|
Stickman posted:Tammie Wilson is a terrible person - when she's more sane than you it's time to fire the whole drat school administration. FNSB schools have gone to complete poo poo over the past 10 years (and Alaska in general). Jesus Christ... I guess at least we can congratulate her on the eventual lawsuit paying her way through college? 
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
quote:Pelosi says she talked with Sergeant-at-Arms about Omar's safety following Trump tweet Source: CNN I try to post some thoughts on commentary rather than just dropping links but I'm kind of at a loss for words at how hosed it is that the loving president basically called a sitting representative kin of terrorists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Tammie Wilson is a terrible person - when she's more sane than you it's time to fire the whole drat school administration. FNSB schools have gone to complete poo poo over the past 10 years (and Alaska in general). Ah there's a shithead in the comments defending the guys being in the women's restroom because they were *protesting a trans student using the men's room* Knee em all in the dick imo
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:Ah there's a shithead in the comments defending the guys being in the women's restroom because they were *protesting a trans student using the men's room* https://twitter.com/savannahmoisan/status/1116942423194624000
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
If you have to clarify that you are not doing something to be an rear end in a top hat you might want to have a good hard look at what you're doing
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 06:59
|
|
|
Oh, if he and his buddies were non-assholishly identifying as women for the sake of an inherently assholish protest then it's totally ok to try and hold someone against their will. Is there some sort of relationship that I'm missing between a picture of a couch and a poorly formatted call to action against someone else using a bathroom in a way that affects you not at all?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 07:07
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:No, my point was that other countries do better. Rosa Parks was arrested for protesting that she wasn't treated the same as others, the whole point of the entire civil rights movement was that the laws of the nation were not treating people the same, that there were different rules for black people than for white people. This is not even remotely the equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I'm really worried about this. I'm pretty sure we're going to see a brokered convention. I feel like he's conflating two different things. An outcome where the vote isn't decided til the convention because no one has 51%+ is pretty likely. But that doesn't mean it's going to be a contested convention. Like if any candidate has a lead of even 3%, that candidate will win, because the Dems are stupid but not suicidal. The only scenario where it's contested is if it's an actual straight-up tie, but that's much less likely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I feel like he's conflating two different things. An outcome where the vote isn't decided til the convention because no one has 51%+ is pretty likely. But that doesn't mean it's going to be a contested convention. Like if any candidate has a lead of even 3%, that candidate will win, because the Dems are stupid but not suicidal. The only scenario where it's contested is if it's an actual straight-up tie, but that's much less likely. Thats true if the final result is like 46-43-(11% others), but what if its like 29-26-20-15-10?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:19. Not Arizona specific but there's been stuff about how folks who work in London realized that it was cheaper to get a home in Barcelona and do the similar commute.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
Southwest flights are dirt cheap and Phoenix is a major hub for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:
I worked at the Santa Barbara airport and there was a guy who did this PHX-SBA. He would buy flights as soon as they opened to get the best prices. It's wild but sometimes it works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
Rodenthar Drothman posted:Southwest flights are dirt cheap and Phoenix is a major hub for them. There was a story a couple of years ago about a guy who did something like that with Barcelona and London. I don't think it was 4 days a week, but yeah, the rent is too drat high. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/commuting-from-barcelona-a-london-worker-who-makes-it-pay
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
That's a monstrosity from an environmental point of view.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:19. If you assume $90 tickets ($100 minus some discount/mileage) and 200 work days per year then it comes out to $1,500 per month for the commute over just commuting in the Bay area. Of course, the more important part is that the flight from Arizona is two hours each way. Add in the commutes to and from the airports + time in the airport and your easily looking at 5-6 hours of commuting in order to save $1,500 per month (plus increasing your cancer risk with daily high-altitude flying). Going by average rent cost in the bay area ($3,600) vs. Phoenix ($1,100), the math probably saves you ~$10,000 a year for equal-quality housing, but I can't imagine the sort of insane person who would commute 5-6 hours 4 days a week to save $10,000 over just renting a shittier place or working a second part-time job (or moving someplace else, since they obviously don't have a problem not living in the Bay area). E: Just notice the "family" part... yikes! Stickman fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Apr 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
Yeah doing it every day or even just 4 times a week is crazy from the time perspective. Even if the flight is only an hour you're still spending a lot of time in or on the way to the airports, to the point where you'd be better off getting another job/overtime. A few times a month is absolutely doable and tons of people do it, that's hardly newsworthy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Thats true if the final result is like 46-43-(11% others), but what if its like 29-26-20-15-10? I still think in that case the person with 29 walks away with it. Like so long as any one person can say they're a clear and unmistakable leader (and 3% points ahead qualifies), I don't think the party will be sufficiently suicidal to try to steal it (or alternately, that the leftists will band up to block the centrists). The thing about a contested convention is that it's basically mutually assured destruction; even if you win, you're gonna lose. Like, if it's a 28.7 vs 28.5, we may be in shitshow territory, but I think the desire (and pressure) to avoid a massive incident will ensure that the leader is crowned even without a majority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
If they have a job where a significant amount of it can be done while on an airplane or if they can work from home occasionally, too, it's probably insanely cost-effective. A house that would cost 2 million in the bay area can be had for 250k in any semi-rural area or like 400k if you want to be in a town big enough to have better schools. Seems terrible on an experiential level as airplanes and airports are unpleasant af, but if you want to put some money away, figuring out how to not spend 2/3 of your salary on bay area rents while still getting multiple bay area salaries is a 'good' way to do that Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Apr 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
Magic City Monday posted:There was a story a couple of years ago about a guy who did something like that with Barcelona and London. I don't think it was 4 days a week, but yeah, the rent is too drat high. Yeah that was the article I was thinking of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
Stickman posted:If you assume $90 tickets ($100 minus some discount/mileage) and 200 work days per year then it comes out to $1,500 per month for the commute over just commuting in the Bay area. Of course, the more important part is that the flight from Arizona is two hours each way. Add in the commutes to and from the airports + time in the airport and your easily looking at 5-6 hours of commuting in order to save $1,500 per month (plus increasing your cancer risk with daily high-altitude flying). I read that as "they travel to San Francisco for a four day work week, then fly back". I'm not sure where they are staying for that work week, but that sort of commuting isn't all that crazy. I could be totally wrong though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
Why do people get so up in arms about this? Both times it happened in my lifetime the difference between candidates on the popular has been less than 1%. Meanwhile it's not even a true popular vote because the entire election, from where candidates choose to campaign to how people literally choose to place their votes is impacted by the fact that electoral college exists. The system has plenty of flaws, but not matching up with raw vote counting in a handful of close elections between awful candidates isnt one of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Stickman posted:If you assume $90 tickets ($100 minus some discount/mileage) and 200 work days per year then it comes out to $1,500 per month for the commute over just commuting in the Bay area. Of course, the more important part is that the flight from Arizona is two hours each way. Add in the commutes to and from the airports + time in the airport and your easily looking at 5-6 hours of commuting in order to save $1,500 per month (plus increasing your cancer risk with daily high-altitude flying). If the person is a hairdresser, it both makes sense and no sense at the same time. To afford the bay area, he or she would be commuting 2+ hours each way to the job anyway. However, the person is a hairdresser. They get paid jack poo poo out here anyway and people outside the bay area still have hair so there's no reason to commute to SF in the first place. The only way it'd make sense would be if the hairdresser's partner also works in SF in a tech job tied to the region or something of that sort. But yeah, the area really is expensive enough that this insanity is economically feasible. Environmental shitstorm and still bad with life to do it, but I've been tempted a few times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Why do people get so up in arms about this? Both times it happened in my lifetime the difference between candidates on the popular has been less than 1%. The last election was over 2%. The litteral opposite of under 1%
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:The last election was over 2%. The litteral opposite of under 1% Bah, that's what I get for trying to approximate my own numbers rather than look it up. My main point that it's hardly a national mandate and that the "popular" vote had already been extensively influenced by the electoral system still stands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
That's an argument against the electoral college, not in favor of it. You're literally arguing that it's so unrepresentative that it encourages people not to vote at all; the answer there is to get rid of it so everyone actually has reason to vote, not to keep it because it distorts the popular vote and therefore the popular vote can't be relied upon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Bah, that's what I get for trying to approximate my own numbers rather than look it up. My main point that it's hardly a national mandate and that the "popular" vote had already been extensively influenced by the electoral system still stands. Every time the electoral college has gone against the popular vote, it's been for a republican. That's reason enough to get rid of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:That's an argument against the electoral college, not in favor of it. You're literally arguing that it's so unrepresentative that it encourages people not to vote at all; the answer there is to get rid of it so everyone actually has reason to vote, not to keep it because it distorts the popular vote and therefore the popular vote can't be relied upon. I'm not arguing for it. I distinctly stated that it has plenty of problems(I don't live in a swing state so my personal vote means dick all in national elections for instance) But it not matching the popular vote when the entire election was run with everyone knowing the rules weren't a popular vote and acting accordingly isn't one of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Bah, that's what I get for trying to approximate my own numbers rather than look it up. My main point that it's hardly a national mandate and that the "popular" vote had already been extensively influenced by the electoral system still stands. That's a difference of millions though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
Out of HUNDREDS of millions. It's a negligible percentage of the population.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Out of HUNDREDS of millions. It's a negligible percentage of the population. Or... it's 2% of the voting population? It was just almost THREE MILLION PEOPLE. gently caress 'em! They live in blue states anyway!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Not Arizona specific but there's been stuff about how folks who work in London realized that it was cheaper to get a home in Barcelona and do the similar commute.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Out of HUNDREDS of millions. It's a negligible percentage of the population. This is a really dumb take. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin. It's not negligible, and a reasonable system would not get this wrong as often as it does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I read that as "they travel to San Francisco for a four day work week, then fly back". I'm not sure where they are staying for that work week, but that sort of commuting isn't all that crazy. I could be totally wrong though. That's how I read it- the Bay has a decent chunk of "ideal for a commuter!" rental listings where they won't let you live there on the weekend lol. Cool healthy market to be a tenant in, love it. Sucks for the commuter, but the kids presumably stay in one place and have more stability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
Albinator posted:This is a really dumb take. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin. It's not negligible, and a reasonable system would not get this wrong as often as it does. It's happened a whopping 5 times in over 2 centuries of rule. And yeah, a couple million is in fact a negligible percentage of the current 328,611,726 residents of the US. There was not a huge mandate for hillary over trump nor was there a huge mandate for trump over hillary. Quite the oppposite, that election featured the most electoral college votes pissed away protesting the party candidate in history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Out of HUNDREDS of millions. It's a negligible percentage of the population. Vast majority of my friends in NY, CT, and MA don't vote because it's literally a waste of time because of the electoral college. If it was popular vote, they'd all vote (per their words). I'm sure they are untold millions that don't vote because if you're in a solid blue state, it's a waste of time and your vote doesn't matter because the democratic nominee will always win the state. The system is designed to discourage democracy as much as possible. Not to mention the stupid nonsense of having to register to vote months ahead of time and other crap that normal countries don't have. You should be able to show up with your id the day of the election, get verified that you're a citizen, and then vote. Rad Russian fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Apr 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 01:37
|
|
Sundae posted:If the person is a hairdresser, it both makes sense and no sense at the same time. To afford the bay area, he or she would be commuting 2+ hours each way to the job anyway. However, the person is a hairdresser. They get paid jack poo poo out here anyway and people outside the bay area still have hair so there's no reason to commute to SF in the first place. The only way it'd make sense would be if the hairdresser's partner also works in SF in a tech job tied to the region or something of that sort. Well, a hairdresser relies on their accumulated customer base. Not all of them work at whats basically a retail joint; there are a ton that rent a small suite in a bigger spa building and work independently. This person does not want to have to give up their clientele and have to rebuild in a much less dense area.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
If 3 people's votes are ignored it's a tragedy. If 3 million people's votes are ignored it's statistics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:Vast majority of my friends in NY, CT, and MA don't vote because it's literally a waste of time because of the electoral college. If it was popular vote, they'd all vote (per their words). I'm sure they are untold millions that don't vote because if you're in a solid blue state, it's a waste of time and your vote doesn't matter because the democratic nominee will always win the state. You should tell your idiot friends that there are elections more important than president that they need to vote in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:If 3 people's votes are ignored it's a tragedy. If 3 million people's votes are ignored it's statistics. They weren't ignored. They were counted as part of the system that everyone knew and was playing from the word go. I live in a state that votes red as hell and functionally dont get a vote in the presidential elections. That's an actual, legitimate problem with the system. The raw vote counts not matching the election results in close races on rare occasion is not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 02:00
|
|