|
FAUXTON posted:It doesn't help that a lot of Central Florida is huge swathes of inland mississippi broken up by suburbs without a city to leech off of. I grew up in Pasco and while the place was small, I didn't realize how horrendous the sprawl was until later on when my siblings and I all grew up and moved out of the state, and my father retired and moved to Spring Hill. For him, groceries are like a half-day affair and god forbid you need to hit up a mall on short notice (just over an hour to something called sawgrass/sawmill/switchblade something or other). I mean he's a big fan of driving but good god that kind of isolation does awful things to people socially. Spent 30 years as a lawyer in a meth-ridden city along the "nature coast" but now he moves out into the middle of nowhere he thinks he needs to buy a gun. Of course CFL voters are going to go with the most batshit candidates and win because the FL Dems are basically all people still held over from the Carter era. Dude, that's not sprawl. That's just plain rural.
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I will never understand how a wildly popular AG could be such a poo poo-rear end candidate for literally every other state office. When the Attorney General is an elected office, it tends to be one that a lot of people don't bother to vote for, and so you don't have to be a great candidate compared to normal positions. People will probably just straight up vote for you on basis of your party alongside other candidates if they bother to vote at all. And there's also not nearly as much campaigning, usually.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Also automation: machines and techniques have gotten good enough that a dozen people can now extract the same amount of coal that used to take hundreds of workers to do. Note: the jobs were already disappearing in a big way due to the technology in like the late 60s and early 70s, that's how far back it all goes. Coal's been hosed as mass employment for nearly 50 years.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
blue squares posted:You can't have one be true without the other Isakson probably isn't anywhere near as widely hated as Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
wow, how bold of canova to not support a bill that's been dead for years (SOPA, last relevant in 2012)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:I'm not sure what you're getting at but he was against it when it was proposed, and it's emblematic of how he's for net neutrality in general. So's DWS. So are most people. He's never actually been in an elected position, so it's not like he voted against it or anything. The only things he supports that are good/neutral and DWS doesn't support, on your list, are weed and no fracking (though last I checked she still wants less fracking/more regulations).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Lol no she isn't, she literally co-sponsored SOPA. One of the reasons Canova was correct to call her a corporate stooge. But she's against it now, and has been since after it died. Sorry about you melting down over your terrible candidate though? And no, Canova was never correct to call her a "corporate stooge", because that's a term used by morons. Jewel Repetition posted:And TPP. The TPP is good
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Oh, well I'm sure if she changed her position after it made no difference she's a staunch supporter of net neutrality. yes, it makes no difference, especially since political failure "tim canova" never had a chance to affect policy. especially since "net neutrality" is the very definition of a "corporate stooge" position because it's very much to the profit of tons of major corporations - which is the reason sopa was defeated, not because of internet nerds being angry at it Jewel Repetition posted:
i'm sorry that you have problems understanding things like "words" and "ideas", but then you did support a terrible candidate in a district you never visited based on misunderstandings in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:sopa had massive corporations on both sides; by that logic the guys on team Google are just as much corporate stooges as the guys on team Viacom yes, they are both "corporate stooges", which is why it's a pretty useless descriptor of policy. there's just about no policy that isn't beneficial for a large grip of corporations.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Corporations spend three times more money lobbying against net neutrality than lobbying for it. no they don't, as the regular media companies lobby for it a ton (because it means they have to pay less to continue to receive their primary revenue stream). they just don't specifically mark it down as lobbying for net neutrality so much as lobbying for media, in the same sort of place you'd mark down lobbying for increased copyright enforcement and so on yes we've already established you have trouble understanding things
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:If this speculation turned out to be true it still probably wouldn't be enough to significantly change the ratio. it's not speculation, and it already is true. yes you misunderstand things so badly that you don't notice that you misunderstand things, we've covered this. the tpp is good, op, and your objections to it are ludicrous and unsubstantiated.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Source? media companies have spent billions upon billions on lobbying for decades. it's definitely you, m8
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Sure, but that's not what's in question. It's how often they fold net neutrality lobbying into other categories, and whether in total it significantly changes the proportion of lobbying for net neutrality. Unless you've got some kind of source for that, then I was right to characterize it as speculation. all the time dude. net neutrality is a major factor in high profits for any company that delivers media online. cbs doesn't want to have to pay extra etc. meanwhile being against net neutrality doesn't generally tie into anything else directly, so it comes out more directly. and no you're not right. it's your monitor that needs to turn on, m8
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Again, that media delivery companies lobby for net neutrality isn't in question, what needs evidence is your extraordinary claim that the lobbying is both unreported and gigantic. There's just no reason to believe that's happening, especially since we have examples of companies that do report it like DISH network. it's not unreported, it simply gets reported in general media lobbying. learn to read. and cbs television is owned by cbs corporation, which used to be called Viacom. and viacom spent tons on lobbying across its various subsidiaries
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:I mean unreported as net neutrality-related. Jeez. The point is that you have no evidence this is happening. you have no evidence that isn't, while we know that tons of politicians had the squeeze put on them by media influence, enough to counterbalance the supposed overwhelming lobbying against net neutrality at times yes, at other times no. similarly to how verizon, for example, is sometimes in favor of net neutrality (namely when it they can use it as a club against competitors) and sometimes against it (when they think they might be able to make more money).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:My evidence is that there are content deliverers who have lobbied openly/specifically for net neutrality instead of folding it up. By the way, I know you have trouble with definitions sometimes, so for your convenience the definition of speculation is literally the forming of a theory without firm evidence. yeah and meanwhile, pro net neutrality stuff is usually wrapped up in other things, ya goofball. it's not speculation, it's fact you literally have no idea what you're talking about, lol. both in that you apparently don't know what net neutrality is, and that you think media companies are generally against it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Please stop arguing with the guy who claims to be a socialist and yet spends all his time on the internet going to bat for his abuela. nice meltdown, liberal
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:If you don't have any evidence, it's speculation. Right, which is why your claim is speculation. no, dude, you don't know what net neutrality is. viacom is not a cable company, and hasn't been since the 90s. so you didn't show anything besides you're really really mad at your own ignorance.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:It's why your claim is speculation. nope. nope. net neutrality just means you don't slow down some things on purpose. it's nothing about preventing others from being sped up, say, by the provider buying their own better links to you or paying for in-network cdn. viacom, as owner of cable CHANNELS is not a cable PROVIDER and thus not what is meant by cable COMPANY - in fact they're often opposed to the things cable providers want because they have differeing interests!! no, the underlying issue in net neutrality is not copyright law. the "underlying" and only issue in net neutrality is that providers should not punish certain traffic by intentionally slowing it, beyond the requirements of ensuring fair delivery of content to the user. eg its ok to slow and block outright spam communication and botnets, it's not ok to slow and block bob's video dot com. by the way: this is exactly why content providers are in favor of net neutrality, because they directly have to pay more money if it goes away to stay competitive but of course people who aren't bright enough to understand things think that net neutrality means way the gently caress more than it actually means.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Yes, if you're offering something you thought of that has no evidence it's speculation. That's the definition. ah, so your posting
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
Epic High Five posted:This came up in Trump thread and multiple people confirmed it's no biggie because yeah like one of my friends lives in a poorer part of philly, and her polling place is a 5 minute walk away on this map of philly, every area outlined in red has its own polling place:  if you'll look closely, it's sometimes only like 2 blocks of 2 streets in a voting district. the large ones are pretty much all empty of people, like the airport or parkland
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 14:53
|
|