and will lead to the following unintended consequences..." rather than "Politician X is such a moron for proposing Policy A! X is clearly a socialist/racist/whateverist!"
Click to expand...
There is absolutely positively NO Way this won't happen.  I'm sorry but you guys are in la la land if you think it will.

It's just fantasy talk

 
supermike80 said:
There is absolutely positively NO Way this won't happen.  I'm sorry but you guys are in la la land if you think it will.

It's just fantasy talk
Click to expand...
Be the change you want to see imo. We are setting the guidelines for our group, and it will be up to us to follow those guidelines.

Edit: I hope you'll join us. 🙂

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just took an inventory of topics on the front page.

CURRENT EVENTS - 16
TRUMP CRITIQUE/DEFENSE - 13
2020 ELECTION - 7
OTHER PERSONALITIES IN POLITICS - 4
ACTUAL POLICY DISCUSSION - 4
FORUM MODERATION - 3
SOME WEIRD THREAD BY TIM - 1
VALUABLE FOREIGN NEWS AGGREGATOR - 1

We need something like this!

 
hagmania said:
I just took an inventory of topics on the front page.

CURRENT EVENTS - 16
TRUMP CRITIQUE/DEFENSE - 13
2020 ELECTION - 7
OTHER PERSONALITIES IN POLITICS - 4
ACTUAL POLICY DISCUSSION - 4
FORUM MODERATION - 3
SOME WEIRD THREAD BY TIM - 1
VALUABLE FOREIGN NEWS AGGREGATOR - 1

We need something like this!
Click to expand...
The reduction of one of these types of threads is noteworthy. 

 
hagmania said:
I just took an inventory of topics on the front page.

CURRENT EVENTS - 16
TRUMP CRITIQUE/DEFENSE - 13
2020 ELECTION - 7
OTHER PERSONALITIES IN POLITICS - 4
ACTUAL POLICY DISCUSSION - 4
FORUM MODERATION - 3
SOME WEIRD THREAD BY TIM - 1
VALUABLE FOREIGN NEWS AGGREGATOR - 1

We need something like this!
Click to expand...
You made me laugh - I am laughing.  :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

 
Here's a talk by Peter Zeihan that was my first exposure to his work.  His name doesn't come up here according to the search engine, as dubious as that may be.  

https://youtu.be/sfyrURHpUcM

He's predicting the fall of the global order established at the end of WW2 and what that might look like.  Geography, energy, demographics, finance are all touched, if lightly.  It was interesting and the hour went by pretty quickly.  I'd be interested in having a discussion with many of the folks here about his predictions and the interesting parts of his reasoning, if any.  

Here are his books on amazon, the newest of which is scheduled for a March release.    

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=peter+zeihan+books&ref=nb_sb_noss

 
I would like to propose a topic. 

Fairness.

For example

1) Most of us intuitively understand that it's fair for everyone to get the same things. But

2) Most of us also understand that people should be able to work harder to get more.

These aren't mutually exclusive ideas, but a lot of times people who want more rewards for their work will argue that point 1 is unfair, and people who haven't gotten rewarding work will argue that point 2 is unfair.  

If we use the word opportunity though, we find more common ground. 

1) Most of us intuitively understand that it's fair for everyone to get the same opportunity. But

2) Most of us also understand that people should have the opportunity to work harder to get more.

These aren't controversial statements on their own, but they can be. For example, "Equal Opportunity" laws are very controversial.  And that's because many "Equal Opportunity" laws directly contradict these statements.

1) Most of us intuitively understand that it's fair for everyone to get the same things. But

2) Most of us also understand that people should be able to work harder to get more.

The whole point of these laws is for people not to get the same thing,  and the whole point is that some people shouldn't have to work harder to get more, while others can work harder and not get more. And that's intuitively unfair. 

Of course, the counter argument to this is the simplest test of fairness.  When you and a friend or sibling wanted to split things as kids, say, a piece of cake, you probably did something like "I'll cut, you choose". One of you would try to cut the cake exactly in half, and the other would pick whichever piece they thought was better.  

If we use that model, "Equal Opportunity" laws become much more fair.  Which would you rather have, a lifetime of systemic racism, with your resume getting thrown out before an interview because your name sounds "too black", or having difficulty hailing a taxicab because of your physical appearance?  Or a slightly better chance of getting certain kinds of job or entry to certain schools with a lower score?

It doesn't seem like a difficult choice.  

But the "I'll cut, you choose" model doesn't work here.  

First, nobody actually gets to make that choice.  You are either born to a "disadvantaged" group, or born to an "advantaged" group.

Second, the people who "cut" are, by and large, part of the "advantaged" group. Their incentive isn't to create an exactly equal split. Their incentive is to create a split that will continue to keep them in power, by getting votes from the "disadvantaged" group. They may feel some moral incentive to err more on one side than another, or be given some other incentive from voters or campaign contributors, but there is no economic incentive for them to choose fairness. And this is a systemic flaw if the goal is to create fairness. 

Third, though, there's another group - people who don't get - or at least don't believe they get- the benefits from either group.  Poor white people feel that they are getting underserved by their government because the laws are slanted against them, but they grew up poor and didn't have the opportunity that their race supposedly provided them.  They didn't get to cut, and they didn't get to choose either.  

When people complain about race and racism in politics, they tend to think about their own experience. For some of us, that second point is the important one, because we see that the rules are intended to be fair, but aren't fair enough.  But for others, that third point has directly impacted their lives or the lives of their friends and family.  So you can get totally different opinions based on your experiences. 

So what's "fair"?  I'd rather not say.  I'd rather discuss the process for getting more fair results. 

To me, a big part of the answer starts with better education. That's always controversial because who decides what we teach and how it should be taught. 

But i don't mean teaching people what's right.  I mean that people need to learn to be exposed to both sides of an argument, form an opinion, and either defend it or change it.  You can teach people to see all sides of an issue without teaching them which side is right and which side is wrong.  Whether that's considered "logic", "philosophy", "social studies" or "debate club", there need to be better paths for kids to be exposed to complicated ideas and form educated opinions. 

Ideally, in social studies classes we could learn a simple model that provides information about a complex topic - for example, put the issue at the top, the description in the middle, and at the bottom, put two or more columns showing the different viewpoints.  

In school, you discuss this in class and have kids choose a side they find compelling, or argue for a side that they're assigned.  

If we could standardize this in school and in the mainstream media, then ideally, people might demand that format in political topics. 

Which means the next generation of politicians would have good reason to make sure that their column clearly articulated their side. 

I'll cut, you choose. 

 
bostonfred said:
But i don't mean teaching people what's right.  I mean that people need to learn to be exposed to both sides of an argument, form an opinion, and either defend it or change it.  You can teach people to see all sides of an issue without teaching them which side is right and which side is wrong.  Whether that's considered "logic", "philosophy", "social studies" or "debate club", there need to be better paths for kids to be exposed to complicated ideas and form educated opinions. 
Click to expand...
Really good post. I especially like the above paragraph, and this is one reason that I was drawn to the FFA, and later the PSF. Lots of smart, articulate people 'round these parts.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Elevated Accesss
Replies
30
Views
856
FairWarning
FairWarning
Memphis Foundry
  • Locked
  • Sticky
The Politics Forum Is CLOSED.
Replies
0
Views
3K
Memphis Foundry
Memphis Foundry
Captain Cranks
"FBG Research" Political Typology Project
Replies
30
Views
554
Bottomfeeder Sports
Bottomfeeder Sports

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top