|
HonorableTB posted:can't be mordor, too much loving rain for it to be mordor. We're the dead marshes *Kurt Cobain's ghostly visage stares at you from beneath the surface with foggy eyes*
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
cr0y posted:gently caress it, go big, put the whole country on unix time. Not only are the trains now running on time, they’re running on metric time. Remember this moment, people, eighty past two on April 47th.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
I suggest polynomial time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 01:50
|
|
|
2021 will be the year that swatch internet time finally wins out
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 01:55
|
|
|
I just want daylight saving time turned off forever and the winter hours be used, so that solar noon is roughly what it should be at local time. 4 pm local time would be the hottest time of day instead of 5 pm in summer. I also want to get into a knife fight with whoever started the myth that farmers prefer DST. The sun rises at a later local time during DST and animals and plants don't give a flying gently caress about whatever that poo poo is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
I want DST forever because it makes it so much easier to communicate with my elderly parents, because living at a 12 hour time difference is much easier to deal with than a 13 hour time difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 01:58
|
|
|
Randomly assign each municipality a time zone from the 24 available.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:*Kurt Cobain's ghostly visage stares at you from beneath the surface with foggy eyes* If you listen closely you can almost understand his ghostly lyrics but right when you're on the verge of a breakthrough your rent is raised $500/month and you're sucked below the placid waters
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
How are u posted:It's a big tent party. Anti abortion dems are few and far between these days, but they still exist. Honestly, I feel like the Democrats should literally rebrand themselves to the Democratic Coalition because at this point it isn't a party. You just have a bunch of completely different groups with similar interests and share the same values.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 02:12
|
|
|
lil poopendorfer posted:Specifically which medications or conditions? A scheduled medicine administered in a medical setting is considered on time if given within one hour before or after the ordered time, so I'd love to know more [Edit:] gently caress is it perfectly American that an issue is “every medical professional agrees this is an unmitigated disaster” vs “but little Brayhdeen will have to wait for the bus when it’s a little darker” and I know without a doubt which side will win AmiYumi fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:I don’t remember the specific meds from last time I studied this, but pain management immediately springs to mind - an hour of unmanaged pain becomes a bigger problem than just giving them their dose on time, and often escalates to a need for further intervention. Don’t gently caress with medication schedules for no reason. Laughing at the idea that anyone in medicine strictly observes the orders in the first place. Every single clinical computer system has to take downtime around daylight savings transitions because programmers are too stupid to understand dates and times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
It's time we switch to .beat for time measurement like PSO wanted us to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 02:43
|
|
|
I don't know about y'all, but every time we swap to 7/8 time from summer's 4/4 it busts up my rhythm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 02:49
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Honestly, I feel like the Democrats should literally rebrand themselves to the Democratic Coalition because at this point it isn't a party. You just have a bunch of completely different groups with similar interests and share the same values. That sounds about right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Honestly, I feel like the Democrats should literally rebrand themselves to the Democratic Coalition because at this point it isn't a party. You just have a bunch of completely different groups with similar interests and share the same values.  It's almost like American political parties aren't like European parliamentary-style parties. Maybe American political parties are indeed more like parliamentary governing coalitions that are joined before the election, rather than afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 03:11
|
|
|
Chiming in from lurking to say that, having Narcolepsy, the changing hours in the fall is sort of distracting, but changing them in the spring makes me physically sick for at least a week if I don't take (at least) that Monday off work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 03:12
|
|
|
cr0y posted:gently caress it, go big, put the whole country on unix time. The US probably won’t make it to 2038 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 03:17
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Do you understand the words circumstancial evidence? Because the argument at no point was "all donations are bribes". It was that Trump is an incredibly corrupt person and has a pattern of donating to both parties and than having things work out to his benefit. I don't know if I'd call paying for access a textbook bribe but everyone knows it's a heavy finger on the scales. And why shouldn't you be mad at politicians? They don't need to play this game. Well there's a few things here. Firstly, I'm not sure that VS' position isn't that "basically all donations are bribes" - I did ask them directly and they didn't answer directly, although they did say that paying for access = bribe and that goon donations weren't bribes, so I took that to mean all donations larger than what an average wage earner would give is a bribe, especially if they expect to get some face time out of it. They are welcome to clarify though. Also, the conversation started out with this just being a donation as the Lee Carter tweet said - VS changed to saying bribe a few posts in. I didn't say don't be mad at politicians - I said I didn't see much point being mad at one specific politician for doing what they all do. Do be mad at politicians in general/the overall system which allows and encourages lobbying and donations, otherwise one bad pol will just be replaced by another. Or be mad at whoever you like, I'm not in charge of who people are mad at, it's just my opinion. Trump probably didn't give donations out of pure kindness, although him giving $25k is proportionally like us giving $1 or something so it's not impossible he just threw some money at politics because that's what rich people do. He's super vain and loves hyping his image too, so he might have felt $50k to get a photo with whoever won VA was a good deal, that seems to be poo poo the "upper class" does. More likely I would assume it was a generic rich guy who is into politics donation and either was thinking about getting future support in return or just wanting access to complain/talk/demand directly to a governor to feel powerful - I feel like this is basically what rich people and politicians do, so while it's not great it's business as usual. When VS changed to calling it a bribe I was thinking more along the lines of a "here's $$$ to do X - yes I agree to do X in exchange for $$$" arrangement which seems a more serious issue which requires specifics. Anyway, to repeat myself, I don't think taking a donation in 2009 from Dem trump invalidates someone running in 2021 as being against gop Trump. I don't think it affected the election either because it doesn't seem to have been widely known before it was over - the tweet that started this was from Wednesday. Maybe it was reported elsewhere earlier, but if so I hadn't seen it and I did see a fair amount of dragging McAuliffe for other reasons. Feldegast42 posted:Maybe the rich buying politicians with political donations shouldn't be a thing and this is all just self-justifying blatant political corruption as just the way things are This is the 2nd time today you seem to be replying to me without actually reading my posts: Darkrenown posted:Do be mad at politicians in general/the overall system which allows and encourages lobbying and donations, otherwise one bad pol will just be replaced by another. Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 03:18
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Anyway, to repeat myself, I don't think taking a donation in 2009 from Dem trump invalidates someone running in 2021 as being against gop Trump. Trump wasn't less of a racist POS in 2009... It should be plenty disqualifying as it stands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 03:25
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Well there's a few things here. Firstly, I'm not sure that VS' position isn't that "basically all donations are bribes" - I did ask them directly and they didn't answer directly, although they did say that paying for access = bribe and that goon donations weren't bribes, so I took that to mean all donations larger than what an average wage earner would give is a bribe, especially if they expect to get some face time out of it. They are welcome to clarify though. Also, the conversation started out with this just being a donation as the Lee Carter tweet said - VS changed to saying bribe a few posts in. It seems that your point is that it's ok to take donations from Donald Trump. Is that right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 03:29
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:e: ^^^^ exactly! No argument here. Among all of our other problems, we are absolutely suffering from a lack of imagination w/r/t how much better things could be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 03:41
|
|
|
Maybe the rich buying politicians with political donations shouldn't be a thing and this is all just self-justifying blatant political corruption as just the way things are
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 03:44
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Honestly, I feel like the Democrats should literally rebrand themselves to the Democratic Coalition because at this point it isn't a party. You just have a bunch of completely different groups with similar interests and share the same values. By that standard, "at this point" the Democratic Party is more of a party than it has ever been in living memory and perhaps in its history as an institution. Parties historically had a lot of internal ideological and regional divides, and only came together on specific issues or when really deftly handled by leadership. Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats were basically different parties. Even when I was young and saw some of the 1992 (or maybe 1988) convention coverage there were "liberal Republicans" and "conservative Democrats" as significant minorities still. And not in the "Romney's pretty far right, but in today's party he's almost a commie" stuff, the Republicans had people left of lots of Democrats and vice-versa. This eventually went away, first in the Republicans with the Democrats lagging. The 2010 purge of most of the Blue Dogs made party alignment a lot sharper than it had ever been, even if it's obviously still not there. But that's on the national level: local parties tend to be a lot more about machine politics and personal connections, and have things like "Yeah, if you're conservative in this town you gotta be conservative on the Democratic ticket since the primary is the real election." So they still have people not really in alignment with the national party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 03:53
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Maybe the rich buying politicians with political donations shouldn't be a thing and this is all just self-justifying blatant political corruption as just the way things are I think it's this and hammering it in to people might reduce some of the conspiracy theory crazy narrative stuff. The "conspiracy" is dumb and obvious and happening in broad daylight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 03:55
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Well there's a few things here. Firstly, I'm not sure that VS' position isn't that "basically all donations are bribes" - I did ask them directly and they didn't answer directly, although they did say that paying for access = bribe and that goon donations weren't bribes, so I took that to mean all donations larger than what an average wage earner would give is a bribe, especially if they expect to get some face time out of it. They are welcome to clarify though. Also, the conversation started out with this just being a donation as the Lee Carter tweet said - VS changed to saying bribe a few posts in. So you don't think people would want more politicians who openly reject business as usual? Seems like a stronger platform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 03:55
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:This probably isn't as good an idea as I think it is, since I've only spent 5 mins thinking about it since reading your post, but: Give a UBI and also have some matching tied to the UBI amount. Say people get $500 month/$6000 year - the gov would match 1 annual UBI to mortgage payments, e.g. so as long as you paid $6k in mortgage the fed would pay off another $6k for you. Match it double for first time home downpayment. Match it *3 for Student loan payments. Everyone gets some money, a few types of debt are more efficiently paid off, everyone is invested in the UBI increasing. I don't know what % of people don't have a mortgage, don't ever want to buy a house, and don't have student debt who also wouldn't want some free $, but a lot of people should be pleased by that. Well the fundamental reason this won't work is because you need good credit to take out loans in the first place, so mortgage payments are disproportionately the realm of the "well-off, just not THAT well-off" - same for student loans. If anything, rent is what you want to be paying to get closer to an equitable system - ideally by greatly increasing the scope of government-owned and -subsidized housing, but failing that at least forgiveness of back rent. Of course, the back rent part actually already passed in the last reconciliation package, it just hasn't had much meaningful impact because of implementation delays due to a shoddy framework for the process and inefficient state governments. The EITC expansion and/or doing "negative" tax brackets would be another way of accomplishing something similar - the end goal is just to be able to make things better for the people below the poverty line or with other harmful circumstances without creating something that people will point to as a "handout". Basically, when you have some all-encompassing system it's harder to cut pieces off, but when you have smaller programs trying to fill the gaps, there aren't enough advocates to save it from the chopping block
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 03:57
|
|
|
Republicans are a party, Democrats are a guild
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 04:08
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Daylight saving time is probably capitalism's crowning achievement. Instead of just moving office hours around in certain places for some months of the year, as appropriate, we modify time itself so that the business day is always 8AM to 5PM. I think train companies inventing timezones is bigger achievement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 04:14
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:So you don't think people would want more politicians who openly reject business as usual? Seems like a stronger platform. Oh no, I'm sure they would. I certainly would anyway. The current situation is a shitshow. Like ideally for me the effect of donations needs to be drastically reduced somehow, Citizens United should be abolished, politicians shouldn't be able to own individual shares and shouldn't be allowed to get jobs in industries that their policies affected after their political career, they should be paid the state/national min wage depending on if they are at the state or federal level (or at least their wage should be based on the min wage, maybe double it), and they shouldn't have special healthcare or insurance, and the IRS should have take special care to check them for any unexplained income sources. Again, I wish the dems had run someone else, or that McAuliffe had not run on a lovely "hey I'm not trump" campaign. BougieBitch posted:Well the fundamental reason this won't work is because you need good credit to take out loans in the first place, so mortgage payments are disproportionately the realm of the "well-off, just not THAT well-off" - same for student loans. If anything, rent is what you want to be paying to get closer to an equitable system - ideally by greatly increasing the scope of government-owned and -subsidized housing, but failing that at least forgiveness of back rent. Of course, the back rent part actually already passed in the last reconciliation package, it just hasn't had much meaningful impact because of implementation delays due to a shoddy framework for the process and inefficient state governments. Yeah, I suppose so. I just thought it would be good to tie the UBI to bonuses which people who don't really need the UBI benefit from, so they also have a vested interest in supporting it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 04:20
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Like ideally for me the effect of donations needs to be drastically reduced somehow, Citizens United should be abolished, politicians shouldn't be able to own individual shares and shouldn't be allowed to get jobs in industries that their policies affected after their political career Why not. I thought you just said it's no problem to take money from businesses you're regulating or billionaires you're investigating for crimes, what's the issue. As long as nobody says, what was it Darkrenown posted:"here's $$$ to do X - yes I agree to do X in exchange for $$$" at any point where we might have heard it and can prove it, it's no problem right? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 04:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I thought you just said it's no problem to take money from businesses you're regulating or billionaires you're investigating for crimes, what's the issue. I don't remember saying that, perhaps you could quote those words to remind me? I'll get back to you once you do so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 04:40
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I don't remember saying that, perhaps you could quote those words to remind me? I'll get back to you once you do so. Darkrenown posted:I'm still not convinced that McAuliffe getting a 2009 donation from Trump was a big deal If you like since you seem to love tedious semantic arguments over word choice I will gladly rephrase my question: "I thought you just said it's no
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 04:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Happily. Which businesses was McAuliffe regulating and/or which billionaires was McAuliffe investigating for crimes in 2009? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Which businesses was McAuliffe regulating and/or which billionaires was McAuliffe investigating for crimes in 2009? Why none, since you know very well that even if he had won he wouldn't have been inaugurated in 2010. I take it then that it's your position that would-be governors or other officials taking money from businesses they're regulating is no big deal as long as they are careful to only accept the money prior to the election? Ditto for DAs investigating well-heeled criminals who are generous with donations I suppose? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 04:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why none Oh good, so I'm glad we've established I did not say anything along the lines of quote:I thought you just said it's no problem to take money from businesses you're regulating or billionaires you're investigating for crimes, what's the issue. If you're confused about any other aspects of my posts I recommend just re-reading them, they are all still there. I'm sorry that you're against the idea that quote:the effect of donations needs to be drastically reduced somehow, Citizens United should be abolished, politicians shouldn't be able to own individual shares and shouldn't be allowed to get jobs in industries that their policies affected after their political career but I'm not interested in arguing with someone who is against such obviously needed reforms since we clearly have fundamentally differing views. I'll just say I think they're needed - if you disagree you are welcome to do so but I'm not interested in debating it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 05:05
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Oh good, so I'm glad we've established I did not say anything along the lines of Why no we haven't established that at all, because you curiously cut off the rest of my post! I recommend reading to the end, it's quite short. Pay particular attention to the questions exploring what you said in better detail: VitalSigns posted:Why none, since you know very well that even if he had won he wouldn't have been inaugurated in 2010. E: seriously though since you've already thrown the parting shot consisting of a ridiculously bad faith argument trying to misrepresent my position as anti campaign finance reform: this is just clownish now You're trying to simultaneously affirm that donations are a problem while exempting politicians you prefer from accountability by threading this ridiculous loophole that somehow these donations you say are a problem magically aren't somehow if they come in before the election instead of after. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 05:08
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Oh good, so I'm glad we've established I did not say anything along the lines of my dude you cannot possibly believe that donald trump giving someone 25 thousand dollars was completely on the up-and-up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 05:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:seriously though since you've already thrown the parting shot consisting of a ridiculously bad faith argument trying to misrepresent my position as anti campaign finance reform: this is just clownish now I laid out some reforms I would like to see, you started questioning them. If you are not against them that's an odd thing to do. You really should take my tip of reading my posts though, because I have said multiple times that I do not like McAuliffe, think he ran a poo poo campaign, and that I wish someone else had run. Him being a politician I prefer is something made up by you at direct odds with what I have said several times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 05:31
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I laid out some reforms I would like to see, you started questioning them. If you are not against them that's an odd thing to do. I didn't question the reforms themselves, I obviously agree with them, I questioned the glaring contradiction between acknowledging that donations and other perks are such a problem it needs strict oversight and your commitment to dying on the hill of defending as "no big deal" politicians taking those donations in practice. A big flaming stink posted:my dude you cannot possibly believe that donald trump giving someone 25 thousand dollars was completely on the up-and-up. I think Trump's campaign donations work something like Sauron's rings. Everyone else who touched one was driven by greed and it corrupted them into twisted specimens of humanity, but if you're good of heart and pure of mind then it's okay if you take one VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
BougieBitch posted:The Grinnell College survey has crosstabs for city/suburb/town/rural - city has the highest rate on full forgiveness and lowest for no forgiveness (37/19), suburbs are bad (22/33), towns are average (27/27), rural is TERRIBLE (18/40). The other poll doesn't have a similar crosstab, but you can extrapolate for sure. Oh I see. Yeah I mean the main reason I support it is that I think it's good policy and the right thing to do. As for whether it helps with elections, seems to me adding to your coalition is good and if you can do it with something that's good policy even better. Hillary lost by what 30,000-some votes across a few key states? Biden won by something like twice that much? Seems like creating a few million people who suddenly gained financial security thanks to the Democrats would be a good thing when we're seeing elections as narrow as that. Will a one-time forgiveness make everyone else so mad that it offsets the gain? Seems unlikely if you did it right. I mean, for loan forgiveness to be a permanent solution you'd have to make college free right? Is someone really going to be mad that someone got some loans forgiven if it also means their own kid can go to school for free? When we first created public high schools, was everybody who didn't go to one furious that their kids will have something they didn't?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 06:21
|
|