I thought that was crazy. My wife was like, “nah, he do shit like that “.

What is comfort? Is it similar to discomfort? Because discomfort is the best case scenario. A lot of times it is just pain.

New Odium is very scary to me. He outsmarted Wit (and I believe might have made him start going crazy if he released all his memories).

And Moash is the worst.

!delta While I find the way that we evaluate the quality of president questionable, I respect that: 1. No president is without faults. 2. The significance of the crisis awards more leniency. 3. Evaluating past decisions with today’s moral lens is generally not appropriate. However, internment remains reprehensible. 4. Most presidents that would have been successful would have engaged in other similarly bad behaviors.

While I still believe that we praise FDR far too much, I’ll settle that he wasn’t a black mark in American history. Any mistakes he made at the time were magnified by the crisis. It does not excuse them, but it is not sufficient to vilify him.

There is a lot of fear mongering out there. There is a lot on the right that feel that Trump has hijacked their party and is a walking embarrassment to their beliefs.

He is a bitter and selfish old man that created a fad in the party. It will end when he is gone. At least I hope.

I suppose the list would be quite short. I think my issue is less that he was a terrible president when compared to others, and more that he is at the very least something we should not be proud of. I take issue with him being rated so highly.

It feels to me like people have condemned every president since the 2000s with the same breath that they revere FDR. It feels…insincere maybe?

I’m no historian, so I inevitably missed some things.

It’s interesting if the metric for a great president is how bad a time did the president manage to get us through. It would mean that the presidents who preserved peace and prevented disasters would go rather unappreciated.

That saying is worrisome to me. Who defines desperate? Do we lose all checks and balances when times get bad? Germany was desperate during their depression. They wound up with Hitler. America was pretty desperate during COVID some could argue.

Setting that precedent that rules go out the window or can at the very least be bent when times get tough open you up to bad actors down the road.

I guess it is a matter of perspective. Was a rogue president grabbing too much power? Or was the court being unreasonable?

If the first, then the president posed a huge risk. If the second, then the system worked as intended.

Though I suppose there is an opportunity for both to be true at the same time.

Literally said “I’m not saying he was a fascist dictator”.

The government has a system of checks and balances for a reason. My problem here is that he was setting it up to dismantle SCOTUS’s ability to check his power. And should he have succeeded in doing this, any subsequent president would have felt empowered to do the same. To this day, presidents hesitate to pack the court for fear of setting this precedent.

One of my concerns here is that even if he was a completely benevolent actor, he strove to create a position so powerful a less kind person could abuse a presidential term or two later.

Started with FDR because despite the egregious overreach with internments, he is still among the most revered. I’m not saying any other American president has gone without fault, but I feel there is a lot overlooked with FDR. Like America is proud of his leadership and presidency despite actions that would get a president vilified today.

I specifically referenced Nixon as one with fascist policies and actions. He, at least, gets the condemnation that is deserved. While I don’t want to speak on Trump for fear this will become a Trump debate (and nearly every comment I’ve made has been downvoted to hell as it is), there was clearly decisions made during his term that have made him deserving of his reputation.

Not just the fact that there was a draft, but the draft occurred before war was declared. There was also not a ton of support for going to war in Europe.

War in Japan would be fair considering the attack on Pearl Harbor. But he was gearing up to join the war effort in Europe despite no provocation.

Good point. I fear I may have gone with the “I know it when I see it” approach. In general, I look for consolidation of power, exploiting of rules or lack thereof to gain more power, misleading their constituents to gain additional support, nationalization of private entities, and use of force beyond what is necessary. Race and identity based decision making is also an indicator. Especially if it is used to generate fear or divide people in a way that can get them more power. I’m not one however to throw around the term “fascist” lightly. I don’t view it so much on a left vs right spectrum. I see it more in terms of authoritarianism.

For example, and grant me that I know that this is unconfirmed, Nixon allegedly wanted to criminalize marijuana to get “blacks and hippies” arrested with felonies and lose their rights to vote against him. I would consider that to be outrageous and an indicator of fascism should it be true. Andrew Jackson refusing to enforce the SCOTUS ruling against removal of native Americans would also be fascist. Though I also acknowledge that policies that align with fascism does not make one fascist by itself.

Presidents that have had the opportunity to take additional power but have actively avoided it for fear of starting precedent or consolidating power in the executive branch I find to be a good sign they are not fascist. Presidents who have actively avoided war I consider to be a good sign as well.

These policies are certainly popular. Other posts have established that. I believe however, that they are more politically feasible than you think.

Universal Healthcare: We have Medicare and the VA. Both of which are effectively insurance paid provided by the government. People complain about them for sure, but people are largely glad they exist.

Massachusetts has RomneyCare. That was passed by a Republican and was the basis for Obamacare. A Republican did that. McCain had the opportunity to kill ObamaCare and didn’t. Granted, the republicans got hijacked and their opinions have drastically changed over the years, but I think they can change back just as fast.

I could see a young, energetic democrat jumping in over the next decade or two and passing an early Medicare for all, or even just a federal major medical coverage. If the republicans see the pendulum swing again, it wouldn’t surprise me if the right even comes up with it.

I think Universal Healthcare in America is a political inevitability.

Free College: The left’s voting base has shifted from minorities, immigrants, and laborers to college educated white women. Biden came astoundingly close to some degree of debt forgiveness. Now, there is a degree of regressiveness in free college. Most of the benefits would go to people getting college education and likely earning more money. There is also a number practical issues here. Colleges only have so much space, prices will increase on the government once more people go to school, fewer people getting into trades will create a labor shortage in some areas, free college might steer people away from productive degrees, more degrees will lessen the value of a degree, and more. I think loan and debt reform is likely to occur within 10-20 years. I think fully free college will take longer. I would argue that once universal healthcare is passed, dominoes will start falling to get US services lined up with European ones.

Both HC and Free College are very popular among millennials, so I’d argue one the Boomers actually retire from the legislature, we will see interest in this increase notably.

UBI: This one will take a long time, but it is still reasonably likely within the century. Is there a precedent? Not at a large scale. I believe Europe would have to spearhead it before the US would even consider it. However, Andrew Yang really shined a spotlight on it. I suspect this will be seen as the golden goose in solving wealth inequality as well. I think that Social Security is popular enough amongst the republicans and democrats that there is a precedent for politicians to find fixed income payments to masses of Americans. The Covid Stimulus was popular, and the Child Tax Credits are both variations of UBI. The Earned Income Credit and the Negative Income Tax were brainchildren of right wing economists. We may have to wait for Gen Z to start dominating congress be for any of this happens though. Personally, I would like to see UBI replace social security. Though I might be by myself on that.

Other policies: Gun control: maybe some aspects of gun control are feasible, but I think most things that might pass would be blocked by courts. This is also where America being a big and diverse country would make most types of gun control infeasible. Labor laws: European style labor laws regarding hours worked, time off, and parental leave are very possible and likely. The fact that Europe can do it without devastating consequences is proof that these policies work. It might also help the birth rate crisis that we are coming into. I feel like European level union membership is less likely to happen in America. Climate policies: very likely to happen internally, but full global participation is unlikely (developing countries will prefer wealth to carbon neutrality). I think that the left will have to embrace nuclear. I think that laws that support ecology will be easier to pass than carbon laws because the effects are more obvious and republicans are more likely to get behind them.

Basically, all of the policies you mentioned and then some more are likely to be passed to some degree or another within 50 years rather than 100. One caveat is that this is largely assuming that the US maintains this financial position or has an improving one.

It needs to be roasted. It’s raw.

If you are exceeding the speed of sound, your movement will be very loud. Keep just below the sound barrier to be less traceable. Zig zag as much as you can to be less predictable. Long term, you’ll probably want to seek asylum in Russia. If the US wants you dead, Russia definitely wants you alive.

Move education all the way to the bottom. You’re in the financial industry in some way or another, Excel needs to be on there.

Your resume sounds like the bullshit consultants say to make them sound impressive but really means nothing.

Remove leadership and volunteering. It makes you look like a student. Especially with education at the top. Replace it with specific projects that display technical or sales skills.

Remove anything that ends before 2020. Only including professional jobs will go a long way towards making you look like a professional.

Some white space is okay if you don’t fill it up. Just make it look intentional.

Your jobs basically sound like a salesman of sorts. This resume is not selling yourself. It is too jargon heavy for people to understand, the priorities are jumbled, and it kinda makes you look inexperienced. Also, I have no idea what you are looking for. If you’re handing your resume out for recruiters to keep on file, having a brief (one to two sentence) objective statements at the top with desired job titles may be helpful. Though opinions are mixed on that.

Definitely still used. I reckon it will continue to be used for a while.

Vin wins. The only thing that Elend is notably better at than Vin is emotional allomancy. Though Vin is better at strategically manipulating individual emotions, Elend can assault all of the emotions with raw power.

And if Elend takes control of any Kolos, Vin would be in trouble. But under most circumstances, Vin wins. She is better at using Pewter, rationing metals, movement in general, and has great critical thinking skills in battle.

Vin wins 9/10 times.

I’m not great at lying. But due to my body language difficulties, I am also bad at telling the truth. So when I am in a position to tell the truth, I am often accused of lying. But when I lie (when it really really matters), I mask a lot harder, so people who don’t know me believe me a little more.

Sometimes I wonder.

It has been a long time since the budget was balanced (Clinton). Since then, deficits have been escalating. Sometimes for war, or to combat a recession, or to finance a pandemic recovery. Other times running deficits can just improve some economic measures. A lot of it is just politics.

The surplus/deficit is simply Revenue - expenses (or expenditures which are different in governmental accounting). So increasing revenues and decreasing expenses is the straightforward answer.

Increasing revenues seems straightforward - increase tax rates. But if you increase tax rates too much, you may actually decrease revenues (Laffer Curve). And no one knows the optimal tax rates. Most would agree that it would be higher than today’s rates, but how much higher? And every income group might have a different optimum.

There are a lot of ways to cut expenses. Politically, it can be difficult though. Some politicians devote their careers to funding one thing or another, so they will be resistant to their things being cut. There are opportunities, but I can’t say which are politically feasible. I will not even pretend to be an expert in politics.

A realistic alternate solution would be for the debt to devalue over time. If the debt grows slower than the US GDP, the debt to GDP ratio would improve. Since Revenues are generally correlated with GDP, the percentage of our revenues that debt service will require would also theoretically go down. The total debt balance will continue to rise, but it would be “less of a problem”.

Similarly, inflation can devalue debt. The debt balance and interest on the existing debt will remain constant (until refinanced), but the value of those dollars will be less. For example, if the debt was one billion dollars in 1910, we might have been panicking. But if that balance remained to today, it would not be worth much compared to the governments total revenues. So if the debt balances grow slower than inflation, even if the economy doesn’t grow at all, the revenues will grow (in nominal terms), but the debt payments will not grow as fast. So again, it will be “less of a problem”. Though inflation, especially unexpected, has economic consequences.

The debt is one of those things that economics and politics get very entangled. So it is hard to answer strictly from an economics perspective without a lot of speculation.

It sounds like it has a reasonable view. Not every side is correct on every issue. It sounds like it is taking a moderate stance.

I’m a right leaning libertarian. I trust the government just slightly less than I trust mega corporations.

But my views are all over the spectrum.

Very pro gun. (Very Right leaning)

I think we should work towards the same labor regs as Europe. At least a little. Support the ADA. (Left leaning, though the left hasn’t been pushing for this much)

Very anti tax. Unless it pays for something very specific that is cheaper than private. (Independent or libertarian; arguably right too)

Pro free healthcare. See above. (Left leaning)

Open to UBI. See above. (Far left leaning)

Very anti social security. It pisses me off that I am paying into a retirement fund that I will probably never see. I’m fine with required retirement saving in a 401k. In your own account with your own investments. Or an opt out for social security in favor of a 401k. Or replace SS with a UBI. See above. (Mostly right and libertarian. Some aspects of left)

Get rid of all government decision making with benefits. Replace with UBI (see above). (Libertarian/right with potential for left leaning with UBI)

Break monopolies. Ban private equity from purchasing competitors in the same industry. (Arguably left leaning; though the left has been relatively silent on this lately)

I generally hate administrative agencies. Especially when they make rules rather than just enforcing them. Especially the ATF. (Right leaning)

Pro trade. (Libertarian only. Both sides are largely trying to restrict trade).

Mostly pro choice. (Left)

Very mixed opinions on unions. (Arguably more left; thought the left has been surprising anti labor lately; right in some cases)

Cut the military substantially. (Libertarian/Independent; both parties have been doing the opposite)

Do not trust the police. I recognize the need, but the courts trust them too much, and they have too much discretion. (Left and libertarian)

Hate the prison system. It would be cheaper to reform and better for society. (Left)

Eliminate lobbying. Term limits. (Literally everyone but big business and politicians support this)

Ranked Choice voting. (Basically everyone supports election reform)

Balanced budget is very important to me (libertarian; used to say the right, but that ended after HW Bush. Now both major parties are drinking the Keynesian kool aid.)

Support cap and trade policies for pollution (some on the left support this). Support tariffs on highly pollutive countries. (Left and maybe green)

Support taxing plastics, chemical fertilizer, and pesticides. Ecology is a bigger priority than straight carbon. A strong ecology can be controlled ourselves. Carbon has a lot of global implications. (Basically no party has this platform)

Desire breaking up big agriculture, want to regulate factory farms to ethically raise livestock, limit chemicals used in agriculture, support alternate farming methods like aquaponics to help conserve water out west. (Green Party mostly)

Pro alternate energy (left). Especially nuclear (right). Okay with oil drilling and fracking, but companies need to compensate locals for the environmental damage handsomely (modified right).

Unfortunately, to get policies passed that I care about, I have to vote for parties that are against other things I care about. Or vote for a party with no chance of winning. Gotta love America. Happy fourth!