|
computer parts posted:An important aspect of the 2000 election is that it's one of the lowest turnout elections on record, and part of the reason for that is because people didn't see a fundamental difference between the two candidates. I feel like if I had become politically active at any other time than when I did (circa ~2011, around the debt ceiling crisis), I would have had a complete nervous breakdown over how preposterously stupid Americans are. I'm proud to say that I'm an Obama Democrat, but holy actual Christ was poo poo bad before he came in, and I'm not even saying it was because of him. Just the entire block of time from Nixon to Bush II was atrociously lovely.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Some of you making fun of the perception of a poor ecconomy are likely not taking into account how much harder it is to secure a position past a certain age. As a recruiter its tougher to get an employer to consider a candidate over 50 than anyone else with a clean record. It's a huge problem for people that aren't at medicare/SS age yet, people are legit terrified. The place I work at just eliminated our department head position and laid off the women that held the position for over thirty years. She's worked at the same place since the early 80's and has significant health issues (also, this is in Texas where Perry denied the medicaid expansion). We've tried to find her another gig, but her experience is in a field that's basically impossible to enter past forty (she's almost sixty). There's a good chance she'll be dead within a year if she doesn't find a job with health coverage, and all because the company thought it could replace a department head with scheduling software instead of letting her retire in a few years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:The Khan thing actually hurt Trump for some reason, perhaps because reverence for the military is such a core Republican virtue... or pathology. Clinton will likely try to goad Trump into a state of injury and contrive it so that he lashes out against some conservative sacred cow or another. The way she responds to his attacks may also be enough for The Donald to lose control and the Dark Trump to emerge. I'm hoping for a Primal Fear-like ending. Maybe it won't happen in the debates but after he loses? Who knows. Way more dramatic if it's live on television though. Concession speech?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I feel like if I had become politically active at any other time than when I did (circa ~2011, around the debt ceiling crisis), I would have had a complete nervous breakdown over how preposterously stupid Americans are. I'm proud to say that I'm an Obama Democrat, but holy actual Christ was poo poo bad before he came in, and I'm not even saying it was because of him. Just the entire block of time from Nixon to Bush II was atrociously lovely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
That Khan thing might be a serious problem for Trump with vets under forty or so. The older crowd might put up with it, but the younger vets are already pissed that the country has been ignoring them. I've heard a number of people at the VA talking about it and never in good terms. Trump might actually break through the GOP's hold on military voters this cycle and not in the way he'd want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Voters are preposterously stupid everywhere. Yeah but I have to live here and American voters, vote on people who get to control nuclear weapons and the largest and richest government, military, and economic system in the world. When Filipino voters are stupid they elect a crazy person who tells them to murder drug users in the streets. When American voters are stupid, we invade Middle Eastern countries for sport and profit, and crash the world economy for funsies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:That Khan thing might be a serious problem for Trump with vets under forty or so. The older crowd might put up with it, but the younger vets are already pissed that the country has been ignoring them. I've heard a number of people at the VA talking about it and never in good terms. Trump might actually break through the GOP's hold on military voters this cycle and not in the way he'd want. Pretty much. The most sacred of sacred cows in this country though is a Gold Star Family. Attack them and watch the mob rise up against you. It's why Hillary took such a huge lead after the conventions, and while it's faded somewhat, she still has a significant lead. Speaking of voting blocs, the Catholics seem to be dead opposed to Trump: https://twitter.com/rschriefer/status/772802699637030913 I think part of it also could be because Catholics have been treated poorly in the past by the "moral majority" (read: KKK) iospace fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's my point, there is no real downward wage pressure. The same sort of people are in demand, needing the same skills (certified to drive a big truck, willing to work poo poo hours). What are you basing this off of? Because this literally sounds like the argument of someone who is a trucker and is in utter denial that their livelihood is at risk. Like your entire argument is, "People are still required to have truck-driving skills and be in the cab, therefore they will not be paid any less" which is laughable on it's face because it hasn't stopped downward pressure in other sectors who have seen increased automation alongside skilled positions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
iospace posted:I think part of it also could be because Catholics have been treated poorly in the past by the "moral majority" (read: KKK) I think part of it is that Trump picked a fight with the motherfucking Pope. I'm sure American Catholics don't take the whole "Pope is our leader" thing as seriously as say, Italian Catholics, but I also think they do not like it when you attack him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
iospace posted:I think part of it is because Catholics have been treated poorly in the past by the "moral majority" (read: KKK) More like their own Catholic church in the US. Priests are getting fired for supporting gay marriage in the US, and with poo poo heads like Bill Donahue call out the POPE for saying gay people should be accepted, the normal catholic populace are waking up to the fuckers they have running it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I think part of it is that Trump picked a fight with the motherfucking Pope. Also that a large and growing proportion of American Catholics are Hispanic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Catholics from Latin American countries view the Pope highly as well, and they're also a huge chunk of the Catholic voting bloc in this country
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Boon posted:What are you basing this off of? Because this literally sounds like the argument of someone who is a trucker and is in utter denial that their livelihood is at risk. The requirements of the job before and after the transition. You are going to need a backup in case the automated system fails (literally all interested parties want this). This is going to be a person, because you can't teach a dog to drive. This person will have to: - Be certified to drive a big truck (because if they can't drive the truck, they aren't really a backup) - Be with the truck at all times (because if your system fails it's not going to be pretty if you don't have immediate handover) These are also the exact qualifications of a current truck driver. That's why there's no change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Also this pope is actually pretty popular with a wide swath of people, Catholic or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
E: Wups
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
McAlister posted:By way of comparison, I'd been receiving all manner of slanderous innuendo and "what ifs" from the Bernie camp before getting one that was disgusting. It claiming that if elected Hillary's policies would poison children but the child poisoning part wasn't the bit that was beyond the pale. The bullshit part was where he stated, unequivocally, in bold, that "Hillary Clinton Supports Fracking". This is a blatant lie. She supports a regulatory regime so tight it would de-facto ban it. This is not a legit worry or a valid criticism. If he'd made the much milder claim that her regulatory proposals didn't go far enough and would still leave the potential for a child to be poisoned while his total ban proposals would be more effective than hers then it'd be a fair criticism. The paragraphs of dramatic descriptions about children drinking contaminated water are not the determining factor as to whether the email is disgusting or not. Comparing a television ad to an e-mail you received from the "Bernie camp" is weird. Also, it is absolutely true that Sanders had a different, harder position on fracking. Characterizing that difference of position as a lie is mistaken. Regardless, my original point wasn't that the 3 AM ad was the most shocking thing ever aired, some other people were personally offended by the ad as an example of Clinton's unusually nasty campaigning against Obama in the primary. My point is that it's somewhat ridiculous to characterize Sanders as the "white rage" candidate in comparison to Clinton, when Clinton went far, far harder into pandering to white anxieties and cultural assumptions than Sanders ever did or could. I mean, you're evoking some e-mail from the "Bernie camp" you supposedly got, fine: Campaign surrogate Geraldine Ferraro literally said that the only reason Obama was having any success in the primary was because he was black. Clinton herself made the case that only she was electable because only she could win "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans". Billy Shaheen evoked Obama's past drug use, and said it would take him down in the general election: "It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’ There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks." Do you recognize this photo?  This photo was given to the Drudge Report by the Clinton Campaign. This nugget of Islamophobic imagery that we now see to this day was a product of the 2008 Clinton campaign. Of course, when asked whether she thought Obama was a Muslim, she "took him at his word" that he wasn't a Muslim "as far as I know". Hey, remember Reverend Wright? Clinton does: quote:CLINTON: I think in addition to the questions about Reverend Wright and what he said and when he said it, and for whatever reason he might have said these things, there were so many different variations on the explanations that we heard. Bill Clinton posted:“Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in ’84 and ’88, and he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama’s run a good campaign.” Ed Rendell posted:“You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.” NY Times posted:“Mrs. Clinton will be making a terrible mistake — for herself, her party and for the nation — if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones … We endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and we know that she has a major contribution to make. But instead of discussing her strong ideas, Mrs. Clinton claimed in an interview with USA Today that she would be the better nominee because a recent poll showed that “Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.” She added: “There’s a pattern emerging here.” Yes, there is a pattern — a familiar and unpleasant one. It is up to Mrs. Clinton to change it if she hopes to have any shot at winning the nomination or preserving her integrity and her influence if she loses.” It's a large volume of material, and it gets ugly. My point is that the idea that Sanders ran a racially divisive campaign or that he was the "white rage" candidate requires a remarkable act of willful forgetting of what happened in '08 when our first black president ran against her and beat her. Among more cynical or ignorant Clinton supporters I sometimes see a conflation of Sanders and Trump. If Sanders is the "left wing Trump" or whatever, what on Earth was Clinton in '08, because everywhere Sanders went, Clinton went far harder, and in a far uglier, more pandering way than Sanders did, and she did it against the first black President of the United States. Can you just imagine if Sanders had repeatedly went after her status as a woman the way Clinton went Obama's blackness and supposed foreignness. If Sanders surrogates had talked about how they should elect him because "hard-working" Americans couldn't handle voting for a woman president? Clinton didn't invent birtherism, but her campaign definitely was happy to stoke that fire and receive warmth from it. And regardless of what you think of Clinton, that's a real sin that shouldn't be forgotten. Mark Penn, in an internal memo posted:“His roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values ... Every speech should contain the line you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century ... Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t.“ Periodiko fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
If suddenly there's nobody driving trucks, it means there's going to be an extra person at drat near every stop that truck has to help unload it which is just one of a hundred things other than drive that a truck driver does. That's a huge net gain in employment, but realistically it just means the companies will keep their drivers on because the "free" labor of the driver for the business will land them more contracts and they'll be saving more than the driver's salary in insurance costs by having a human on board We're talking about an industry that still hasn't come to terms with red cars
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The requirements of the job before and after the transition. You're very, very mistaken. Honest question, have you ever seen how automation impacts a position first hand? Because those things you cited don't mean poo poo. As the technology is adopted within the industry there will be people who are undoubtedly less skilled at driving trucks and yet will be holders of the same certifications. They'll never have the mileage of the first-hand trucking of pre-automation peers and by definition will be less qualified. Nevermind that though, because trucking companies will be looking to adopt the technology specifically BECAUSE the human cost is one of their biggest expenses. You're making these assertions but history is not on your side. E: To illustrate how business is going to look at this problem as technology improves, have this from the Indianapolis Business Journal http://www.ibj.com/articles/58786-driverless-future-ahead-for-trucking quote:Human drivers account for the majority of shipping costs; cutting them out would save companies and consumers billions and, in theory, boost the standard of living (except for truckers, of course). Such fleets also would save fuel by operating more efficiently, reducing emissions. A convenient network of autonomous passenger vehicles could leave consumers with hundreds of billions of dollars of disposable income to spend on something else. It also mentions how companies like Bain (big three consulting firm) have a grim forecast on trucking with respect to drivers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
It's scary that we may have a situation in my lifetime where a very large number of people have their jobs completely replaced by automation and I'm not sure what we're going to do with all of these people. It did happen to a degree in manufacturing, but if it happens in some of these other sectors I'm not sure what the ultimate outcome will be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It's scary that we may have a situation in my lifetime where a very large number of people have their jobs completely replaced by automation and I'm not sure what we're going to do with all of these people. Lol that already happened and it's happening at an accelerating pace. We're wealthier and more productive than any other country in history, including previous iterations of ourself The outcome is a worse version of what you're seeing now, people just think it's furriners taking the jobs is all, and they'll think it until every job is gone because we worship capital in this country
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Lol that already happened and it's happening at an accelerating pace. We're wealthier and more productive than any other country in history, including previous iterations of ourself You don't see the difference between the country as a whole being wealthier and that wealth being more concentrated at a higher level compared to a more even distribution even if the total is less?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:I suspect we're going to have more than a few years of truck drivers doing what airline pilots do now: not much on the open highway, but a whole hell of a lot in cities, parking lots, and inclement weather. It is an all or nothing thing, when it comes to actually replacing the human though. If your self driving thing only does 99% of it, you still need the human for the other 1%, and so you still need a human for the job. And something that can only do 50% really can't replace the worker in this sort of situation, even though, say, a machine that does 50% of a task in a factory might replace hundreds of people at once. Raenir Salazar posted:Like sure, it doesn't seem short in that sense, I just mean that if you look at boomers now, they still live in their minds that you can still pay for school with a part time job and so on; and yet our generation will see that the next generation will have it just as bad as we do now in terms of how automation squeezes us; my concern is just how bad will it get before serious political will is mustered to ease the transition. What we have to remember is not just that boomers could pay for school with a part time job. We have to remember that tons of them never went to anything past high school because they didn't need to. The college attendance rate was way way lower back then, and on top of that a lot more of those students were doing 2 year things. Boon posted:Okay but that doesn't address the downward wage pressure unless you think that having someone 'certified' to sit in the truck is going to net them the same pay, in which case then I feel like you have an unusually high impression of what truck drivers actually get paid, that you think there's much room for the wages to fall. Paradoxish posted:Edit- I'd actually be shocked if anyone other than taxi drivers are at real risk of being replaced over the short term, and even that I'm not really sure about. Maybe long haul truckers too, if we're talking more like 20-30 years from now. Taxi drivers are way more vulnerable to better public transit than any loving around with autonomous cars. Especially since the primary place they operate are the parts of cities that are the worst for a self-driving car to deal with. Eifert Posting posted:Some of you making fun of the perception of a poor economy are likely not taking into account how much harder it is to secure a position past a certain age. As a recruiter its tougher to get an employer to consider a candidate over 50 than anyone else with a clean record.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:You don't see the difference between the country as a whole being wealthier and that wealth being more concentrated at a higher level compared to a more even distribution even if the total is less? Well yeah, I highlighted that bit for a reason. Also lol of course the IBJ is pushing trickle down
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:If suddenly there's nobody driving trucks, it means there's going to be an extra person at drat near every stop that truck has to help unload it which is just one of a hundred things other than drive that a truck driver does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Carlosologist posted:Catholics from Latin American countries view the Pope highly as well, and they're also a huge chunk of the Catholic voting bloc in this country And another element is that the current Pope is shockingly liberal by Pope standards, which meshes well with the strongly liberal-for-Catholics trend of American Catholics. Picking a fight with the last guy might not have hurt Trump so much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
 what's that Matt, are we back to worshipping Putin again? Or am I mixing up who the lion is in this photo? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
why didn't drudge use this one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
wixard posted:You really think they're going to automate truck-driving, but running a pallet jack on a dock is going to be a definitively human job? This is already automated at the Toyota facilities in KY.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
iospace posted:Speaking of voting blocs, the Catholics seem to be dead opposed to Trump: If this election is anything it's a true test of how much power evangelicals actually hold in the modern US. They'd better hope that majority has been real silent up until now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Boon posted:It also mentions how companies like Bain (big three consulting firm) have a grim forecast on trucking with respect to drivers. and if Bain knows anything, it's how to fire the gently caress out of every employee it can get at and then bankrupt the company
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
iospace posted:Pretty much. The most sacred of sacred cows in this country though is a Gold Star Family. Attack them and watch the mob rise up against you. It's why Hillary took such a huge lead after the conventions, and while it's faded somewhat, she still has a significant lead. I think it's mostly because Trump is in opposition to everything the Catholic Church stands for and "but abortion!" doesn't work in this case because nobody believes Trump has changed his position.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
zoux posted:why didn't drudge use this one? They both make Obama look good, tbh. The first one makes Putin look like he's thinking "please notice me, Obama-senpai." My first assumption was that Lion referred to Obama but then again I'm not your average Drudge reader.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It's scary that we may have a situation in my lifetime where a very large number of people have their jobs completely replaced by automation and I'm not sure what we're going to do with all of these people. Butlerian jihad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Putin has a bigger flag pin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:I think it's mostly because Trump is in opposition to everything the Catholic Church stands for and "but abortion!" doesn't work in this case because nobody believes Trump has changed his position.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Guys did you not see the documentary Wall-E? It's totally going to be like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:If this election is anything it's a true test of how much power evangelicals actually hold in the modern US. They'd better hope that majority has been real silent up until now. Evangelicals fell apart when SCOTUS said GAY MARRIAGE FOR ALL and the immense backlash against HB2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
"What doesn't kill us only makes us stronger!" says increasingly irrelevant evangelical voter
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
wixard posted:You really think they're going to automate truck-driving, but running a pallet jack on a dock is going to be a definitively human job? It seems like you'd need automation at both ends for automated unloading to really be widespread, or at least strict packing guidelines that account for the automation on one side. It's hard for me to imagine any autonomous system actually being able to deal with a truck that's been packed by human warehouse employees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
Or, you know, we could use trains to move poo poo instead of a shitload of robot trucks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:38
|
|