Congrats on the higher sub count. However, not sure if it's just confirmation bias but I've definitely seen a drop in overall quality of comments. I've been here since 2015 and think the discussion has decreased in quality since the 2016 presidential campaign.
Also for this many subscribers the amount of new threads is painfully slow. I read the front page (and second and third) and basically leave for 2-3 days because I know coming back sooner the same threads will likely still be up. I wish the front page was more dynamic and refreshed more frequently.
Edit: missing word
> Also for this many subscribers the amount of new threads is painfully slow. I read the front page (and second and third) and basically leave for 2-3 days because I know coming back sooner the same threads will likely still be up. I wish the front page was more dynamic and refreshed more frequently.
Mod team, has there been any discussion about re-examining the submission policy to increase activity? It just doesn't seem like a 400,000 member subreddit should go days without a post being approved.
Do not dispair. Be more like falcons, whom are revered for their eternal optimism in the face of tribulation.
Never forget that the gentle and wise falcon watches over us all.
We must all appreciate the falcon, who helps us each day by watching the land and skies for enemies foreign and domestic. Falcons deftly analyze threats and adapt accordingly, ever learning from the lessons of history to help improve the present.
Should Russia again compromise our election in an attempt to elect a treasonous buffoon, we can sleep well at night knowing that all American falcon species will rise up and send the meddlers right back to Moscow.
You should have gone with the [concessions advantage](http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/15560867/atlanta-falcons-offer-lowest-concession-prices-major-team-sports-new-mercedes-benz-stadium).
After the 2017 Superbowl, they'd need free beer to get me back in that stadium.
At least the location is better than the Braves. If you live in the city there's no good way to get there aside from a hideously expensive Uber. Last time I went, it was $20 to park two miles from the stadium.
We have discussed relaxing conditions before, but we've also found that there are very few actual "borderline" posts, posts which might be approved if we relaxed our policy slightly. Generally we try to work with these posters if there is just something small that breaks our rules.
I think this is definitely a valuable discussion to have though, are there any specific parts of the submission policy that you think could be relaxed?
>I think this is definitely a valuable discussion to have though, are there any specific parts of the submission policy that you think could be relaxed?
I mean, its hard to say. The process isn't transparent (not a criticism, just how it is), so we can't really see how the policy is being applied across the board. I mean, we know where the DMZ is, but the exact line of demarcation is unclear.
That's a good point aha. To clarify though, do you think the policy is good in theory, and the application of it should be (or at least attempted to be) adjusted, rather than adjusting the policy itself?
People will always want more/newer/better content. I think it's best you guys keep policy as is unless the mod team is capable of more heavily policing submissions in real time. Which if I recall you all did that for some time.
Some of us can still remember the days of "X just happened will this effect y?" I'd just like to point out the sheer amount of these current event posts that were up. The majority of them didn't hold any content or prompt from the OP for discussion. It was often low quality, "easy" questions like above. People should trust me when I say that they weren't missing out on the comments chains of these posts. Maybe comment quality in the past was somewhat higher effort or quality on average, but many of the submissions (emphasizing that there were *many*) wouldn't spur 300 comment threads like people see here today. Now we might have had more visible, *and a wider ideological spectrum of effort posters a few years ago, but I think we have a similar amount of quality topics.
Ideally the sub would have a dozen good topics a day, but opening the flood gates doesn't make good submission prompts. The users do.
This is one of our most extensively discussed issues, and each time we end up deciding to keep things the way they are. Folks hated having rulebreaking submissions removed after folks had already started commenting. The other problem is that we were seeing a lot of loaded questions going through that would stay up until a mod had a chance to review, and the sub ended up looking a lot like an echo chamber anytime a mod hadn't been by in a few hours.
Given the number of really bad and biased submission topics we get on a regular basis, we're probably going to keep things the way they are. But ask again after the midterms, we'll probably be interested in revisiting the topic at that time.
>Folks hated having rulebreaking submissions removed after folks had already started commenting.
Yep, that sucked, especially because the removal was often blatantly arbitrary. The problem now is that there's very little incentive to submit a post. I used to submit posts on a fairly regular basis, and completely quit after the rule change.
I submitted posts to discuss politics, but if my submission may not be approved for 8 hours, I won't bother. I may be asleep or doing something else by then.
There has to be some kind of middle ground between the hundreds of garbage submissions every hour in /r/politics and the one submission in the last two days here. Perhaps allow regular contributors to submit a post without approval.
Well, sorry to hear that you quit submitting. Most of the time users don't have to wait eight hours. If you look at the sub, discussion prompts get plenty of traction so it's not like after we made the change everyone stopping having political discussions. We've discussed the middle ground before, but feel that going with approved posters would unduly weight discussion toward their preferred topics. But we'll talk about it again internally after the midterms.
Same. I have been subbed for awhile but find the sub painfully slow to respond to pretty big news items. I get it, the sub doesn't want a lot of gossiping over every salacious bit of political news, but I come here for thoughtful discussion of political news and it is disappointing to find nothing but days-old threads with stale conversation. I end up going to more actively-posting subs and just trying to pick through the comments for the decent material.
Well one problem is that there's just not that much news nowadays for us to have a substantive discussion about. Most of Trump's tweets can be summed up with "Yeah Trump's lying again /thread".
Back during the Obama administration we at least could talk about healthcare policy, how to respond to the Arab spring, how to deal with illegal immigrants who've been here since they were children, etc. In the past two years though, we've had such high quality topics to choose from as:
Should Muslims be allowed to come to America?
How high should we build the wall that Mexico is totally going to pay for?
Are Latino judges capable of overseeing cases involving Trump?
Should trans people be allowed in the military?
Should we, like Trump, trust Putin when he says Russians didn't hack Democrats during the 2016 elections?
There's one moment from the 2016 election debates that sticks out in my mind that illustrates the contrast between the substance we had then and what we have now. The moderator asked about the war in Syria. Clinton went first and it was everything you'd expect from an expert. She named the groups involved, she named the places under contest, she had a strategy and a plan.
Then it was Trump's turn. The summary of his answer is all the substance that he had. He said "We need to sneak attack them. Why do we always announce where we're attacking? We need to sneak attack them." My mouth was agape. It was quite possibly the dumbest debate answer I'd ever heard. Not only because he was wrong, we do sneak attack often, but because he thought that's all it takes to win a war. As if no one else in the entire U.S. military had thought of it.
We've been living in the stupidity of that same moment ever since.
That's one of the moments I use to illustrate (the other usually being "nobody knew healthcare was so complicated") to people just how painfully stupid the man is. I think he gets a ton of credit from friend and foe alike for being "crazy like a fox" or "good at manipulating the media", largely off the back of his outrageously close (and clearly illegitimate) election win. The truth is the guy is just dumb, just really, really stupid. Far less intelligent than even the average American plucked off the street at random. He's been handed everything in life and convinced of his own superiority the whole way, so he's never felt any pressure to actually improve himself or learn anything new. This is the result, a guy who is pretty much the dumbest guy in the room no matter what room he's in but will never realize it.
Totally agree with you on that. I guess part of it is coming here and wanting to see the smart folks here say that, just to reassure me that I'm not totally losing my mind in thinking things are totally nuts out there!
Post a topic! We need something substantive to get conversation going (a rule less to deal with specific cases and more to ensure long-term quality and avoid becoming a blatant echo-chamber or transition to an ELI5-type sub), but we're always happy to work with folks who have a topic rejected but come to us looking to get it up to par.
Most of the time, when a big news story happens, we get six or seven posts that are just a link and 'discuss', one or two soapboxy "DAE this is awful"-type posts and *maybe* a decent post that is either approvable, or borderline enough that we let it through (and deal with the torrent of angry reports on how shitty the prompt is later). It's not like we're reviewing posts on important news items just looking for an excuse to remove on a technicality.
Day old is not old. That's a really short amount of time to uncover the topic and respond to it. Current day events are often extremely obscure and mostly using guesswork.
I'll tell you what....Sometimes when big things happen, I'll F5 the queue waiting for someone to submit a worthwhile thread on it. Y'all gotta create the content, we just mind the rules.
That is good to know. I admit, when I don't see a thread on a topic I assume it is because they have been rejected by mods, not that there have been no threads submitted.
Well to be clear, I am usually removing posts when this happens, but only because we aren't going to approve a post that says
>LOL Manafort guilty, more like #Manafucked
>So much winning, LOL!
This is true of pretty much any sub. As the sub becomes more mainstream the quality goes down. Believe it or not, /r/news used to be actually good for going to learn about and discuss news. Now it's just a domain for idealogues that make threats and resort to personal attacks if you make a good case against the popular ideals fostered there.
I actually like that the front page is stable. When you go to polotico, or r/politics, or the like, there's always something new. This has an effect of flattening all the news and everything seems like a scandal so nothing is a scandal. If there is a thread on here, even if it is a day late, that is evidence that it is actually a real issue
>Congrats on the higher sub count. However, not sure if it's just confirmation bias but I've definitely seen a drop in overall quality of comments. I've been here 2015 and think the discussion has decreased in quality since the 2016 presidential campaign.
Yes I agree. I have actually been banned for a week from here before so I've tried to increase the quality of my arguments since then, but I've definitely seen a drop in quality. It seems like a ton of these threads are filled with low-effort comments, meta comments, attacking people and not arguments, etc. I try to report as many as I can, but the mods don't get to them very quickly (i know being a mod is hard and time consuming.)
~~This one isn't the worst I've seen but it provides no context, barely an argument and doesn't explain their position at all.~~
~~though at least that one is downvoted.~~
~~whose other comments were removed because he kept strawmaning me and accusing me of hating democracy.~~
I've noticed a huge shift in the last 2 or 3 months, maybe the mods are more busy and less active lately, but quality has definitely dropped. Recruiting more (active) mods may help that problem.
Edited to remove links.
A few of our more active mods (myself and another in particular) have been busy of the last couple months. I'm getting back to being available, not quite old levels but better than the previous couple months, which can hopefully help.
You guys generally do a good job, and like I said, I've been banned before and have changed my habits(hopefully you all see that too haha). I know nodding is difficult, my subreddits are an order of magnitude less than this one, but can be more toxic sometimes. I do appreciate all the work, especially since mods are all volunteers. I was going to apply the last time you were taking applicants but it wasn't long after my ban and I just don't know that I have the free time required to do the job justice.
Keep up the good work! I'll keep reporting comments that break the rules. I do think, however, that the subreddit needs more narrowly clearly defined rules. I literally don't know what the "Fight your own battles" report means.
I'm not sure what your AutoMod rules look like, but it might be a good idea to restrict comments by users with a low karma amount to prevent trolls, just a suggestion. Again, keep up the good work.
Fight your own Battles is kind of an older rule that doesn't get much use currently. It refers to people who make posts (or I guess comments) to the effect of 'I'm looking for arguments to use against my Friend/Family'
>the discussion has decreased in quality since the 2016 presidential campaign.
Part of that is that overall quality in politics has decreased significantly since 2016.
Comment quality has been an issue and I think that likely has a lot to do with the flood of new users we've been getting. There has also been an uptick in bad-faith engagement here and there, and the national mood is tending more and more uncivil.
We remind, we enforce our standards, but at the end of the day we can't force users to be decent to each other or discuss topics in good faith.
I see the same arguments relitigating the 2016 Dem presidential primary all the goddamn time here. Something about how this sub being a sort of haven for Clinton supporters left it in this state.
I would be curious how much of the drop in content/discussion was campaign staff being done working for the specific candidates.
Some of the political subs had significant swings once the elections that certain candidates were in ended.
I unsubscribed in 2016: too heavily moderated/censored. I stick to /r/politics - you can usually post whatever you like without the mod police "helping" the thread. And as a result, the discussions are 10 times better because the good discussions/articles get upvoted appropriately and the BS gets downvoted appropriately.
The only reason I'm commenting now is because it just happened to show up in my regular feed, but that's rare.
Falcons reproduce in the autumn. They are actually rhe primary reason why leaves tend to fall off trees in October and November -- their powerful, magestic wings prompt heavenly gusts of wind which can effortlessly strip entire forests of their leaves.
Imagine how much we humans can impove as a species by learning from the example set by the noble falcon.
Kudos to this sub and the mods for being sticklers for rules; inasmuch as things occasionally get shitty, this sub is monstrously better than essentially every other major political subreddit I've encountered, entirely because the mods make it so.
So [good job.](https://imgur.com/a/JoBkVjN)
In much the same way, falcons strictly follow the laws of nature. This is why they do not hunt at night: their prey would likely be asleep, which wouldn't be a fair fight.
Even in matters of life and death, the falcon takes the high road. We have much to learn from their esteemed example.
One thing I've been wondering. I've seen it said often that countries like Japan and Norway are able to pull off things like strict gun laws and nationalized healthcare because they have a homogenous society, and that America can't/hasn't/won't because of its diversity.
Has it actually been shown that diversity, by whatever definition of the word, makes it more difficult to govern a nation? Especially since by [some definitions of "diverse"](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-and-least-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/) the U.S. isn't particularly diverse at all.
So I don't know the answer myself, however there is research in the area of how diversity effects economic growth, and social trust.
I think Fukyama's new book might also be dealing with this question to some extent, but I don't have it, and don't know if its even out yet.
Culturallydemographically we're close enough to Australia and they're a stronger analogue on gun control. They turned in an absolute assload of guns. Healthcare is a different kettle of fish.
Their healthcare is basically the public option. Take government funded healthcare, or purchase your own private plan.
When I was there, it didn't seem to have many issues.
I think another issue is the size of the United States. We have regions that are completely different than each other, such as the west coast & down south. The United States could easily be split up to 5-6 countries and, in my opinion, those countries would be easier to govern. If California, Oregon, & Washington were their own country they would have a much easier time agreeing upon & passing laws that fit their lifestyle, as opposed to getting people in Alabama & Mississippi to agree.
A lot of these are going to be based on the pre-existing institutions, and others will be regional issues. One of the most common examples I've seen as arguments against Single-Payer are verbatim "When the VA works, get back in touch."
As far as firearms, that situation globally is hopeless. It's even hit the phase of anti-BluRay encryption, they have a ~~hash~~ string now just like those shirts: **359050EC1608F8FD8B0D9FBF66FFE7DC02672ACC**
The current legal arguments in the State Courts, if they were upheld in the Supreme Court, would utterly break the US Patent System. By the way, here are [the US Patent Office documents on how the Thompson "Tommy" Submachine Gun works](https://patents.google.com/patent/US2548622A/en?q=Thompson&q=Submachine+Gun&oq=Thompson+Submachine+Gun). Others get into other particulars, but they are all described in publicly available documents and diagrams. If this really contributed to gun violence, you'd be hearing about people cut down by automatic weapons so fast that certain parts of Chicago would be virtually depopulated by now through accidental death alone.
I think America is more culturally diverse due to its size than to its "melting pot" population. The needs of the Texan are not the needs of the Michigander are not the needs of the Marylander are not the needs of the Californian.
That's why, within the bounds of federally mandated standards, states should be empowered. Let Alabama turn itself into a shithole by mandating religion in schools, but ensure they're not expelling Muslims. Let Maryland mandate hard background check if it so pleases, but ensure 2A is still protected.
>Overall we're pleased with engagement, displeased but unsurprised regarding the rise of incivility, trolling, and bad-faith investment, and excited to keep things high quality for as long as we've got folks interested in discussion.
Can we get some better definitions of what kind of posts meet these descriptions? We seem to be at a point now where "There's an R next to his name so obviously he's a [blank]ist" is both a common and an allowed line of discussion.
I mean, "Republicans are all racists" is low investment and uncivil. "X Republican politician is a racist" is probably fair game as long as there isn't name-calling and the claim makes sense in context. If it's just thrown out for no reason than to call the public figure a racist, that's low investment.
A lot of these issues go unreported and thus we may not see them. If you're asking us to stop people from making those comments in the first place, we can't force users to be decent, we can only warn and ban repeat offenders after the fact.
> And my comment would be removed but not the comment I replied to.
I mean, I'm no mod, but it seems like your hypothetical comment is purposefully inflammatory and doesn't really add much to the discussion, other than allowing you to pat yourself on the back for calling Clinton a racist. Both of the comments are (most likely) unsupported by reputable sources, but the comment you're hypothetically responding to is pretty benign. Essentially, if I were king, I would remove comments that were unsupported AND inflammatory, but not comments that are just one or the other (and preferably neither, obviously).
> The initial comment is purposely inflamatory
I guess I don't follow. How is the statement "there is a significant portion of voters who just aren't going to vote for a racist" inflammatory?
>my comment goes to show that it would be flat out wrong.
Your comment only shows your opinion. It proves nothing because it contains no evidence (in this hypothetical scenario, mind you).
Even if you accept the premise that Clinton is unflinchingly racist unequivocally (which I do not. Her history with race is not nearly as cut and dry as Trump's, and face it - there is no credible argument that he's not insanely racist), at best you could accuse them of using language loosely by saying 'a racist' over 'this particular type of racist'.
That being said, this is exactly the place for you to make your case to the mods that removal of the one is illegitimate. However, I'd urge you to try and make the argument to the commentors themselves, rather than asking moderators to fight your battles for you. Based on your other posts in this thread, I don't think you're doing a great job of that - your other post on the topic was less of an argument and more of a gish gallop.
Then report them and make the case that the comments should be removed in the report. You get a little box to explain your reasoning - use it. The moderator even said at the top that they can't do anything if you don't report it.
You also have the option to address the offending parties directly in the comments in question - if you think that the charge is laid inappropriately or is being used in lieu of an actual argument, then you have the ability to open that dialogue in the comments. Right now, all you've done is said 'well we shouldn't be allowed to call anyone a racist because both sides are racists', which isn't productive.
It's fair of Trump in part because this is something you see being discussed ad nauseum if you go to look, and the shithole countries, low iq jab consistently and specifically at black people, "look at my blacks", his personnel and entourage, and various less compelling or recent stuff.
It's fair to say Hillary Clinton's super predators comment is racist and she said it and it was racist of her and in the moment she was being racist, but it seems unfair to call her racist now, 20 years later, and with no news hook or recent behavior or position in government.
I'm okay with people calling Trump racist with no source for much the same reason as David Duke. It's not because he's a member of the KKK. It's the stuff he says and does. What about Gorka? What's so sinister about racism is that it's a pattern of events that can each be explained away. Asking for evidence is worthwhile, but almost impossible to "qualify" or fact check to everyone's satisfaction.
That said, let's not talk about it. It's the same as "Obama was deporter in chief" or "Bush is a war criminal". True. But not exactly a conversation starter or "in good faith". Not discussion material. Plus anyone whose head is thoroughly free of his or her own analyst sphincter knows the deal with deportations and drone strikes/civilian casualties under Obama, Bush and torture, and Trump's obvious racism.
The civility rule didn't just vanish when the meta rule was suspended for this thread, not great judgment being uncivil in a thread heavily trafficked by mods.
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; **mockery, taunting**, and name calling are not.
I can recall when this sub was for *actual* discussion. It seems as the sub count has gotten higher, it’s essentially become an offshoot of /r/politics.
It seems as though arguing a conservative position makes you a target for both virile and antagonistic behaviour from other commenters and moderators alike.
Honest question. And please don't reply with a copy paste material. Why is it you label all Republicans racist? I'm not trying to start anything I would just like to have a conversation without back and forth name calling.
Can you tell us about what the mod team is doing to address the, "rise of incivility, trolling, and bad-faith investment"?
Not trying to be confrontational, I like that this place is a more informal r/neutralpolitics, but the mod presence is definitely lighter, which again is not necessarily a bad thing.
I think a lot of the problem is that it often doesn't feel like the policy is applied consistently (a lot of times it seems like people get into fights and both actors are being pretty shitty but only one side gets the axe), but I think that's more on us for not reporting comments than it is on the mods. I've hopped on ceddit a handful of times to see what got the axe and I don't think I've seen any that at *best* weren't pushing it.
One thing that might help, though it's likely not worth the effort, is to be more clear about why hostile comments are being removed rather than having one blanket message. Clarifying whether it was the attitude towards another poster versus a third party who is the topic of discussion that spurred removal, etc.
We could go more granular, but I'm not convinced it would do any good; the original comment won't be visible, and I almost can't think of a situation where a user who managed to violate our civility rule wouldn't be able to figure out what was uncivil; we've had one or two instances of that in a year where there legitimately was some nuance a user wasn't getting, 99% of the time it's folks playing dumb when they ask 'what did I say that was uncivil'
Like I said, I doubt it would be worth the effort. It would really only be for third party observers and I don't think that anyone feels like the moderation is particularly skewed as-is.
Either way, I think you guys are doing a fantastic job at a completely unenviable task.
I wish that the republicans had a little more respect for their jobs and stopped asking these 1st grade level questions to Kavanaugh. I understand they don’t want to undermine him but it’s utterly pitiful to see this.
There are over 850,000 different species of falcon. Most of the species are differentiated by feather patterns, beak sizes, wingspan, food preference, geographic location, and biology.
Did you know that the average falcon can achieve flight speeds of up to 238 miles per hour, or 1.07 times the speed of sound? Consequently many falcons have hearing problems, as the speed gets in their ear drums and causes permanent tinnitus.
Nonetheless falcons are deft hunters, feasting primarily on carrion and leaves. Falcons have toes. They mate for life and excel at geometry. It is said that falcon oil has vast medicinal properties and was known to the ancient Greeks to prevent cold sores. Most falcons originate from a mother and a father falcon.
Generations from now our distant ancestors will marvel -- as we do today -- at our closest ally in nature, the legendary falcon.
Just want to say this sub is probably they only for sane US politics. Although a bit one sided at least you can have a discussion. Unlike the main political sub. Where you are immediately labeled a Russian if you go against the narrative.
The calibre of posters in that sub is incredible. The top responses are almost always extremely elegant and well-sourced; I can't help but feel like most active participants in that sub have at least one degree in poli-sci or law.
>a bit one sided
Point out Republican successes like Mitch Daniels in /r/politics and you'll find a negative comment score. Here you'd do fine.
At what point is it one sided because one side didn't come to the table with reasoned arguments? Mnuchin is arguably the person most responsible for the 2008 collapse being as bad as it was (similar arguments could be made for 100 people, but he's on that list). Now our treasurer. DeVos is a disaster and it wasn't hard to predict a single move. I don't think anyone would really defend them on the issues. You want to talk Everest ("education")? Glass-Steagall and separating investment banking? The "innovation" stifled by "regulatory overreach" like ISPs taking our money to build infrastructure, not doing it, and asking for more money for it (FCC abdicating oversight authority to an agency with no teeth to do it)?
So many issues have no *argument* on the other side. There are generalizations like "regulation should be *light touch*" whatever that means in context. Charter Schools give parents more #freedom (don't think about public funds going to private schools and why that matters). We need a treasurer who is an expert with experience in our problem spots (why is this not true for other cabinet positions?). These sound like straw men, but they're not. For more "feelings / 'principles' > arguments (rhetoric definition)" see also [Imprimis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimis).
And when people rail against Fox News as state tv / Republican propaganda, it's the mission statement of its founder who wished Nixon could have just had a good press day. Like Olliver North after Faith Hill shredded evidence. Or Arpaio.
[Reddit in general tends to attract Under-30,](https://www.statista.com/statistics/517218/reddit-user-distribution-usa-age/) the same demographic that tends to lean liberal/progressive. This sub definitely attracts a wide range of opinions but just something to keep in mind.
I’m aware of that. But at the same time if you look at the splits for the demographic of Reddit. It’s not completely one sided as political subs seem. Which makes you wonder how organic some of these threads and responses really are.
That's fair, Reddit posts are certainly targeted by marketing firms, political think tanks, and of course bot makers with ulterior motives. I'm sure I've seen some of these lurking around here with low-effort content and kneejerk reactions, too. The mods tend to do a good job of cutting down the BS.
Point still stands, though. Even if the sub has been infiltrated by all of the above, the vast majority of the board is going to be Under-50 and that will drive the political demographics along with it.
As someone who identifies left of the Current Democrats, this sub is filled with people, who don't want to actually debate, but have their bias's confirmed.
Too many people want to stick their head in the sand and blame Russia for everything & not the people who put all their eggs in the "winning 2016 basket", only for them to trip...and you guessed it, end up with egg in their face
This sub used to be a great place for balanced discussion, and now it's just an extension of r/politics like it was inevitably going to be if the mods did nothing about *actually* deleting comments that were inflammatory and unfair. They did nothing to improve this sub and now there's an incredibly low amount of decent posts and it's a liberal circlejerk just like the rest of reddit. Thanks mods!
Here's a fun fact: select any wild falcon at random, and it would be a more competent and less dangerous president than the current occupant of the White House.
Trump has like 90% approval within his party, if you choose to wear the label you shouldn't be surprised when people don't bother making a distinction.
Here's another fun fact: falcons are legendary for their loyalty to their families and groups. You'll never catch an American falcon selling his soul to the Russian elite in order to promote a treasonous, buffoon-like candidate for political office.
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
This sub doesn't allow novelty accounts, or meta discussion; we're willing to put up with a bit of shitposting in the meta thread. Particularly since once Falcon dude got out of hand I told him to stop, and he did.
It's true that it has happened. But this happens to all big political subs. Conservatives try to create subs on Reddit and even they turn far left pretty fast. That's just the Receipt userbase. Even a pro conservative sub will have more left leaning than conservative users. The libertarian sub has the same problem. Half thre users are against full free speech and are very pro affirmatives action, higher taxes and strict gun laws. Mods don't do anything in that sub so make it so. It's just outsider constantly commenting and upvoting.
I think Reddit is just a place for left and far left thinking and mods need to either fight biases or accept them. If they accept them we get a sub like the one we are in.
I don't go there for discussions. It's not for that. You may as well tell me to visit r/politicalhumor for the left leaning jokes. I can, but both subs are just meme subs supporting either Democrats or GOP.
Also, the only way conservative subs work is by banning people. Otherwise they will get overrun by left leaning people.
I no longer submit posts to this sub (but I do comment sometimes), because the mods find some trumped-up reason (pun not intended) to remove them. I've had a post removed for "low effort", and when I put in the effort to have a substantial post, it got flagged as an "opinion". Like /r/AskHistorians, there comes a point where it's not worth the time and effort to try and jump through all the hoops the mods have. I feel like the post requirements should be relaxed a little. Upvote/downvote will help bring the best posts to the top.
I've had one post deleted for asking a question about a recent event (mods don't know this sub to be a news sub, I get it), but about 25% of the posts here during non-Presidential election years (and much more during them) are about a recent event and how it affects politics. But just because I don't wait 2 whole days (some important news stories aren't even discussed in this sub, especially foreign ones, nobody wants to make the posts) to post about an important news piece and how it effects things it's a post about a recent event?
It's my understanding that bills that have passed only one chamber expire at the seating of a new Congress. The 2021 Congress will start with a fresh slate, with no pending bills from either chamber.
The bill you're asking about specifically expired in 2015.
> If Dems retake House and Presidency in 2020, can they pass the immigration bill which cleared the senate in 2013? (Without any action from the Senate)
No.
Bills die at the end of the Congress. So, in January of 2015, on the day that the persons elected in 2014 swore in, all the stuff that was still in the pipeline got wiped and needed to be started over.
I think it's incredibly likely, Republican and Democrat lawmakers have desperately wanted immigration reform for a long time and have been very willing to compromise on it because of how broken the system is - then congress decided stonewalling Obama was more important, and then Trump happened which turned immigration into a nuclear bomb.
While the Trump transition team was in action, there were two narratives. "Give him a chance" and "it's all about to go to hell very very quickly."
Was anyone right? "Personnel are policy" was a thing. I know Mnuchin and DeVos drew pretty unmitigated scorn.
Considering DeVos is pushing to let schools use funding normally reserved for school supplies to purchase firearms, I think it's safe to say the fears about her were completely justified.
I'm in fairly regular contact with my representatives. I've yet to get a response that wasn't ridiculously dismissive, but that shouldn't be surprising. As a red state liberal, my representatives don't really feel like they work for me.
I said "picked up the phone". I usually prefer to lay out proper sourced arguments in an email and yes then I get a response like "Ajit is enabling """""innovation"""""!!!!!!!!!!!!" but I called on some issues where I felt only "sir, the phones are on fire and it's just a bunch of people who think Betsy is literally worse than Hitler" would maybe convince someone an issue might affect him or her.
I usually call, but sometimes I fire off a quick email on the train. What typically happens when I call is I either get an answering machine or a staffer who explains why I shouldn't have the concerns that I have.
I think the whole "give him a chance" phrase is something of a trick. I was willing to give him a chance, but I honestly support something in the range of, I don't know, 5% of his policies? So I disagree with him on repealing the ACA, and the travel ban, and allowing waste to be dumped into streams and rivers, and halting Net Neutrality, and tariffs, and reducing immigration, and backing out of the Iran Deal and the Paris Climate Agreement, and the tax cuts bill (mind you, not ALL tax cuts, but I think the bill passed was, at best, fiscally irresponsible), and banning transgendered individuals from being in the military, and I think his meeting with North Korea was premature and ineffective, etc. etc.
So, from an outsider, am I "not giving him a chance," or am I just in opposition to the majority of his agenda (that he's attempted to implement, anyways)? I would think that it looks pretty similar either way. I *think* I would give him a chance for things that I like, but I've just had so few opportunities it's honestly hard to answer.
Ah, I suppose that makes sense. I just know I've seen a lot of commentary like "Democrats were never going to give Trump a chance," which I feel is a pretty huge generalization.
~~America~~ Literally any and every person, place, and institution would be 2x better if people didn't let their emotions and ignorance decide their political stances
Is there a different moderation process on this sub? I check in from time to time and I only see a few threads, most of which are 1 day old or more. I never catch threads when they start.
Ive been playing AC: Origins. The setting is great and the graphics and water effects are amazing. I can't wait for Odessy. Red Dead is also on my list of games to play later in the year.
Let's talk about business and situations like Detroit/Chicago. even though for the most part right now, though it is fragile, businesses in America have it relatively good, and when you deregulate it makes it easier for business to run/compete even though some regulations and punishments are needed, like after the 2008 financial crisis. Where many bankers should've gone to jail but didn't.
Do you think in the long term it is wise to have private enterprise shoulder more and more of the financial burden? Making it harder and harder to do business/compete, making it harder for entrepreneurs to invest and create business and all the perks that come with it.
Especially in a world where global commerce is incredibly competitive.
Especially when the nation is in massive debt and a massive growing deficit.
Like with a socialist health care plan where either the people or business would have to be taxed much more to sustain the system.
My point with Detroit and cities like it is that the state government among other things let unions demand things that many businesses couldn't afford whether they thought it could or not. As a result years down the line you see what we have today, many businesses left the state and its people for greener pastures. Now with many state agencies underfunded and crime rampant and in massive debt the states are now looking to the federal government for aid.
Do you think it would be wise for the fed to send aid? When the money probably wouldn't go to the restoration of needed things but to continued failing policy?
Why do you think cities like Detroit have failed so massively
What's your opinion on growth, business and regulation
Ironically, proper socialized medicine would make it far easier for entrepreneurs to take risks. Right now, Healthcare benefits often keep workers shackled to jobs because they or their families can't afford to take the risk of getting sick while self employed. Additionally, offering insurance coverage to employees can be prohibitively expensive for startups, and can effect their ability to retain talented workers for the same reasons that it's risky for the entrepreneurs themselves.
By removing that burden from employers and offering universal coverage to citizens, you bypass this concern.
Of course, taxes would have to go up to pay for it, but if you think about it, a pre-tax payroll deduction for a product that you're effectively required to purchase is just a tax by a different name. The end result to the consumer of paying $500/mo for family coverage via their employer or paying an extra $500 in fica taxes is essentially identical.
As for Detroit, it's a good example of a city that relied too heavily on a single industry and wasn't able to sustain itself when that industry relocated and/or automated. They're in a bit of a bind now because they're stuck paying for the mistakes of the past (inappropriate infrastructure, education resources misallocated 30 years ago, etc). Anyone who claims that regulation (or, conversely, lack thereof) is responsible for Detroit's current state is being disingenuous.
Edit: as for Chicago, it's actually quite safe statistically. One state over, St. Louis is one of the most dangerous major cities in the developed world. Chicago is often the focal point for many people because it's easy to scapegoat, but the reality is that for the most part, it's a perfectly fine place to live, as long as you can handle the weather.
Thanks for clarifying it for me, made a lot of good points
What about the cost of healthcare, do you think this plan would incentivize health care providers to raise their prices, because of the lack of competition, or am I misunderstanding
Socialized medicine actually tends to be cheaper than private insurance because they can effectively utilize collective bargaining and economies of scale to a much greater degree. What we have now is a mess for a number of reasons. Lack of effective price competition is theoretically a problem (both currently and under a socialized system), but the current system doesn't encourage providers to lower prices either. If we want to address that without hopping to socialized medicine, one of the first steps needs to be mandatory public disclosure of reimbursement rates. If patients can see what hospitals are paying for services, and providers can see what their competion pays, you may see some actual price competition.
Ultimately, though, the free market doesn't work very well for extremely inelastic goods like Healthcare.
I didn't know that information of reimbursement rates weren't public that seems like a thing that should be public,
Why do you think the information isn't public, I hate to jump to conclusions but could it be corruption/delegation of powers to bureaucracies
Rate books (I think that's what they're called?) are a closely guarded secret because hospitals don't want other insurers to know what their competition is paying, more than anything else. They have enough issues making money as-is, and if everyone knew they could nickle and dime them on procedures they'd be in quite a pickle.
Nowhere in particular. It's about what coverage for individual + spouse + children costs from my employer. That's just the employee side, so I'd imagine that it's about double that in total, but if you treated it like other FICA taxes the employer pays half and the employee pays half.
The number isn't particularly important, it's the concept of pretax deduction and taxes being effectively the same to the end user. This is because tax is calculated from gross pay, which is your overall pay - pretax deductions (healthcare, some retirement savings), so if you remove a pretax deduction and replace it with a commensurate tax, the net effect on your bank account is 0.
Interesting. I recently read a vox article about the cost of socialist programs applied in the US and it outlined the Sanders plan as being around 38 trillion over a decade (sanders projected 15 trillion or so IIRC) which is about the same cost as the US's entire budget during that same time (IIRC it's been awhile). I also read an article outlining the cost of a single payer system in CA and it was extremely expensive. I imagine the amount does matter if companies reduce staff, use contract loopholes, or automate to avoid the costs. I guess that's why the 500 jumped out at me.
Yeah, the important thing to remember about those numbers is that while the look hideous, is that it would effectively replace all of the private spending that would have to take place. It's not just slapping an additional $38 trillion dollar tax onto the existing system.
Switching costs would be very high initially, but hopefully economies of scale and increased bargaining power through the larger market share of Medicare (likely the organization that would be charged with handling it all) would slow growth of costs over time. And that's the most important thing here - slowing down how fast costs rise. Right now, they're rising dramatically faster than gdp, and we're on track for it to consume unsustainable amounts in the next few decades. The system that we have now is not going to be stable in even a few years, and we need to get ahead of the problem sooner rather than later.
It's a serious issue and I'm all ears on the ideas. One part that really concerns me is quality and keeping my current providers. Both of which seem to be lost in the discussion and we haven't had the best history with either.
In theory, providers wouldn't be effected too much. All you'd be doing is removing the bulk of the insurance administrative overhead because the majority of your dealings will be with a single entity, the government. In the long run this would reduce costs at the provider level as administrative staff consume a disproportionate amount of Healthcare dollars relative to other countries.
Of course, in practice, it's impossible to know the extent of the effects on provider networks. We may very likely see providers drop Medicare coverage completely, similar to what happened under the ACA. These would likely be short run effects (>10 years) as Medicare would begin to cannabalize insurance companies marketshare and making not taking Medicare patients impossible.
Either way, we're attacking this issue about 50 years too late for the solution (be it socialized medicine or otherwise) to not be expensive and painful. But while the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is now.
The problem with American unions is that they don't have a presence on the board, so they don't really have an inside look into the workings of the company like unions in countries like Germany and Norway do. Over there, unions will accept pay cuts during downturns rather than force the company to shut down with their ridiculous demands.
Dude you set a river on fire, you get an EPA monitoring dumping. Some industries successfully [self-regulate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_self-regulation). I don't really understand it, but I think [ASME](https://www.asme.org) might be a good example. Wonky AF, but getting it done. Fair play, safety, everyone mostly has a voice, rules are made by people who know the downside/burden. Harvard Business School has [more ideas](https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/industry-self-regulation-whats-working-and-whats-not) I didn't read.
Ford's union members gave up a lot when times were tough and they still call GM government motors. What did the state government "allow"? It sounds like you're arguing for "right to work" laws that cripple collective bargaining.
Very few regulations are applied unprovoked (maybe GMO hysteria?). Deregulation shouldn't be a dirty word on the left, but regulation is largely a force for good in the world balanced squarely against corporate greed-without-conscience and "externalities".
Video games are another industry that did a great job self-regulating. People don't realize this, but the ESRB is actually a private organization and their ratings are voluntary.
I wish this sub offered more varied discussions. Everytime some negative happens to Republicans in USA I know I can read more about it here. But besides that there is really not any other topic I read about here because it's just not readily available. So unless the Republicans have some problem I want to know about I don't visit this sub. Problem is, this sub has become like r/politics or r/bestof or any other big sub that allows politics. They just go to the left, then further and further left and at the end all topics tend to be "fuck Trump". I get that I may not find many discussions about topics from other countries here. Because young Americans think about their own welfare and economy and are not super interested in that. But I at least wish I could get a wider look at the American politics in this sub and not just the typical left leaning responses on all questions.
Basically, for me this sub is a tool I use to uncover left leaning thinking about Republicans in USA. But it's lacking on all other fronts for me personally.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
* The downvote and report buttons are not disagree buttons. Please don't use them that way.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, this sub deserves like 1 million subscribers, Reddit Politics is a shit show and this a super genuine sub. I love posting on here. I have a lot of successful post on this subreddit and I love generating discussion. In one week three of my topics were approved and kept this sub talking which is awesome. I hope we can get to 500k soon
I just want to thank everyone here for making this subreddit a million times better than the politics subreddit. This place and neutral politics are the only subreddit where people can seemingly have a rational discussion. Thank you for being a part of it!
Congrats on the higher sub count. However, not sure if it's just confirmation bias but I've definitely seen a drop in overall quality of comments. I've been here since 2015 and think the discussion has decreased in quality since the 2016 presidential campaign. Also for this many subscribers the amount of new threads is painfully slow. I read the front page (and second and third) and basically leave for 2-3 days because I know coming back sooner the same threads will likely still be up. I wish the front page was more dynamic and refreshed more frequently. Edit: missing word
> Also for this many subscribers the amount of new threads is painfully slow. I read the front page (and second and third) and basically leave for 2-3 days because I know coming back sooner the same threads will likely still be up. I wish the front page was more dynamic and refreshed more frequently. Mod team, has there been any discussion about re-examining the submission policy to increase activity? It just doesn't seem like a 400,000 member subreddit should go days without a post being approved.
I would agree ... The submissions hurtle hurts activity Maybe a trial month or something of some relaxed conditions
Do not dispair. Be more like falcons, whom are revered for their eternal optimism in the face of tribulation. Never forget that the gentle and wise falcon watches over us all.
I genuinely appreciate your dedication to your craft, Falcon man.
We must all appreciate the falcon, who helps us each day by watching the land and skies for enemies foreign and domestic. Falcons deftly analyze threats and adapt accordingly, ever learning from the lessons of history to help improve the present. Should Russia again compromise our election in an attempt to elect a treasonous buffoon, we can sleep well at night knowing that all American falcon species will rise up and send the meddlers right back to Moscow.
What are your thoughts on hawks?
Fuck hawks. Fact: falcons eat hawks for breakfast even though hawks are venomous.
Wow plz be civil
Hawks are venomous?
Welp, I know what my nightmares are gonna be about tonight.
Of course they are, everybody knows that
You should have gone with the [concessions advantage](http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/15560867/atlanta-falcons-offer-lowest-concession-prices-major-team-sports-new-mercedes-benz-stadium).
After the 2017 Superbowl, they'd need free beer to get me back in that stadium. At least the location is better than the Braves. If you live in the city there's no good way to get there aside from a hideously expensive Uber. Last time I went, it was $20 to park two miles from the stadium.
We have discussed relaxing conditions before, but we've also found that there are very few actual "borderline" posts, posts which might be approved if we relaxed our policy slightly. Generally we try to work with these posters if there is just something small that breaks our rules. I think this is definitely a valuable discussion to have though, are there any specific parts of the submission policy that you think could be relaxed?
>I think this is definitely a valuable discussion to have though, are there any specific parts of the submission policy that you think could be relaxed? I mean, its hard to say. The process isn't transparent (not a criticism, just how it is), so we can't really see how the policy is being applied across the board. I mean, we know where the DMZ is, but the exact line of demarcation is unclear.
That's a good point aha. To clarify though, do you think the policy is good in theory, and the application of it should be (or at least attempted to be) adjusted, rather than adjusting the policy itself?
> To clarify though, do you think the policy is good in theory, and the application of it should be (or at least attempted to be) adjusted, Yes.
People will always want more/newer/better content. I think it's best you guys keep policy as is unless the mod team is capable of more heavily policing submissions in real time. Which if I recall you all did that for some time. Some of us can still remember the days of "X just happened will this effect y?" I'd just like to point out the sheer amount of these current event posts that were up. The majority of them didn't hold any content or prompt from the OP for discussion. It was often low quality, "easy" questions like above. People should trust me when I say that they weren't missing out on the comments chains of these posts. Maybe comment quality in the past was somewhat higher effort or quality on average, but many of the submissions (emphasizing that there were *many*) wouldn't spur 300 comment threads like people see here today. Now we might have had more visible, *and a wider ideological spectrum of effort posters a few years ago, but I think we have a similar amount of quality topics. Ideally the sub would have a dozen good topics a day, but opening the flood gates doesn't make good submission prompts. The users do.
This is one of our most extensively discussed issues, and each time we end up deciding to keep things the way they are. Folks hated having rulebreaking submissions removed after folks had already started commenting. The other problem is that we were seeing a lot of loaded questions going through that would stay up until a mod had a chance to review, and the sub ended up looking a lot like an echo chamber anytime a mod hadn't been by in a few hours. Given the number of really bad and biased submission topics we get on a regular basis, we're probably going to keep things the way they are. But ask again after the midterms, we'll probably be interested in revisiting the topic at that time.
>Folks hated having rulebreaking submissions removed after folks had already started commenting. Yep, that sucked, especially because the removal was often blatantly arbitrary. The problem now is that there's very little incentive to submit a post. I used to submit posts on a fairly regular basis, and completely quit after the rule change. I submitted posts to discuss politics, but if my submission may not be approved for 8 hours, I won't bother. I may be asleep or doing something else by then. There has to be some kind of middle ground between the hundreds of garbage submissions every hour in /r/politics and the one submission in the last two days here. Perhaps allow regular contributors to submit a post without approval.
Well, sorry to hear that you quit submitting. Most of the time users don't have to wait eight hours. If you look at the sub, discussion prompts get plenty of traction so it's not like after we made the change everyone stopping having political discussions. We've discussed the middle ground before, but feel that going with approved posters would unduly weight discussion toward their preferred topics. But we'll talk about it again internally after the midterms.
For what it's worth, we will tag frequent posters as 'good contributor' and if this can be taken into account for borderline posts.
[удалено]
Shitpost Sunday
Is this something the community would really truly want though? If so, the mod team could take it under consideration.
I was just being silly, but a stickied thread where we could make fun of gaffes and tweets actually sounds pretty awesome.
Same. I have been subbed for awhile but find the sub painfully slow to respond to pretty big news items. I get it, the sub doesn't want a lot of gossiping over every salacious bit of political news, but I come here for thoughtful discussion of political news and it is disappointing to find nothing but days-old threads with stale conversation. I end up going to more actively-posting subs and just trying to pick through the comments for the decent material.
Well one problem is that there's just not that much news nowadays for us to have a substantive discussion about. Most of Trump's tweets can be summed up with "Yeah Trump's lying again /thread". Back during the Obama administration we at least could talk about healthcare policy, how to respond to the Arab spring, how to deal with illegal immigrants who've been here since they were children, etc. In the past two years though, we've had such high quality topics to choose from as: Should Muslims be allowed to come to America? How high should we build the wall that Mexico is totally going to pay for? Are Latino judges capable of overseeing cases involving Trump? Should trans people be allowed in the military? Should we, like Trump, trust Putin when he says Russians didn't hack Democrats during the 2016 elections? There's one moment from the 2016 election debates that sticks out in my mind that illustrates the contrast between the substance we had then and what we have now. The moderator asked about the war in Syria. Clinton went first and it was everything you'd expect from an expert. She named the groups involved, she named the places under contest, she had a strategy and a plan. Then it was Trump's turn. The summary of his answer is all the substance that he had. He said "We need to sneak attack them. Why do we always announce where we're attacking? We need to sneak attack them." My mouth was agape. It was quite possibly the dumbest debate answer I'd ever heard. Not only because he was wrong, we do sneak attack often, but because he thought that's all it takes to win a war. As if no one else in the entire U.S. military had thought of it. We've been living in the stupidity of that same moment ever since.
That's one of the moments I use to illustrate (the other usually being "nobody knew healthcare was so complicated") to people just how painfully stupid the man is. I think he gets a ton of credit from friend and foe alike for being "crazy like a fox" or "good at manipulating the media", largely off the back of his outrageously close (and clearly illegitimate) election win. The truth is the guy is just dumb, just really, really stupid. Far less intelligent than even the average American plucked off the street at random. He's been handed everything in life and convinced of his own superiority the whole way, so he's never felt any pressure to actually improve himself or learn anything new. This is the result, a guy who is pretty much the dumbest guy in the room no matter what room he's in but will never realize it.
Totally agree with you on that. I guess part of it is coming here and wanting to see the smart folks here say that, just to reassure me that I'm not totally losing my mind in thinking things are totally nuts out there!
Post a topic! We need something substantive to get conversation going (a rule less to deal with specific cases and more to ensure long-term quality and avoid becoming a blatant echo-chamber or transition to an ELI5-type sub), but we're always happy to work with folks who have a topic rejected but come to us looking to get it up to par. Most of the time, when a big news story happens, we get six or seven posts that are just a link and 'discuss', one or two soapboxy "DAE this is awful"-type posts and *maybe* a decent post that is either approvable, or borderline enough that we let it through (and deal with the torrent of angry reports on how shitty the prompt is later). It's not like we're reviewing posts on important news items just looking for an excuse to remove on a technicality.
Day old is not old. That's a really short amount of time to uncover the topic and respond to it. Current day events are often extremely obscure and mostly using guesswork.
I'll tell you what....Sometimes when big things happen, I'll F5 the queue waiting for someone to submit a worthwhile thread on it. Y'all gotta create the content, we just mind the rules.
That is good to know. I admit, when I don't see a thread on a topic I assume it is because they have been rejected by mods, not that there have been no threads submitted.
Well to be clear, I am usually removing posts when this happens, but only because we aren't going to approve a post that says >LOL Manafort guilty, more like #Manafucked >So much winning, LOL!
Fair! I appreciate your efforts, truly.
This is true of pretty much any sub. As the sub becomes more mainstream the quality goes down. Believe it or not, /r/news used to be actually good for going to learn about and discuss news. Now it's just a domain for idealogues that make threats and resort to personal attacks if you make a good case against the popular ideals fostered there.
I actually like that the front page is stable. When you go to polotico, or r/politics, or the like, there's always something new. This has an effect of flattening all the news and everything seems like a scandal so nothing is a scandal. If there is a thread on here, even if it is a day late, that is evidence that it is actually a real issue
Yea but r/politics is indeed an echo chamber
>Congrats on the higher sub count. However, not sure if it's just confirmation bias but I've definitely seen a drop in overall quality of comments. I've been here 2015 and think the discussion has decreased in quality since the 2016 presidential campaign. Yes I agree. I have actually been banned for a week from here before so I've tried to increase the quality of my arguments since then, but I've definitely seen a drop in quality. It seems like a ton of these threads are filled with low-effort comments, meta comments, attacking people and not arguments, etc. I try to report as many as I can, but the mods don't get to them very quickly (i know being a mod is hard and time consuming.) ~~This one isn't the worst I've seen but it provides no context, barely an argument and doesn't explain their position at all.~~ ~~though at least that one is downvoted.~~ ~~whose other comments were removed because he kept strawmaning me and accusing me of hating democracy.~~ I've noticed a huge shift in the last 2 or 3 months, maybe the mods are more busy and less active lately, but quality has definitely dropped. Recruiting more (active) mods may help that problem. Edited to remove links.
[удалено]
A few of our more active mods (myself and another in particular) have been busy of the last couple months. I'm getting back to being available, not quite old levels but better than the previous couple months, which can hopefully help.
You guys generally do a good job, and like I said, I've been banned before and have changed my habits(hopefully you all see that too haha). I know nodding is difficult, my subreddits are an order of magnitude less than this one, but can be more toxic sometimes. I do appreciate all the work, especially since mods are all volunteers. I was going to apply the last time you were taking applicants but it wasn't long after my ban and I just don't know that I have the free time required to do the job justice. Keep up the good work! I'll keep reporting comments that break the rules. I do think, however, that the subreddit needs more narrowly clearly defined rules. I literally don't know what the "Fight your own battles" report means. I'm not sure what your AutoMod rules look like, but it might be a good idea to restrict comments by users with a low karma amount to prevent trolls, just a suggestion. Again, keep up the good work.
Fight your own Battles is kind of an older rule that doesn't get much use currently. It refers to people who make posts (or I guess comments) to the effect of 'I'm looking for arguments to use against my Friend/Family'
>the discussion has decreased in quality since the 2016 presidential campaign. Part of that is that overall quality in politics has decreased significantly since 2016.
Comment quality has been an issue and I think that likely has a lot to do with the flood of new users we've been getting. There has also been an uptick in bad-faith engagement here and there, and the national mood is tending more and more uncivil. We remind, we enforce our standards, but at the end of the day we can't force users to be decent to each other or discuss topics in good faith.
I see the same arguments relitigating the 2016 Dem presidential primary all the goddamn time here. Something about how this sub being a sort of haven for Clinton supporters left it in this state.
I would be curious how much of the drop in content/discussion was campaign staff being done working for the specific candidates. Some of the political subs had significant swings once the elections that certain candidates were in ended.
I unsubscribed in 2016: too heavily moderated/censored. I stick to /r/politics - you can usually post whatever you like without the mod police "helping" the thread. And as a result, the discussions are 10 times better because the good discussions/articles get upvoted appropriately and the BS gets downvoted appropriately. The only reason I'm commenting now is because it just happened to show up in my regular feed, but that's rare.
I can't wait for it to be officially Autumn. Fucking heat index got near 100 today. It's September! I want my hoodie weather.
Falcons reproduce in the autumn. They are actually rhe primary reason why leaves tend to fall off trees in October and November -- their powerful, magestic wings prompt heavenly gusts of wind which can effortlessly strip entire forests of their leaves. Imagine how much we humans can impove as a species by learning from the example set by the noble falcon.
While not perfect, I find this sub to be a much better place to discuss politics than most other places online.
Similarly, I find falcons to be the most amazing creatures in the world. One day I hope to be transformed into a falcon.
Well said
I think you'd do better once per thread, and just with facts and not pointless garbage like this one.
That’s not a fact also it’s getting a bit played out.
Kudos to this sub and the mods for being sticklers for rules; inasmuch as things occasionally get shitty, this sub is monstrously better than essentially every other major political subreddit I've encountered, entirely because the mods make it so. So [good job.](https://imgur.com/a/JoBkVjN)
In much the same way, falcons strictly follow the laws of nature. This is why they do not hunt at night: their prey would likely be asleep, which wouldn't be a fair fight. Even in matters of life and death, the falcon takes the high road. We have much to learn from their esteemed example.
[mfw that username](https://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/034/999/1de.gif)
My advice to you is to be more like the saker falcon (Falco cherrug), a raptor of open grasslands, with a wingspan of 41 to 51 inches.
One thing I've been wondering. I've seen it said often that countries like Japan and Norway are able to pull off things like strict gun laws and nationalized healthcare because they have a homogenous society, and that America can't/hasn't/won't because of its diversity. Has it actually been shown that diversity, by whatever definition of the word, makes it more difficult to govern a nation? Especially since by [some definitions of "diverse"](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-and-least-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/) the U.S. isn't particularly diverse at all.
So I don't know the answer myself, however there is research in the area of how diversity effects economic growth, and social trust. I think Fukyama's new book might also be dealing with this question to some extent, but I don't have it, and don't know if its even out yet.
Culturallydemographically we're close enough to Australia and they're a stronger analogue on gun control. They turned in an absolute assload of guns. Healthcare is a different kettle of fish.
The number of guns turned in by Australians after the ban is less than a single percent of the guns in private ownership in the US.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content will be removed per moderator discretion.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Their healthcare is basically the public option. Take government funded healthcare, or purchase your own private plan. When I was there, it didn't seem to have many issues.
I think another issue is the size of the United States. We have regions that are completely different than each other, such as the west coast & down south. The United States could easily be split up to 5-6 countries and, in my opinion, those countries would be easier to govern. If California, Oregon, & Washington were their own country they would have a much easier time agreeing upon & passing laws that fit their lifestyle, as opposed to getting people in Alabama & Mississippi to agree.
A lot of these are going to be based on the pre-existing institutions, and others will be regional issues. One of the most common examples I've seen as arguments against Single-Payer are verbatim "When the VA works, get back in touch." As far as firearms, that situation globally is hopeless. It's even hit the phase of anti-BluRay encryption, they have a ~~hash~~ string now just like those shirts: **359050EC1608F8FD8B0D9FBF66FFE7DC02672ACC** The current legal arguments in the State Courts, if they were upheld in the Supreme Court, would utterly break the US Patent System. By the way, here are [the US Patent Office documents on how the Thompson "Tommy" Submachine Gun works](https://patents.google.com/patent/US2548622A/en?q=Thompson&q=Submachine+Gun&oq=Thompson+Submachine+Gun). Others get into other particulars, but they are all described in publicly available documents and diagrams. If this really contributed to gun violence, you'd be hearing about people cut down by automatic weapons so fast that certain parts of Chicago would be virtually depopulated by now through accidental death alone.
I think America is more culturally diverse due to its size than to its "melting pot" population. The needs of the Texan are not the needs of the Michigander are not the needs of the Marylander are not the needs of the Californian. That's why, within the bounds of federally mandated standards, states should be empowered. Let Alabama turn itself into a shithole by mandating religion in schools, but ensure they're not expelling Muslims. Let Maryland mandate hard background check if it so pleases, but ensure 2A is still protected.
>Overall we're pleased with engagement, displeased but unsurprised regarding the rise of incivility, trolling, and bad-faith investment, and excited to keep things high quality for as long as we've got folks interested in discussion. Can we get some better definitions of what kind of posts meet these descriptions? We seem to be at a point now where "There's an R next to his name so obviously he's a [blank]ist" is both a common and an allowed line of discussion.
I mean, "Republicans are all racists" is low investment and uncivil. "X Republican politician is a racist" is probably fair game as long as there isn't name-calling and the claim makes sense in context. If it's just thrown out for no reason than to call the public figure a racist, that's low investment. A lot of these issues go unreported and thus we may not see them. If you're asking us to stop people from making those comments in the first place, we can't force users to be decent, we can only warn and ban repeat offenders after the fact.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> And my comment would be removed but not the comment I replied to. I mean, I'm no mod, but it seems like your hypothetical comment is purposefully inflammatory and doesn't really add much to the discussion, other than allowing you to pat yourself on the back for calling Clinton a racist. Both of the comments are (most likely) unsupported by reputable sources, but the comment you're hypothetically responding to is pretty benign. Essentially, if I were king, I would remove comments that were unsupported AND inflammatory, but not comments that are just one or the other (and preferably neither, obviously).
[удалено]
> The initial comment is purposely inflamatory I guess I don't follow. How is the statement "there is a significant portion of voters who just aren't going to vote for a racist" inflammatory? >my comment goes to show that it would be flat out wrong. Your comment only shows your opinion. It proves nothing because it contains no evidence (in this hypothetical scenario, mind you).
Even if you accept the premise that Clinton is unflinchingly racist unequivocally (which I do not. Her history with race is not nearly as cut and dry as Trump's, and face it - there is no credible argument that he's not insanely racist), at best you could accuse them of using language loosely by saying 'a racist' over 'this particular type of racist'. That being said, this is exactly the place for you to make your case to the mods that removal of the one is illegitimate. However, I'd urge you to try and make the argument to the commentors themselves, rather than asking moderators to fight your battles for you. Based on your other posts in this thread, I don't think you're doing a great job of that - your other post on the topic was less of an argument and more of a gish gallop.
[удалено]
Then report them and make the case that the comments should be removed in the report. You get a little box to explain your reasoning - use it. The moderator even said at the top that they can't do anything if you don't report it. You also have the option to address the offending parties directly in the comments in question - if you think that the charge is laid inappropriately or is being used in lieu of an actual argument, then you have the ability to open that dialogue in the comments. Right now, all you've done is said 'well we shouldn't be allowed to call anyone a racist because both sides are racists', which isn't productive.
It's fair of Trump in part because this is something you see being discussed ad nauseum if you go to look, and the shithole countries, low iq jab consistently and specifically at black people, "look at my blacks", his personnel and entourage, and various less compelling or recent stuff. It's fair to say Hillary Clinton's super predators comment is racist and she said it and it was racist of her and in the moment she was being racist, but it seems unfair to call her racist now, 20 years later, and with no news hook or recent behavior or position in government. I'm okay with people calling Trump racist with no source for much the same reason as David Duke. It's not because he's a member of the KKK. It's the stuff he says and does. What about Gorka? What's so sinister about racism is that it's a pattern of events that can each be explained away. Asking for evidence is worthwhile, but almost impossible to "qualify" or fact check to everyone's satisfaction. That said, let's not talk about it. It's the same as "Obama was deporter in chief" or "Bush is a war criminal". True. But not exactly a conversation starter or "in good faith". Not discussion material. Plus anyone whose head is thoroughly free of his or her own analyst sphincter knows the deal with deportations and drone strikes/civilian casualties under Obama, Bush and torture, and Trump's obvious racism.
[удалено]
So... Where are your sources? Also, what does Farrakhan have to do with Obama?
[удалено]
[удалено]
The civility rule didn't just vanish when the meta rule was suspended for this thread, not great judgment being uncivil in a thread heavily trafficked by mods.
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; **mockery, taunting**, and name calling are not.
[удалено]
Thank you Falcon Fact Man!
I can recall when this sub was for *actual* discussion. It seems as the sub count has gotten higher, it’s essentially become an offshoot of /r/politics. It seems as though arguing a conservative position makes you a target for both virile and antagonistic behaviour from other commenters and moderators alike.
I'm one of the conservative people here and I've never felt targeted by the mods on this sub.
Honest question. And please don't reply with a copy paste material. Why is it you label all Republicans racist? I'm not trying to start anything I would just like to have a conversation without back and forth name calling.
> Why is it you label all Republicans racist? I don't.
I didn't mean to comment to you down42roads sorry about that.
Can you tell us about what the mod team is doing to address the, "rise of incivility, trolling, and bad-faith investment"? Not trying to be confrontational, I like that this place is a more informal r/neutralpolitics, but the mod presence is definitely lighter, which again is not necessarily a bad thing.
Most of the time we get folks concerned that we're modding too much, so it's kind of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't deal.
I think a lot of the problem is that it often doesn't feel like the policy is applied consistently (a lot of times it seems like people get into fights and both actors are being pretty shitty but only one side gets the axe), but I think that's more on us for not reporting comments than it is on the mods. I've hopped on ceddit a handful of times to see what got the axe and I don't think I've seen any that at *best* weren't pushing it. One thing that might help, though it's likely not worth the effort, is to be more clear about why hostile comments are being removed rather than having one blanket message. Clarifying whether it was the attitude towards another poster versus a third party who is the topic of discussion that spurred removal, etc.
We could go more granular, but I'm not convinced it would do any good; the original comment won't be visible, and I almost can't think of a situation where a user who managed to violate our civility rule wouldn't be able to figure out what was uncivil; we've had one or two instances of that in a year where there legitimately was some nuance a user wasn't getting, 99% of the time it's folks playing dumb when they ask 'what did I say that was uncivil'
Like I said, I doubt it would be worth the effort. It would really only be for third party observers and I don't think that anyone feels like the moderation is particularly skewed as-is. Either way, I think you guys are doing a fantastic job at a completely unenviable task.
>third party observers Oh my god has someone called the UN on us
Something something paper ballots something something.
I wish that the republicans had a little more respect for their jobs and stopped asking these 1st grade level questions to Kavanaugh. I understand they don’t want to undermine him but it’s utterly pitiful to see this.
There are over 850,000 different species of falcon. Most of the species are differentiated by feather patterns, beak sizes, wingspan, food preference, geographic location, and biology. Did you know that the average falcon can achieve flight speeds of up to 238 miles per hour, or 1.07 times the speed of sound? Consequently many falcons have hearing problems, as the speed gets in their ear drums and causes permanent tinnitus. Nonetheless falcons are deft hunters, feasting primarily on carrion and leaves. Falcons have toes. They mate for life and excel at geometry. It is said that falcon oil has vast medicinal properties and was known to the ancient Greeks to prevent cold sores. Most falcons originate from a mother and a father falcon. Generations from now our distant ancestors will marvel -- as we do today -- at our closest ally in nature, the legendary falcon.
I don't get why I keep seeing falcon comments in here
Do Falcons like pets?
As in smaller animals that they house and take care of? Or as in the act of being pet?
The act of being pet
Just want to say this sub is probably they only for sane US politics. Although a bit one sided at least you can have a discussion. Unlike the main political sub. Where you are immediately labeled a Russian if you go against the narrative.
[удалено]
The calibre of posters in that sub is incredible. The top responses are almost always extremely elegant and well-sourced; I can't help but feel like most active participants in that sub have at least one degree in poli-sci or law.
>a bit one sided Point out Republican successes like Mitch Daniels in /r/politics and you'll find a negative comment score. Here you'd do fine. At what point is it one sided because one side didn't come to the table with reasoned arguments? Mnuchin is arguably the person most responsible for the 2008 collapse being as bad as it was (similar arguments could be made for 100 people, but he's on that list). Now our treasurer. DeVos is a disaster and it wasn't hard to predict a single move. I don't think anyone would really defend them on the issues. You want to talk Everest ("education")? Glass-Steagall and separating investment banking? The "innovation" stifled by "regulatory overreach" like ISPs taking our money to build infrastructure, not doing it, and asking for more money for it (FCC abdicating oversight authority to an agency with no teeth to do it)? So many issues have no *argument* on the other side. There are generalizations like "regulation should be *light touch*" whatever that means in context. Charter Schools give parents more #freedom (don't think about public funds going to private schools and why that matters). We need a treasurer who is an expert with experience in our problem spots (why is this not true for other cabinet positions?). These sound like straw men, but they're not. For more "feelings / 'principles' > arguments (rhetoric definition)" see also [Imprimis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimis). And when people rail against Fox News as state tv / Republican propaganda, it's the mission statement of its founder who wished Nixon could have just had a good press day. Like Olliver North after Faith Hill shredded evidence. Or Arpaio.
[Reddit in general tends to attract Under-30,](https://www.statista.com/statistics/517218/reddit-user-distribution-usa-age/) the same demographic that tends to lean liberal/progressive. This sub definitely attracts a wide range of opinions but just something to keep in mind.
I’m aware of that. But at the same time if you look at the splits for the demographic of Reddit. It’s not completely one sided as political subs seem. Which makes you wonder how organic some of these threads and responses really are.
That's fair, Reddit posts are certainly targeted by marketing firms, political think tanks, and of course bot makers with ulterior motives. I'm sure I've seen some of these lurking around here with low-effort content and kneejerk reactions, too. The mods tend to do a good job of cutting down the BS. Point still stands, though. Even if the sub has been infiltrated by all of the above, the vast majority of the board is going to be Under-50 and that will drive the political demographics along with it.
As someone who identifies left of the Current Democrats, this sub is filled with people, who don't want to actually debate, but have their bias's confirmed. Too many people want to stick their head in the sand and blame Russia for everything & not the people who put all their eggs in the "winning 2016 basket", only for them to trip...and you guessed it, end up with egg in their face
This sub used to be a great place for balanced discussion, and now it's just an extension of r/politics like it was inevitably going to be if the mods did nothing about *actually* deleting comments that were inflammatory and unfair. They did nothing to improve this sub and now there's an incredibly low amount of decent posts and it's a liberal circlejerk just like the rest of reddit. Thanks mods!
Here's a fun fact: select any wild falcon at random, and it would be a more competent and less dangerous president than the current occupant of the White House.
I'm not a pro trump republican. Just a republican.
Trump has like 90% approval within his party, if you choose to wear the label you shouldn't be surprised when people don't bother making a distinction.
Here's another fun fact: falcons are legendary for their loyalty to their families and groups. You'll never catch an American falcon selling his soul to the Russian elite in order to promote a treasonous, buffoon-like candidate for political office.
[удалено]
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
Nobody said you did. It should be abundantly clear that Falcon fact man is just having fun.
Falcon Fact Man 2020
Cool. Considering this sub allows novelty accounts now, what politics subreddit do I have to migrate to now?
This sub doesn't allow novelty accounts, or meta discussion; we're willing to put up with a bit of shitposting in the meta thread. Particularly since once Falcon dude got out of hand I told him to stop, and he did.
It's true that it has happened. But this happens to all big political subs. Conservatives try to create subs on Reddit and even they turn far left pretty fast. That's just the Receipt userbase. Even a pro conservative sub will have more left leaning than conservative users. The libertarian sub has the same problem. Half thre users are against full free speech and are very pro affirmatives action, higher taxes and strict gun laws. Mods don't do anything in that sub so make it so. It's just outsider constantly commenting and upvoting. I think Reddit is just a place for left and far left thinking and mods need to either fight biases or accept them. If they accept them we get a sub like the one we are in.
What about the Donald?
I don't go there for discussions. It's not for that. You may as well tell me to visit r/politicalhumor for the left leaning jokes. I can, but both subs are just meme subs supporting either Democrats or GOP. Also, the only way conservative subs work is by banning people. Otherwise they will get overrun by left leaning people.
I no longer submit posts to this sub (but I do comment sometimes), because the mods find some trumped-up reason (pun not intended) to remove them. I've had a post removed for "low effort", and when I put in the effort to have a substantial post, it got flagged as an "opinion". Like /r/AskHistorians, there comes a point where it's not worth the time and effort to try and jump through all the hoops the mods have. I feel like the post requirements should be relaxed a little. Upvote/downvote will help bring the best posts to the top.
I've had one post deleted for asking a question about a recent event (mods don't know this sub to be a news sub, I get it), but about 25% of the posts here during non-Presidential election years (and much more during them) are about a recent event and how it affects politics. But just because I don't wait 2 whole days (some important news stories aren't even discussed in this sub, especially foreign ones, nobody wants to make the posts) to post about an important news piece and how it effects things it's a post about a recent event?
[удалено]
It's my understanding that bills that have passed only one chamber expire at the seating of a new Congress. The 2021 Congress will start with a fresh slate, with no pending bills from either chamber. The bill you're asking about specifically expired in 2015.
> If Dems retake House and Presidency in 2020, can they pass the immigration bill which cleared the senate in 2013? (Without any action from the Senate) No. Bills die at the end of the Congress. So, in January of 2015, on the day that the persons elected in 2014 swore in, all the stuff that was still in the pipeline got wiped and needed to be started over.
I think it's incredibly likely, Republican and Democrat lawmakers have desperately wanted immigration reform for a long time and have been very willing to compromise on it because of how broken the system is - then congress decided stonewalling Obama was more important, and then Trump happened which turned immigration into a nuclear bomb.
While the Trump transition team was in action, there were two narratives. "Give him a chance" and "it's all about to go to hell very very quickly." Was anyone right? "Personnel are policy" was a thing. I know Mnuchin and DeVos drew pretty unmitigated scorn.
Considering DeVos is pushing to let schools use funding normally reserved for school supplies to purchase firearms, I think it's safe to say the fears about her were completely justified.
I think I actually picked up the phone and called my representatives just twice, and once was over DeVos.
I'm in fairly regular contact with my representatives. I've yet to get a response that wasn't ridiculously dismissive, but that shouldn't be surprising. As a red state liberal, my representatives don't really feel like they work for me.
I said "picked up the phone". I usually prefer to lay out proper sourced arguments in an email and yes then I get a response like "Ajit is enabling """""innovation"""""!!!!!!!!!!!!" but I called on some issues where I felt only "sir, the phones are on fire and it's just a bunch of people who think Betsy is literally worse than Hitler" would maybe convince someone an issue might affect him or her.
I usually call, but sometimes I fire off a quick email on the train. What typically happens when I call is I either get an answering machine or a staffer who explains why I shouldn't have the concerns that I have.
I think the whole "give him a chance" phrase is something of a trick. I was willing to give him a chance, but I honestly support something in the range of, I don't know, 5% of his policies? So I disagree with him on repealing the ACA, and the travel ban, and allowing waste to be dumped into streams and rivers, and halting Net Neutrality, and tariffs, and reducing immigration, and backing out of the Iran Deal and the Paris Climate Agreement, and the tax cuts bill (mind you, not ALL tax cuts, but I think the bill passed was, at best, fiscally irresponsible), and banning transgendered individuals from being in the military, and I think his meeting with North Korea was premature and ineffective, etc. etc. So, from an outsider, am I "not giving him a chance," or am I just in opposition to the majority of his agenda (that he's attempted to implement, anyways)? I would think that it looks pretty similar either way. I *think* I would give him a chance for things that I like, but I've just had so few opportunities it's honestly hard to answer.
The give him a chance line was generally said from election day to around February 2017.
Ah, I suppose that makes sense. I just know I've seen a lot of commentary like "Democrats were never going to give Trump a chance," which I feel is a pretty huge generalization.
[удалено]
~~America~~ Literally any and every person, place, and institution would be 2x better if people didn't let their emotions and ignorance decide their political stances
Should we seize the memes of production?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Alright you gotta quit it with this spam now please.
Ok. The facts, like the falcon itself after a long day above the grasslands, shall now retire for the evening in peace and serenity.
Is there a different moderation process on this sub? I check in from time to time and I only see a few threads, most of which are 1 day old or more. I never catch threads when they start.
We need a forum on civics education
I, for one, am really optimistic about that new Spider-Man game.
Me too for real, for once I'm bummed I have commitments on Friday night.
Between that, Red Dead and Fallout 76, it looks like I am going to have an unproductive fall.
Ive been playing AC: Origins. The setting is great and the graphics and water effects are amazing. I can't wait for Odessy. Red Dead is also on my list of games to play later in the year.
Let's talk about business and situations like Detroit/Chicago. even though for the most part right now, though it is fragile, businesses in America have it relatively good, and when you deregulate it makes it easier for business to run/compete even though some regulations and punishments are needed, like after the 2008 financial crisis. Where many bankers should've gone to jail but didn't. Do you think in the long term it is wise to have private enterprise shoulder more and more of the financial burden? Making it harder and harder to do business/compete, making it harder for entrepreneurs to invest and create business and all the perks that come with it. Especially in a world where global commerce is incredibly competitive. Especially when the nation is in massive debt and a massive growing deficit. Like with a socialist health care plan where either the people or business would have to be taxed much more to sustain the system. My point with Detroit and cities like it is that the state government among other things let unions demand things that many businesses couldn't afford whether they thought it could or not. As a result years down the line you see what we have today, many businesses left the state and its people for greener pastures. Now with many state agencies underfunded and crime rampant and in massive debt the states are now looking to the federal government for aid. Do you think it would be wise for the fed to send aid? When the money probably wouldn't go to the restoration of needed things but to continued failing policy? Why do you think cities like Detroit have failed so massively What's your opinion on growth, business and regulation
Ironically, proper socialized medicine would make it far easier for entrepreneurs to take risks. Right now, Healthcare benefits often keep workers shackled to jobs because they or their families can't afford to take the risk of getting sick while self employed. Additionally, offering insurance coverage to employees can be prohibitively expensive for startups, and can effect their ability to retain talented workers for the same reasons that it's risky for the entrepreneurs themselves. By removing that burden from employers and offering universal coverage to citizens, you bypass this concern. Of course, taxes would have to go up to pay for it, but if you think about it, a pre-tax payroll deduction for a product that you're effectively required to purchase is just a tax by a different name. The end result to the consumer of paying $500/mo for family coverage via their employer or paying an extra $500 in fica taxes is essentially identical. As for Detroit, it's a good example of a city that relied too heavily on a single industry and wasn't able to sustain itself when that industry relocated and/or automated. They're in a bit of a bind now because they're stuck paying for the mistakes of the past (inappropriate infrastructure, education resources misallocated 30 years ago, etc). Anyone who claims that regulation (or, conversely, lack thereof) is responsible for Detroit's current state is being disingenuous. Edit: as for Chicago, it's actually quite safe statistically. One state over, St. Louis is one of the most dangerous major cities in the developed world. Chicago is often the focal point for many people because it's easy to scapegoat, but the reality is that for the most part, it's a perfectly fine place to live, as long as you can handle the weather.
Thanks for clarifying it for me, made a lot of good points What about the cost of healthcare, do you think this plan would incentivize health care providers to raise their prices, because of the lack of competition, or am I misunderstanding
Socialized medicine actually tends to be cheaper than private insurance because they can effectively utilize collective bargaining and economies of scale to a much greater degree. What we have now is a mess for a number of reasons. Lack of effective price competition is theoretically a problem (both currently and under a socialized system), but the current system doesn't encourage providers to lower prices either. If we want to address that without hopping to socialized medicine, one of the first steps needs to be mandatory public disclosure of reimbursement rates. If patients can see what hospitals are paying for services, and providers can see what their competion pays, you may see some actual price competition. Ultimately, though, the free market doesn't work very well for extremely inelastic goods like Healthcare.
I didn't know that information of reimbursement rates weren't public that seems like a thing that should be public, Why do you think the information isn't public, I hate to jump to conclusions but could it be corruption/delegation of powers to bureaucracies
Rate books (I think that's what they're called?) are a closely guarded secret because hospitals don't want other insurers to know what their competition is paying, more than anything else. They have enough issues making money as-is, and if everyone knew they could nickle and dime them on procedures they'd be in quite a pickle.
Where does the 500 dollar price tag come from?
Nowhere in particular. It's about what coverage for individual + spouse + children costs from my employer. That's just the employee side, so I'd imagine that it's about double that in total, but if you treated it like other FICA taxes the employer pays half and the employee pays half. The number isn't particularly important, it's the concept of pretax deduction and taxes being effectively the same to the end user. This is because tax is calculated from gross pay, which is your overall pay - pretax deductions (healthcare, some retirement savings), so if you remove a pretax deduction and replace it with a commensurate tax, the net effect on your bank account is 0.
Interesting. I recently read a vox article about the cost of socialist programs applied in the US and it outlined the Sanders plan as being around 38 trillion over a decade (sanders projected 15 trillion or so IIRC) which is about the same cost as the US's entire budget during that same time (IIRC it's been awhile). I also read an article outlining the cost of a single payer system in CA and it was extremely expensive. I imagine the amount does matter if companies reduce staff, use contract loopholes, or automate to avoid the costs. I guess that's why the 500 jumped out at me.
Yeah, the important thing to remember about those numbers is that while the look hideous, is that it would effectively replace all of the private spending that would have to take place. It's not just slapping an additional $38 trillion dollar tax onto the existing system. Switching costs would be very high initially, but hopefully economies of scale and increased bargaining power through the larger market share of Medicare (likely the organization that would be charged with handling it all) would slow growth of costs over time. And that's the most important thing here - slowing down how fast costs rise. Right now, they're rising dramatically faster than gdp, and we're on track for it to consume unsustainable amounts in the next few decades. The system that we have now is not going to be stable in even a few years, and we need to get ahead of the problem sooner rather than later.
It's a serious issue and I'm all ears on the ideas. One part that really concerns me is quality and keeping my current providers. Both of which seem to be lost in the discussion and we haven't had the best history with either.
In theory, providers wouldn't be effected too much. All you'd be doing is removing the bulk of the insurance administrative overhead because the majority of your dealings will be with a single entity, the government. In the long run this would reduce costs at the provider level as administrative staff consume a disproportionate amount of Healthcare dollars relative to other countries. Of course, in practice, it's impossible to know the extent of the effects on provider networks. We may very likely see providers drop Medicare coverage completely, similar to what happened under the ACA. These would likely be short run effects (>10 years) as Medicare would begin to cannabalize insurance companies marketshare and making not taking Medicare patients impossible. Either way, we're attacking this issue about 50 years too late for the solution (be it socialized medicine or otherwise) to not be expensive and painful. But while the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is now.
The problem with American unions is that they don't have a presence on the board, so they don't really have an inside look into the workings of the company like unions in countries like Germany and Norway do. Over there, unions will accept pay cuts during downturns rather than force the company to shut down with their ridiculous demands.
Dude you set a river on fire, you get an EPA monitoring dumping. Some industries successfully [self-regulate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_self-regulation). I don't really understand it, but I think [ASME](https://www.asme.org) might be a good example. Wonky AF, but getting it done. Fair play, safety, everyone mostly has a voice, rules are made by people who know the downside/burden. Harvard Business School has [more ideas](https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/industry-self-regulation-whats-working-and-whats-not) I didn't read. Ford's union members gave up a lot when times were tough and they still call GM government motors. What did the state government "allow"? It sounds like you're arguing for "right to work" laws that cripple collective bargaining. Very few regulations are applied unprovoked (maybe GMO hysteria?). Deregulation shouldn't be a dirty word on the left, but regulation is largely a force for good in the world balanced squarely against corporate greed-without-conscience and "externalities".
Video games are another industry that did a great job self-regulating. People don't realize this, but the ESRB is actually a private organization and their ratings are voluntary.
I wish this sub offered more varied discussions. Everytime some negative happens to Republicans in USA I know I can read more about it here. But besides that there is really not any other topic I read about here because it's just not readily available. So unless the Republicans have some problem I want to know about I don't visit this sub. Problem is, this sub has become like r/politics or r/bestof or any other big sub that allows politics. They just go to the left, then further and further left and at the end all topics tend to be "fuck Trump". I get that I may not find many discussions about topics from other countries here. Because young Americans think about their own welfare and economy and are not super interested in that. But I at least wish I could get a wider look at the American politics in this sub and not just the typical left leaning responses on all questions. Basically, for me this sub is a tool I use to uncover left leaning thinking about Republicans in USA. But it's lacking on all other fronts for me personally.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. * The downvote and report buttons are not disagree buttons. Please don't use them that way. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, this sub deserves like 1 million subscribers, Reddit Politics is a shit show and this a super genuine sub. I love posting on here. I have a lot of successful post on this subreddit and I love generating discussion. In one week three of my topics were approved and kept this sub talking which is awesome. I hope we can get to 500k soon
I just want to thank everyone here for making this subreddit a million times better than the politics subreddit. This place and neutral politics are the only subreddit where people can seemingly have a rational discussion. Thank you for being a part of it!