|
haveblue posted:The electoral college could be nullified by the NPVIC, but how to get every state to pass it and continue to abide by it when it costs them power is left as an exercise for the reader. Don't you only need a majority of electoral votes for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to work? One argument you can make is that non-swing states gain some power, since candidates may actually pay attention to them. Like what presidential candidate ever gave a gently caress about Arkansas? However, if half of the electoral votes join together, then they actually will have to campaign there, their votes will matter, and their constituencies may be heard. Since democratic reforms actually passed in Michigan and Florida, I have a glimmer of hope for this.
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
Martian posted:Yeah, why would you assume that Trump will get more popular? He might very well lose a lot of support and his brain degradation may become (even more) obvious. Yeah, a lot can happen in 2 years. It can go both ways, but I have hope that Donald Trump will gently caress it up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm actually surprised the dems are as muted as they are about climate change It makes sense to me, Climate Change is very much a losing proposition in rural parts of the country (they want their bigass trucks and coal and poo poo), and when you start to push it people get cold feet. Like to actually do something we will all have to make lifestyle sacrifices at some point and pay a lot to update to a greener grid. So sure, suburbanites and urban populations agree that it's scary and we should do something, but I feel like they'll just get spooked when that something is drafted into legislation. Unfortunately it's very low on the priority list as well. I, sincerely, wish this was not the case.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
eke out posted:haha everyone hates this guy, so long as they are not required to say on the record that they hate him I probably missed it, but didn't Trump literally say "I never knew the guy"? So now we find out that, in fact, he did know the guy?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:https://twitter.com/SurefireIntel/status/1062843160663998465?s=19 I wonder if they're just claiming this to get attention. But they're also just crazy enough to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:ALso, since Dems have retaken the House, they have regained the critical control over the House cafeteria, since its under partisan control for god knows what reason Full vegetarianism now!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
I haven't heard about this until this morning. Has anyone read a good overview of the situation? From like a single article I found the Parisians were upset that the tax burden for poor French people has increased significantly while their wages have not increased very much. So this is just wrong if that is accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:so who on fox news made up the 250 billion dollar in losses to undocumented immigration? i can't even begin to imagine where that came from other than the fevered ravings of someone like hannity (undocumented immigrants pay something like 12 times more into the system than they take out). I think this figure comes from this study: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=23550 where they* take the average difference in spending and contribution at local, state, and federal levels and multiply by the number of immigrants. The summary of the study says this: quote:In terms of fiscal impacts, first-generation immigrants are more costly to governments, mainly at the state and local levels, than are the native-born, in large part due to the costs of educating their children. However, as adults, the children of immigrants (the second generation) are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population, contributing more in taxes than either their parents or the rest of the native-born population. which kind of blows up the narrative that we're losing money. We're contributing to the education of children, who will become citizens. Of course that's going to be expensive! But educating children tends to be worth it since you end up with productive members of society in the end. * Edit: I'm unsure if Trump/GOP did the multiplication or if the ~250-300 billion number is in the study
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
bilperkins2 posted:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1070089365995642881 Ugh this is just depressing, we're the 7th worst polluters per capita, after a bunch of oil-producing states and Australia.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:If the Democratic Party is not going to be serious about climate change then yes, voting is actually pointless. It won't make a difference who we vote for if the outcome is not "deal with climate change, right now." It's that simple. That is the state of the world thanks to our carbon emission output. Them signalling that they want to put Joe loving Manchin anywhere near climate change policy is them announcing that they don't give a gently caress about climate change. I was hoping it was just like 1 or 2 of the most-senior people that were going along with this but no, it kind of is all of the D senators, save for one anonymous detractor who said "we should give him a chance anyway" I guess the best we can hope for is for it to not matter in the short-term while the (hopeful) new select committee in the House drafts some good legislation. Then somehow Manchin's committee gets bypassed or something?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Giggy posted:Screaming at them in restaurants and public places is a good start. That and primary challenges I guess. The fundamental problem is that each Democratic senator is precious. Without at least a majority there's nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:There is actual harm associated with treating voting with a disproportionately massive sense of importance. You might claim "but I didn't say don't do anything else!" but in practice voting is drat near all you people talk about. There's a good reason that voting has been a focus recently; we're only a month after an election where participation was incredibly important. Of course for the past half year people have been saying it's important, because it really was. There were plenty of people (at least I was) excited about the sit-in organized by the Sunrise movement. I'd bet everyone would agree that at this point that type of action is more impactful than voting (because you can't vote now duh).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, ok. That is cold comfort to the global poor who will suffer the brunt of this cost but I guess I can't argue with this since it's probably technically correct. I guess I view this as the option most likely to succeed. Relentless pressure on democrats in the senate and house, plus electing as many of them as possible since they are the only ones who would ever be sympathetic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
Wow I missed this detail. Like did he do it the day of?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:lol he’s going down for first degree murder and the Nazis are going to flip the gently caress out. Does Virginia still do the death penalty? I can't find any other info on it and I can't find a tweet from Molly (who has been following the proceedings), so I'm beginning to think that's inaccurate  Edit: I mean that detail, not that he's going to prison which I hope is still accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Huh. Well, someone else claimed he is facing the death penalty, so I dunno who to believe but I know Fields is extremely (self-)owned for all the evidence he left that he clearly premeditated. I saw a NYT article that said he faced federal hate crime charges, which carried the death penalty. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/us/charlottesville-murder-trial-james-fields.html quote:Mr. Fields, who faces a life sentence, has also been charged in federal court on hate crime charges, in which the death penalty could be imposed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
Asema posted:And yet she still won 78% in the General with an increase of +8 to the shift from 2016, yeah dude I'm sure your opinion is super on point so go away Rape man I don't know, I'm pretty sure the person you're arguing against is just an idiot, anybody that can form a sentence worth arguing over would understand you can't just randomly pick the last election to compare to since midterms and presidential elections tend to be significantly different.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Ugh, we killed her twice. Our hosed up border policy forces families to make dangerous (and deadly) crossings in the desert to avoid our border patrol. And then that border patrol is grossly negligent in caring for people crossing the desert and you end up with this. She should have never been in danger in the first place, and she sure as gently caress should have been taken care of when in the border patrol’s custody.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Mineaiki posted:Expanding transit means [underprivileged group] will be able to reach my house, though. I don't disagree, but hopefully that won't bleed too much into the primary since it's viewed as a more local issue. On the other hand, these kind of policies probably need to be pushed at a national level, so I guess let's just hope that the voters of California push for a green new deal style policy, and never think about how that would involve large increases in mass transit and dense housing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
eyebeem posted:I’m legit tempted to build an actual estimate right now for the insane spike wall, taking into account geographic limitations. You should talk to the gofundme guy, I'm sure you can get in on the grift and get him to compensate your time for providing an estimate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
eke out posted:that story came out late last night so would be unrelated to any of last week's losses Presumably they mean swapped cause and effect. Donald T wants to fire the fed chair because of poor market performance (which he believes is spurred by the chair's policy), not that poor market performance was caused by the specter of firing the fed chair.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:My admin teacher said that bears punch down from above, making a sinking graph line. Bull strike from below and gore upwards, making a rising line. I don't know, I'm pretty sure it's a 'bull' market since bulls are attracted to red and a 'bear' market since black is the most common bear.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
Discussing the optimal strategy for investing in stocks (whether through funds or otherwise) is good harm minimization, but also kind of misses a point. In an ideal world, typical americans shouldn't need to invest in an inherently risky thing (the stock market) in order to secure savings for retirement. Your outcomes may depend on when you started saving significant amounts of money, when you plan to retire, or whether you chose some kind of market timing strategy. Ideally, any worker who works an appropriate amount of their life should be able to retire without having to worry about how the dow is doing at any point in time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i know its the probably the same bill but did the house add anything? I thought they removed the ban on funding of international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) That provided counseling for abortions. I think Trump somehow ended funding of those NGOs shortly after he was inaugurated (as did like every other republican president I think). But notably the tweet doesn’t directly mention that so maybe that’s not what they’re referring to.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
Rotten Red Rod posted:
I have no idea what SAM is, but it appears that https://beta.sam.gov works ok, so maybe it's just that SAM Classic™ is down?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Precisely. I was posting here in support of the DACA for wall deal when it came up, but not now. I can still stomach wall funding for the right concessions, but the previous deal should stay dead, it's not enough. In my opinion, if there was a deal (I'm not convinced any would be a good idea at this point), it would have to bring a significant increase in legal immigration/asylum seekers into the US. So basically there can be funding for construction of a wall, but if an asylum seeker shows up at the border they're let in and treated well and ordinary migrants who want to work in the US are also let in and given a path to citizenship. Plus also significant reduction in deportation obviously. That still may be a bad idea since Trump would 'win'. The bad part of constructing a wall is the inherent racism of it and the extent to which it would prevent people from entering the US. So in order for there to be a wall we'd have to make entry to the country not racist and easy. Of course that will never happen so I guess I'm saying that there shouldn't be a deal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Yeah, it's really weird how stable they are. They don't go up and down like most Presidents. The only time his approval has been above his disapproval is the month he was elected. I think this is part partisanship/fatigue and part decent economy. Pretty much everyone decided what they thought about the dumpster fire also known as the Donald J. Trump presidency inside the first month or so. The endless cycle of minor crises hasn't given people a real opportunity to re-evaluate. Then there's been a lack of things which are uncharacteristically bad so there hasn't been a crisis which is obvious to everyone and which causes people to re-evaluate their position. I have a dim hope that it's kind of a nonlinear response. Most people will just stick with their party, but there is some crisis which has to be big enough to erode a lot of that support.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2019 06:23
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Notice how Trump still doesn’t have a nickname for Pelosi. He fears her. Personally, I'm hoping for "Negative" Nancy, or perhaps "Neurotic" Nancy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
skylined! posted:This never happened and anyone willing to look at your posting history can watch in real time how you tried to hard to make it look like it was happening. I remember the idea that Trump had a “floor” of support which can never be broken being brought up in this thread before and advocated by a few. Of course it’s ridiculous to say “this thread” said that as if it’s a collective with only one take on every issue, we usually get a few different opinions. I really dislike absolute statements like the original post, they’re very unhelpful. It’s also a bit early to tell whether or not things have changed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
bartlebee posted:Hello thread. I had a Ben Shapiro sighting in the wild. He was behind us in line for the animated Spider-Man movie last night. I wanted to go tell him he was a dildo afterwards but my girlfriend told me to leave people alone so I didn't. I also regret to inform you he is in fact not knee high to an apple. My roommate and I argued over it because I was certain it wasn't him because he wasn't a little person, but he was indeed wearing a Harvard sweatshirt to a children's movie. This is my Ben Shapiro story. I hope he really hated the movie the entire time. One of Ben’s idiotic takes is that African American culture is responsible for the wealth gap (and pay gap and incarceration gap etc. etc.) and it has nothing to do with systemic racism of Americans. Given that, I could expect he would hate that the protagonist both listened to hip hop unapologetically and succeeded at being Spider-Man. I wonder if he’ll go on an unhinged rant about how this movie is a moral failing on Marvel’s part.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
double nine posted:it was poisoned All hail our replacement for Radium, Polonium.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:A carbon tax can totally complement a GND. And a carbon tax is actually looking more politically feasible. Just as a foreword, I'm not attempting to endorse or anti-endorse the idea of a carbon tax here (or any kind of pricing on carbon emissions), I just think we need to consider how policies affect citizens and plan accordingly. One of the problems you can run into with a carbon tax is that it's inherently regressive, in as much as most consumption in the US requires carbon emissions. If you're poor you will spend most of your money on a few small categories: food (agriculture is a large carbon source), electricity/heating, and personal transportation. That plus rent, but its not directly a carbon source like the others are. A tax on the greenhouse gas content of these categories will increase the prices of those parts of the budget, so it will cost poor folks proportionally more than rich folks. So from a socialist's perspective, you could have real objections to a carbon tax on the grounds that it's a regressive. I do see your point though, that it's necessary to change patterns of consumption potentially via a carbon tax. As far as I understand it, the point of a green new deal is to attempt this via new programs instead of phase out of old consumption patterns. So making public transportation easy and comprehensive enough that working class folks will use it instead of cars, distributing better insulation/home electronics, forcing land change via public works projects, forcing renewable power generation via public works projects, etc. I can clearly see how this works for some parts (obviously just building renewable energy for free will do wonders), but I'm unclear on others. Things like necessary land use changes in agriculture and reduction of personal vehicle use (even electric cars should be used less) don't have a direct alternative. The green way to do things is giving up something so I feel like it would be difficult to enforce that without the stick for the carrot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Fart City posted:Is it just me or has dude aged like, fifteen years in the past eight months? No I think it has to be the government putting aging serum in his water supply. There's no way an Adonis like him ages that way. Edit: Also I still haven't figured this out, why the gently caress would any company pick up Alex fuckin' Jones of all people? Might as well just buy a gun and shoot yourself in the foot to save the time (and embarrassment)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/JLPtalk/status/1085332330254721024 I keep on reading Ayanna's as "Married a single father muslim with hijab", to which I think "drat, she's doing pretty well for herself!".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Armchair take: kids value having friends more than they value having political opinions, and moreover these days kids have friends who are LGBTQ One can hope for that, but it's also possible for whites to form insular groups that advocate for racist and conservative politics. So we should just hope that the Gen Zers prefer a wider group of friends and will self-filter out reactionary racist, sexist, or anti-LGBTQ ideas. My fiancée's nephew is now like 11 and playing fortnite and watching youtube videos. I just hope he can come through more or less unharmed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
About the catholic school kid stuff: I didn't realize until I started watching the full video that the group was doing the tomahawk chop, which is even worse. I feel like it's one thing to ironically dance and clap, but to invoke faux-native imagery is another. Like it's now explicitly "haha he's a native american how funny is that", there's not even a veneer of "we were just celebrating his music!". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIG5ZB0fw1k
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2019 06:09
|
|
|
Dad Jokes posted:Love how regressives are doubling down on the racist teens on MLK day. Extremely cool and good country. This was more or less inevitable. If you want to build a movement then you have to make sure the future members are protected and encouraged. Since the MAGA movement is based on racist resentment of non-whites (white supremacy), then they need to circle the wagons. Otherwise, children might be discouraged from becoming fully racist voters. They also have to defend the ability for members of their movement to wear their uniform. Wearing the MAGA hat is a demonstration of solidarity between racists, and is necessary to grow or at least maintain their base. Since in this case it's easy to inject enough doubt it's clear that they need to circle the wagons.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Racial disparity in childbirth deaths is a noble problem to address but I'm not really sure what can happen at the federal level. There's 2 things you'd need to worry about : subconscious racism from practitioners, and generally poor handling of maternal care during child birth in the US. The former I have no idea how to tackle, since as you say it's an individual thing. For the latter, propublica has done good investigations of maternal care and fatality rates during and after delivery https://www.propublica.org/series/lost-mothers. The US has the highest mortality rate in the developed world. IIRC, they blamed that partly on poor procedures in place at hospitals. Doctors occasionally ignore signs and symptoms which lead to the death of the mother. Setting up some kind of board or agency which researches cases of maternal death and standardizes care might help with this. You might also hope that better standards would improve the care for women of color as well (IF they're applied the same as white women). I think one of the reasons women of color die more often is that symptoms which can lead to death are more often ignored. You'd have to train doctors to just follow established procedures better and hope that they don't ignore the procedures for women of color. edit: fixed the link Eeyo fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Jan 21, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Yeah, I think that Uber was able to satisfy consumers' base desires because it was able to 1) externalize operating costs to its workers (and pedestrians and cities etc.) and 2) attract obscene amounts of capital investment with the promise of monopolizing single-destination transport (and continue to externalize the costs after it becomes a monopoly). You can argue whether or not Uber wanted to make the process frictionless and ended up with a system of exploitation, or whether Uber specifically wanted to exploit the market and its app was the best way. IMO, the distinction is kind of irrelevant since it's clear that Uber has an overall negative impact whether or not they are intentionally evil. The case against Uber's treatment of workers its pretty obvious so I won't state it. Single-destination transport is also fundamentally mis-aligned with climate goals, since transportation is resource intensive and makes up a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions. Making it frictionless to have a driver drive from A to B only increases the demand for transport. Additionally, having this kind of convenience doesn't incentivize necessary densification. To the extent that Uber has held back public transit and high-density transit oriented development, it has significantly held us back environmentally. IMO, Uber should be abolished, and their assets and the capital of everyone who invested in it should be redistributed to their exploited workers and public transit projects.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
twice burned ice posted:YouTube to curb recommending conspiracy videos Now they just need to curb all the recommendations for 'tunderf00t OWNS anita sarkeesian'.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 17:28
|
|