Noisy Creek is a changin':

Now its not the war on cars anymore. It's a good guy with a pick-up.

Now its not the war on guns anymore. It's a good guy with a gun.

"The Mass Shooting that Wasn’t:" Apparently cars and guns can be used for good win the world.

Whether used for good or bad, studies show 100% correlation with humans, not the objects.

Well, I'm a little disappointed that our President has chosen to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. I am fully supportive of Israel bombing Iran into the stone age, but this wasn't our war to get involved in. Let's pray this is a one-and-done event.

The Democrat party did lose the election because they shifted too far left. But please totally ignore my opinion and keep doing your thing Democrats. The Republican party has never been so strong and united.

Thank you to all the Corporations who are ready to get back to June as just another month to do business. This year one could easily have forgotten Pride Month exists given the lack of corporate support. It's been great buying coffee or lunch without seeing rainbow flags everywhere and the lack of virtue signaling emails from HR is much appreciated.

@1 You're nothing if not consistent at shaking your fist at clouds.

"She’s argued that Dems don’t need to drastically change their message or positions to win elections, they just have to improve how they communicate with voters."

This is a perfect illustration of the Iron Law of Institutions -- telling the DNC "the problem isn't that your positions are unpopular, it's just that you just didn't communicate them enough" will allow you to advance your career within the DNC while contributing to the DNC's declining fortunes.

Anecdotal gotchas from someone claiming not to be myopic is good stuff. Anyway, time for another episode of "there's definitely WMDs and no other unstated reason for us to meddle over there" with the good old US of A. I hate reboots.

"Let’s get some stop signs and speed bumps so Jung can stop dragging cars out of her backyard please?"

What happens when people ignore those things? IN THE STRANGER'S WORLD, NOTHING!

It's because The Stranger isn't calling for High Visibility Enforcement, which requires cops to pull over and identify drivers. NHTSA studies show HVE reduces:

Incorrect usage or not wearing a seat belt for adults and older children
Incorrect usage or not using a booster or car seat for younger children and infants
Distracted driving, in particular, cell phone usage
Alcohol-impaired driving
Speeding
Aggressive driving

https://www.ghsa.org/news/research-confirms-roadway-safety-benefits-traffic-enforcement
https://kustomsignals.com/blog/is-high-visibility-enforcement-effective

Follow the data.

@2, So said Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938. So said the U.S. voters and FDR until December 7, 1941.

Rather than dealing with dictators and forcibly enforcing treaty violations when they were still weak, we waited until they were stronger.

Acting early, we, or even just France alone, could have marched to Berlin with a few enhanced divisions, and deaths in the thousands. The Western Allies waited until Germany and other axis powers were strong. It cost over 250,000 American dead in Europe alone and over 50 million dead worldwide by waiting.

@6 You might be the most tedious person on the internet. Congrats.

@4, The Stranger is vociferous and effective in communicating those positions.

The better they get at it, the more working class voters in red Senate states, and red Congressional Districts are told by candidates, "Progressives in Seattle (Boston, NYC, San Francisco, et. al., aren't content to have that just there. It's coming soon to this state and this district unless you vote red."

It's a winning message to those voters that is driving red shift among working class voters, Hispanics, Blacks, and other groups that have historically been reliably Democrat.

So if the message of The Stranger is so effective in driving more Congressional Districts and States red, while allowing a MAGA candidate to win the popular vote, why double down on it? If those policies and messages that The Stranger brings don't conform well to reality, and don't win voters over, why does The Stranger insist on hold to those positions?

@2:

Asking us to ignore your opinion is perhaps the most, if not the only, sensible thing you've ever posted on The SLOG...

@5, There is no use of 60% enriched uranium for a peaceful civilian nuclear program. Uranium enriched to that level can't be used for electricity generation, or for medical imaging. Just the enrichment to that level shows intent to develop nuclear weapons. There is no other useful reason to enrich to that level.

The enrichment cycle to get from 60% to 95% (weapons grade) is one to two months depending on the knowledge and equipment of the enriching party. With already 60% enriched uranium it makes it much either to do the final steps covertly and at many small, distributed locations.

By the time they get a bomb, its too late. You want Israel and the Gulf States to be forced to take accept that existential risk?

@8, That wasn't a factual refutation of the linked studies and research.

People with information on their side use it. Those that don't deflect or change the subject.

I don’t know what stories everyone else just read but I see one about cars being a menace to public safety and another about a person who would never have access to guns in a sane country coming close to killing a bunch of people only to traumatize them for life instead

NotMyopic dear, what an odd little world you live in. For starters, the SPD is still too butthurt to do traffic stops (thank God). They'd rather hide in their little bat cave on 4th Ave S and feel sorry for themselves.

And sorry your boy trump let you down, but you really do need to stop being so very naive.

Lastly, that 34 million that Stinky Granpa isn't sending our way has to be paid somehow (that's how it works in the real world). Expect some higher electric bills in the next year or so.

Whether progressive or mainstream, I've lost hope that the Democrats could ever do anything effective against Trump, or anything else for that matter. We have a bunch of go-along-to-get-along do-nothing congress members around here, putting in their time and collecting on their stock investments. They disgust me.

"The DNC has been doing some soul searching, and some people in the party (cough Adam Smith) have argued that we lost the last election because the Democratic Party has shifted oh-so-far left. "

The criticism is not that the Democratic Party has shifted too far left on economic issues, it is that the Democratic Party has abandoned economic issues entirely and is focused solely on cultural issues.

Ask most people to define the Democratic Party's policies and you will hear a mishmash of issues all cultural (LGBTQ Issues, reproductive issues, equity issues). We've somehow allowed ourselves to be defined by issues that have extremely little economic impact on the majority of Americans.

Additionally we are branded as the soft on crime party. We are seen as caring more about violent criminals than those criminals' victims. The horrible irony is that the people most impacted by crime are the people at the lowest economic levels. Poor people are more likely to be victims of crime, more likely to live in crime ridden neighborhoods, and least capable of recovering from those crimes. Yet we have Progressive District Attorney's like Alvin Bragg, Leessa Manion, Chesa Boudin who bend over backwards to "reform" the criminals, rather than remove them from the communities they prey upon.

If we want to have a chance at reclaiming the House in the midterms we need to change the perception that the party cares more about cultural issues than economic ones.

@12 It was a fact, nonetheless.

Trump will fix it.

@13, What OBJECTIVE test, that wiil withstand a 14th Amendment legal challenge would you suggest be used?

The science of mental health is clear. Psychiatrists and Psychologists can't predict who among the mentally ill wiil resort to violence. There professional and trade associations lobby against efforts to give them legal authority to do so.

The data actually shows that people without mental illness are statistically more likely to engage in acts of violence.

Nor can the government preventatively seize a civil right or prosecute for a crime not yet committed.

Most states prohibit firearns possession for those involuntarily committed for 14 continuous days. That has been upheld. Its objective. Its not an opinion. They were or weren't committed and hospitalized for that length of time. Its also exceedingly rare and less than 1/10th of 1% of the.population. Those that have been EVER been involuntarily committed for any lenght of time is probably still less than 1/10th of 1%.

Crimes of all kinds, and violent crime in particular, are disproportionately committed by the sane, not the mentally ill.

What have you got against the mentally ill and their civil rights?

@14, Trump ain't my boy. I have never voted for him. Mine was a Biden household and then a Harris household.

@15, As Will Rogers famously quipped, "I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat."

@17, More deflection. You got nothin'.

@16, FTW!

19, I said in a sane country dipshit, obviously not this shithole. I’m well aware we are bound by rules written by people who died 200 years ago who could not have conceived of modern technology when they wrote them. For someone who brags about how much he reads your comprehension is absolute garbage, mama.

@16 The reason the Democrats refuse to talk about their economic agenda is because it is extremely unpopular. It basically involves raising taxes on everyone to pay for the cultural issues you mention in your post. Just look at our own state. If the legislature had their way they would have enacted $21B worth of new taxes this year. As it is, we were still left with a record $9B tax increase and I don't think many people can tell you what good that money is doing. Shasti is going to double down on those politics nationally. She may find they work here in WA where there is not really an opposition party but I don't think its going to play very well in other parts of the country. I guess we'll find out next year.

@23 The framers of the Constitution were fully aware of semiautomatic weapons, large magazines, and that firearm technology would continue to advance, as it had in their lifetimes. What they probably would have done with the rules if they had the knowledge of today is more clearly enumerate the right for people with less historical knowledge of firearms, like yourself.

The Rob Saka letter is completely bizarre. He needs to be out of office.

Democrats talk about raising taxes on rich people, literally pennies on the dollar for top earners. Meanwhile, Trump’s tariffs are a massive tax increase on everyone that hits the lowest earners the hardest, and people still insist democrats are the ones who want to tax everyone to death.

Branding is less about what the parties do than what people believe they do, and republicans are really good at conning people into thinking they are fiscally responsible and looking out for the working class when they are doing neither.

25 great point, this country is even more poorly conceived than any normal person would have thought, thanks for clarifying

@26 c'mon. They talk about raising taxes on the rich but the truth is that is just gaslighting so people aren't angry they are raising taxes on everyone. They'll throw out a wealth tax proposal or the capital gains tax but those things are a drop in the bucket of what they want. The wealth tax was supposed to generate $2B-$4B yet their proposal was for $21B. Who do you think was paying for the rest of that?

28 i am going off real numbers, not “c’mon man” numbers. Obama and clinton both raised taxes on top earners by less than 5 cents on every dollar over a 6 figure income level, only to have republicans cut those tax brackets and explode the deficit.

Trump’s tariffs are a massive tax hike on low income earners to give tax cuts to rich people while using the lost revenue as an excuse to cut social programs that help low income households. It’s bad for everyone except the ultra wealthy but people are still out here arguing the democrats don’t care about working class people because they also care about lgbtq rights, as though these are mutually exclusive values. Obviously that messaging resonates with people but it doesn’t make any practical sense. It’s just branding.

@23, Isn't a sane country that has clear written rights for its citizens? One that follows rule of law? That bases policy and rights restrictions based on what Psychiatrists and Psychologists can actually reliably and scientifically predict?

Or would you prefer your rights to be randomly, arbitrarily, and capriciously be taken or retained depending on whether you drew Dr. Smith or Dr. Jones on the day you went in to get evaluated to see if you were worthy of exercising a civil right? Have the outcome dependent on whether Dr. Johnson saw you before lunch when they had low blood sugar and were irritable, or after lunch when Johnson was satiated and content. All of that when the scientific research shows those professionals are no more able to predict who will be violent, than random chance.

@20 You very much come across as a bootlicking Trump supporter so you may want to rethink your persona here if that's not in fact the case.

@28, That assumes that the working class wants to get an increase in standard of living by having increased benefit programs.

What the polling and focus groups show those voters really want is the ability to get ahead on their own. The opportunity through merit and hard work to see their standard of living increase year after year. Regular raises that stay ahead of inflation. The opportunity to skill and reskill into higher paid work.

The only way for them to get that, without inflation eating up the gains, is to make workers more productive with training and technology. We do a shitty job of that in this country. Germany does a good job with that. Perhaps some of the Scandanavian countries have programs we could look at.

30 ???? most countries have “clearly written rules” and many of them manage to keep people much safer and better cared for than this toxic waste dump

32, Not sure what you think “benefits programs” entail but they often include things like government-subsidized education to help people get ahead on their own, or at least perpetuate the delusion that they are. Of course people who actually need things like food and shelter will accept and appreciate those benefits too, as do many people who claim to be opposed to those things; i know several and you probably do too. If you want a productive country you have to invest in social welfare and we do a shitty job of that.

@31, Trump is a dangerous narcissist.

I don't agree with DOGE, I don't agree with him on tariffs, tax cuts, immigration law, Ukraine, his disregard for rule of law, and issues too numerous too mention.

Even on issues like not appeasing Iran, there is no principle at work with him. He thinks people will call him a TACO if he had gone all Neville Chamberlain with Iran.

He stands for nothing but his own gratification via people having say he's great and being his sycophants and retribution against those that don't.

If he thought he could have one the Presidency by hitching his wagon to a Progressive Agenda, courting Planned Parenthood, he would. He'd switch what he pursues in a hot minute. If that got him laudatory dinners as POTUS from Randy Weingarten, the Environmental Defense Fund, etc., he'd be doing Executive Orders and Big Beautiful Bills full of funding for their causes.

He likes to win. He concluded at some point that the path to victory was through throwing the Christian right judges that they want and playing to the non-college indoctrinated, non-elites. He has been increasingly effective at that. First winning the Electoral College in 2016 and then the popular vote in 2024.

He has created a playbook that Republicans have a strong chance of replicating going forward; however, they have to deliver for the working class voters at some point or they will get disillusioned and stay home. So far he hasn't delivered for that demographic, and hasn't proposed anything likely to deliver.

But the Dems relying on the other side to commit an "own goal" as the means of defeating them is reckless and incompetent.

@31,

Many people are saying this!

@29 what Shasti is going to endorse however is far greater than 5 cents. Like I said under her leadership the legislature in WA state was looking to raise taxes for everyone and anything in many cases without a clear purpose. You can confiscate the money from every billionaire in the country and not make a dent in this country's deficit. "Tax the Rich" is simply a campaign slogan and suggesting otherwise is dishonest. Like I sad in my original post we'll see next year how it plays out. I will say I'm happy Shasti got this role because now she won't be available to help create more bad policy in WA state.

@29, Taxes on the wealthy, which I agree with to make sure they pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as everyone else, don't produce the revenue windfalls that will pay for a European style social safety net.

That is a fact you acknowledge with how minor the revenue impacts were of the Obama and Clinton efforts.

It's also a fact that Europe acknowledges with their effectively flat tax rate for all income levels.

I am not talking about rates on paper, deductions, credits, or what kind or types of tax each group pays, I am talking about actual taxes paid divided by actual income. When you do that math, at any income level, the percentage is nearly identical.

They hit the poor hard with VAT taxes (a kind of sales tax), gas taxes, and other regressive taxes to make sure they pay 35% or more of their income in taxes. They hit the wealthy with progressively increasing rates on income so they pay 35% of more of their income in taxes.

All but three countries in Europe have less progressive tax structures than the U.S. The three are Ireland, Portugal, and Italy and they aren't significantly more progressive than the U.S.

European countries keep trying to figure out how to tax more, to pay for even more social safety nets and entitlements. When they try and raise taxes on the wealthy, they get capital flight, people stopping the increasingly taxed activity, capital flight, corporate flight, and human flight. The tax either doesn't increase revenue, or the countries that try it back off in the face of that. When they try and raise taxes on the bottom they massive street protests (e.g. the Yellow Vest protest in France). They back off.

We in the U.S. could have everyone, at every income level, pay 35%, or more, of income to the state. It's a valid policy choice, if voters will go for it. So far they have not as District13 points out.

European Progressives make the argument that everyone's taxes need to go up to pay for a benefit that everyone will get. American Progressives want someone else's taxes to go up to pay for such benefit expansion, and the math just doesn't work. Europeans are honest. They ask, should everyone go from 35% to 37% to expand housing subsidies (or some other program or programs) by "x" amount. American Progressives state that if we just got the top 10% to pay the same rate, a 25% higher rate, ... a 100% higher rate, we could fund universal healthcare. It's a false claim. The math isn't even close.

@33, So what objective criteria must a Doctor examining on behalf of the state, or some bureaucrat acting on behalf of the state have to follow to determine who gets to do a particular activity and who may not. They don't have that. The doctor or bureaucrat's determination is final. Whether you get to do the thing that requires state permission, depends on which bureaucrat or doctor you get, not some rule that you can sue them for following or not.

That is where it breaks down. It's deferential to that person's subjective judgement and not some objectively defined, and the letter of a standard that can be challenged. It is also has tyranny of majority. You don't have the right to sue and enjoin the government, or a very narrow right, with a very high bar to clear to succeed.

The lawsuits you are seeing to stop the Trump Administration aren't permitted in Europe. The attitude is, the current government has a majority in Parliament, and they are Kings until the next election, because the voters spoken. It will be the way the government wants it until the voters speak again. That's tyranny of majority.

@37, We didn’t have a deficit until reagan cut the top off the marginal tax brackets, and “tax the rich” isn’t just a slogan, it’s literally what clinton and obama did, and how the government paid for itself from ww2 through the carter administration. Meanwhile Trump’s tax plan is the definition of tax everyone and increases the burden on lower earners the most while adding trillions more to the deficit. If you want people to be honest about tax policy then heal thyself.

Our tax structure in the US should be designed so that it's basically impossible for a citizen to be a billionaire, and there should be an estate tax that prohibits the transfer of huge amounts of wealth between generations. Corporate taxes should be designed to incentivize investing in the company.

This mindless fetishization of the wealthy that we have engaged in since 1980 serves no good purpose. Just look around at the country, and the people who are running it.

@40 I’m not defending trumps tax cuts merely pointing out that the Dems are equally ok screwing the rest of us for their favored constituents. If democratic policy was so awesome you would think our state would be nirvana and yet here we are with a $12B deficit that they had to plug this year and most likely a multi billion dollar deficit that will come up next year when their bs economic forecasts yet again don’t bear fruit. And no one paid those 90% tax rates you wax nostalgic about. There are numerous articles about how people avoided them

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-20190129-story.html

Here’s my fav stat. Back then the top earners paid 35% of all taxes. Today they pay 40%.

https://city-countyobserver.com/did-people-really-pay-91-tax-rates-in-the-1950s-if-not-what-was-the-reality-compared-to-today-the-claim-that-the-top-1-of-earners-in-the-1950s-paid-a-91-tax-rate-is-based-on-the-statutory-top-marg/

@41, That is creating more equal income by pulling the top down, rather than pulling the bottom up.

The working class that is defecting from Dems doesn't give a shit how wealthy Bezos, or anyone else gets, as long as they can rise. Not rise to Bezos level necessarily, just see year-over-year, decade-over-decade improvement of their standard of living and buying power.

Making Bezos, Gates, et. al. poorer, while the working class remains stagnated, or falling behind isn't going to win them back.

You talked about changing the tax structure to encourage more investment by corporations. That could help their workers and the working class.

@40, In spite of those tax-cuts, of which I am not a fan, Federal revenue during the period continued to rise. It rose much faster than inflation.

The problem is entitlement, defense, and other spending rose even faster.

We have a shrinking worker base paying social security and medicare taxes, while beneficiaries swell. That's the problem. We have made promises to retirees, and not been willing to increase our taxes to cover the bill.

In 2035, under the original 1935 Social Security Act, benefits will get cut by 20% so that monthly payroll tax collections equal monthly payouts. The American people and Congress do nothing.

Medicare had a similar provision in the original act. That cut of payouts starts about the same time.

You could zero out defense, DOJ, EPA, and every program Congress is supposed to appropriates for, and we would still be going into deficit as the automatic payments for SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Interest on the national debt, and retiree payments eat all Federal revenue.

All the similarly structured retiree benefit programs in economically developed programs are suffering the same problem.

Interestingly, Japan has a different mechanism to deal with the issue. Payroll taxes for their version of Social Security Taxes automatically rise to match payouts. The end result of that is that while gross wages have been rising faster than inflation for decade, net pay has been dropping for a decade. So far workers aren't revolting at the polls, but one wonders how bad it will have to get for them before they demand that their Parliament does something different.

Worth the read:

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/6-trump-voters-react-to-the-u-s-bombing-of-nuclear-sites-in-iran/

NotMyopic dear, I suggest "pulling down" the rich for their benefit as much as anyone else. Extreme income inequality never ends well for them, for with vast wealth comes vast greed and vast idiocy.

And I frankly don't care if the working class doesn't care how much Bezo's makes. Once we had a more equitable society, they'd figure it out. They've already figured out that they are going to have a less affluent life than their parents.

So stop fetishizing the rich. They don't care about you.

@40: "We didn’t have a deficit until reagan"

Just because you hate Ronnie doesn't give you credence when you lie. The facts are at our fingertips. Deficits go back to George Washington, here are just the one since JFK:

John F. Kennedy (1961–1963): Deficits from military buildup and economic stimulus.

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969): Deficits from Great Society programs and Vietnam War.

Richard Nixon (1969–1974): Deficits from Vietnam War and economic challenges.

Gerald Ford (1974–1977): Deficits due to recession and post-Vietnam spending.

Jimmy Carter (1977–1981): Deficits from inflation and economic stagnation.

Ronald Reagan (1981–1989): Large deficits from tax cuts, defense spending, and economic recovery.

George H. W. Bush (1989–1993): Deficits continued from Reagan policies and Gulf War.

Bill Clinton (1993–2001): Deficits early; surpluses from 1998–2001 due to economic growth and fiscal discipline.

George W. Bush (2001–2009): Deficits from tax cuts, 9/11 response, and Iraq/Afghanistan wars; large deficits during 2008 financial crisis.

Barack Obama (2009–2017): Large deficits during Great Recession; deficits declined later but persisted.

Donald Trump (2017–2021): Deficits from tax cuts and increased spending; massive deficits in 2020 due to COVID-19 response.

Joe Biden (2021–2025): Deficits continued from COVID-19 recovery, infrastructure spending, and ongoing programs.

@10 COMTE and @41 Catalina Vel-DuRay: +2 For the WIN!!! And thank you both for beating me to it.

To the ~ 77 million dumb shits who have absolutely no clue whatsoever how to vote wisely, you all rightfully deserve the very worst from this fascist Nutzy KKKrime syndicate.

@31 tbass1981 and @36 mike blob, re: @20: I just scroll down when I see anything Mr. Magoo posts, especially his long-winded, nonsensical novels.

@46, "They've already figured out that they are going to have a less affluent life than their parents." THAT IS THE ISSUE.

Making the rich poorer does not automatically address that. It is possible to make the rich poorer without having the poor get wealthier follow as a result. The two are not automatically linked.

Bezos, et. al. are no more greedy than the rest of humanity. That trait is inherent in human nature, no matter what your income level.

NotMyopic dear, you do realize that Bezos et al aren’t going to sleep with you, right?

@41: From great capital comes great corporations and philanthropic endeavors, along with the greed of course. These billionaires employ millions who earn a living. You want capitalism without excess and that's impossible and counter productive.

Phobe, don't be unnecessarily ridiculous. We taxed the hell out of both rich people and corporations up until the 1970's, and we had an amazing economy. Even with the inflation/stagflation of the 70's we still got along pretty well.

We need that kind of economy not only so that we can train children to be successful citizens and employees, but to curb this vast economic divide we have, and to boost up our social programs. The free meal ticket that Republicans insist on giving to the wealthy needs to end, or we will become Russia - another toilet country that has all of its resources skimmed off the top.

@51 & @53 Catalina Vel-DuRay: +2 Wins the thread with a 2 fer!!! Bravo, spot on, and well said!
After all their administration did in 4 elected terms to reverse the economic damage done largely by Herbert "A chicken for every pot" Hoover, ensuing in the Great Depression, and the grim onset of the U.S involvement in WWII by 1941, President Franklin Delano and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt must be rolling in their graves.