Random political thought thread.

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Holy shit, Tom MacDonald's music fucking SUUUCKS.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Fantano looks kind of like Artie Bucco from the Sopranos.

 

[Burning Paradigm]

When all this is said and done, there is little doubt in my mind Joe Biden will be the 46th President of the United States. What I'm concerned about is the stupid and dangerous precedents this last month and next month and a half will set. It's fine up until recounts and audits in close states. I get that. But, wasting taxpayers' money in continued frivolous lawsuits after the results are confirmed or certified is the least of the potential fuckery this could encourage.

 

[The Cat]

This is pretty on point

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[ceecee]

When all this is said and done, there is little doubt in my mind Joe Biden will be the 46th President of the United States. What I'm concerned about is the stupid and dangerous precedents this last month and next month and a half will set. It's fine up until recounts and audits in close states. I get that. But, wasting taxpayers' money in continued frivolous lawsuits after the results are confirmed or certified is the least of the potential fuckery this could encourage.

All that needs to be said is - You lost. Go away. I have no idea why anyone cares what Republicans have to say, regardless of the topic, at this point.

 

[Burning Paradigm]

All that needs to be said is - You lost. Go away. I have no idea why anyone cares what Republicans have to say, regardless of the topic, at this point.

I never said I care about what they have to say. I care about the groundwork they're setting for potentially worse damage in the future.

 

[Tater]

Former Presidents Act - Wikipedia.

Former Presidents Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The Former Presidents Act (known also as FPA; 3 U.S.C. § 102)[1] is a 1958 U.S. federal law that provides several lifetime benefits to former presidents of the United States who have not been removed from office.[2]


Contents
1 History
2 Current status
2.1 Pension
2.2 Transition
2.3 Staff and office
2.4 Medical insurance
2.5 Secret Service protection
3 See also
4 References
History
Before 1958, the U.S. federal government provided no pension or other retirement benefits to former United States presidents. Andrew Carnegie offered to endow a US$25,000 (equal to $662,328 today) annual pension for former Chief Executives in 1912, but congressmen questioned the propriety of such a private pension. That prompted legislation to provide benefits to former presidents.[2]

When the Former Presidents Act took effect, there were two living former presidents: Herbert Hoover and Harry S. Truman. Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first president to fall under the act upon leaving office.

The original act provided for a lifetime Secret Service protection for former presidents. In 1994, protection was reduced to 10 years for presidents taking office after 1997. This protection limitation was reversed in early 2013 by Pub.L. 112–257 (text) (pdf) also known as the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012.[3]

All living former presidents and their spouses after Dwight D. Eisenhower are now entitled to receive lifetime Secret Service protection.[4]

Current status
By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection.

Pension
The Secretary of the Treasury pays a taxable pension to the president. Former presidents receive a pension equal to the pay that the head of an executive department (Executive Level I) would be paid; as of 2020, it is $219,200 per year.[5] The pension begins immediately after a president's departure from office.[6] A former president's spouse may also be paid a lifetime annual pension of $20,000 if they relinquish any other statutory pension.[2]

Transition
Transition funding for the expenses of leaving office is available for seven months. It covers office space, staff compensation, communications services, and printing and postage associated with the transition.[2]

Staff and office
Private office staff and related funding is provided by the Administrator of the General Services Administration. People employed under this subsection are selected by and responsible only to the former president for the performance of their duties. Each former president fixes basic rates of compensation for persons employed for them, not exceeding an annualized total of $150,000 for the first 30 months and $96,000 thereafter.[2]

Medical insurance
Former presidents are entitled to medical treatment in military hospitals; they pay for this at interagency rates set by the Office of Management and Budget. Two-term presidents may buy health insurance under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.[2]

Secret Service protection
From 1965 to 1996, former presidents were entitled to lifetime Secret Service protection, for themselves, spouses, and children under 16. A 1994 statute, Pub.L. 103–329, limited post-presidential protection to ten years for presidents inaugurated after January 1, 1997.[7] Under this statute, Bill Clinton would still be entitled to lifetime protection, and all subsequent presidents would have been entitled to ten years of protection.[8] On January 10, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012, reinstating lifetime Secret Service protection for his predecessor George W. Bush, himself, and all subsequent presidents.[9]

Richard Nixon relinquished his Secret Service protection in 1985, the only president to do so.[10]

 

[Burning Paradigm]

Noticing the whole lizard conspiracy vibe.

The only problem with globalisation is that its corporate sponsored globalisation and the alternative, a popular globalisation, would be worthwhile. Its basically what internationalism was to early republicans, liberals, socialists etc.

Corporate sponsored globalism is a kind of imperialism without states or nationalistic markings.

I recommend looking into the work of Turkish economist Dani Rodrik. He describes the paradox of globalization as we know it (as you described it, corporate-sponsored) the best. Basically, current globalization entrenches class divides and favors skilled workers who can take advantage of cross-border demand over those who cannot.

Dani Rodrik - Wikipedia

 

[Lark]

Why are those anarchists so different to the ones I know?

 

[Lark]

I recommend looking into the work of Turkish economist Dani Rodrik. He describes the paradox of globalization as we know it (as you described it, corporate-sponsored) the best. Basically, current globalization entrenches class divides and favors skilled workers who can take advantage of cross-border demand over those who cannot.

Dani Rodrik - Wikipedia

Dont think I've heard of him, I did a thesis for a Masters on this topic.

Wallerstein's world systems theory I think is still a good one, you may not have heard of him or his theory but if you've ever used the words "first world" or "third world" that is on him.

There is another globalism theorist but I cant recall them right now, their main point was about the decline of the state relative to a private Transnational Capitalist Class who were effectiveless "stateless", they also theorized transnational corporations before that become passe, there is some new title for them now, the was in which those corporate entities work, buying other businesses, having diverse portfolios which do not reflect what the public may think is their "business" or which are "off brand" for them, had a lot to do with it too.

These organizations can, in some ways, challenge the authorities of some states, easily, which was essentially Hayek and Mise's point about why private power could never amount to private tyranny in quite the same way states could because states were the ultimate player or patron. If you consider "corporate dumping" in the third world, disguised as charity work, these business entities can act in ways that have been outlawed to states for a long time, or which would probably result in armed confrontations where it the action of states.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Hmm ....

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[The Cat]

[MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION]

 

[The Cat]

 

[Jaguar]

.

Who dressed this asshole?

 

[Tater]

.

Who dressed this asshole?

Probably some sadistic psychopath. LOL

 

[Jaguar]

Some sadistic psychopath. LOL

That means he dressed himself.

 

[The Cat]