there was rampant voter suppression going on all across the country. Poor districts were understaffed and/or had too few machines. There were several cases of voter intimidation too when the Supreme Court overturned rules that prevented people from "campaigning" near polling offices (it was used by white supremacists in black neighborhoods to intimidate voters by showing up open carrying with racists signs).
Trump won by a few thousand votes. These sorts of things, taken together, are how he won.
changed their rules after they got caught (though the right wingers in the party managed to hang onto some of their power sadly). Check the links above. The GOP keeps getting caught again and again and again. No changes whatsoever. They keep doing it because they keep getting away with it.
Those regulations were passed for a reason. Specifically because people were being abused. If we let AirBnB out of those regulations because it's "on the internet" or the "sharing economy" it's only a matter of time before the big folks like Hamptons make use of those loop holes. At that point you're back to "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".
I'd like to see AirBnB regulated until they're either safe and have little or no negative impact on communities (or at least significantly less than the value they bring) or put out of business. And that goes for all companies. My experience is that if you give somebody an inch, they take a mile. Which is another way to say "Those regulations were passed for a reason".
folks in desperate need of some cash, similar to Uber drivers. I know the last 4 or 5 Ubers I took the person was either recently laid off or a Sales person going through a dry spell. One of them used to make good money selling mattresses and his company got bought out by one of the chains and they screwed him on commissions.
I like Bernie more because while Warren gets more done she, like a lot of Democrats, is a bit too defeatist. Democrats give up too easy, even when a position is 70-90% popular. Warren's already backed off Medicare for All into a public option. Now, I know what she's up to (a properly implemented public option would quickly out-compete private, for profit insurance programs) but the trouble is the other side isn't negotiating in good faith, and will use cyclic political changes to undermine the law. They did it with Obamacare, where a popular law is currently on the chopping block because it's been systematically undermined.
I want Warren and the whole of the Dems to stop reaching across the isle. Everytime they do the GOP moves a little further right to escape their grasp. That's how we got Trump, and that's how we got to the point where we're talking about turning Social Security into a Welfare Program.
Back in the 90s Newt Gingrich and the GOP came up with "A Contract for America" which when you stripped away the niceties was a plan to block everything the other side did no matter what while advancing the most radical ideas of their party. It completely revitalized the GOP. The Dems need something like that. They need to draw a line in the sand and say "This is who we are, and this is what's right. This is what we're doing". On the plus side most of their positions (Medicare for All, $15/minimum wage, Tuition Free college, childcare, paid family medical leave, public works and infrastructure programs, etc, etc) are overwhelmingly popular.
on the plus side this puts the Republicans on record as opposing Net Neutrality.
And make no mistake, this is a partisan issue. The last time it came up for a vote it was split completely along party lines (IIRC one or two Repubs broke ranks, but not enough).
What this means is that if you want NN, you have to vote for a Democrat, or at least an Independent. And they have to win both chambers and probably the presidency to.
OTOH, I'm pretty sure it's a minor issue for even a lot of the folks on this forum; and whatever the GOP is selling outweighs the value of NN.
you just end up identifying "need" to almost nothing. It ends up boiling down to a way to pretend you're helping without having to pay for it.
The right wing (including Joe Biden) is trying to do the same with Social Security. They want to means test it so they can avoid paying to maintain it and, long term, shut it down.
If we had a real media (instead of the bought and paid for corporatist crap we get) this crap would be called out. But we don't, so crap like giving folks "what they need" makes it into the public discourse without anyone pointing out that the end game is to eliminate help for low income and disadvantaged folk in order to shift the money up stream. It's a trap, don't fall for it.
but in the States we've long since determined there's no energy savings to be had. The "extra" daylight doesn't really change anything. Folks just turn on the lights anyway.
What's been keeping DST here is retail. Studies show that folks shop more when it's light out. So retail campaigns to keep it. The fact that DST is going away is more a sign of the reduced influence of retail lobbies than anything else.
60-70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck(depending on what you consider paycheck to paycheck, e.g. $1000 in the bank gets you 60%, $100 gets you 70%). Doesn't matter how much that $20 bulb saves you if you've only got $1 in your pocket. Move into an Apartment and you'll still find incandescent bulbs everywhere, especially if it's a cheap apartment.
Note that we're usually not subsidizing energy efficient bulbs out of the goodness of our hearts. It's usually pushed by power companies to reduce load on their plants so they don't have to spend to build another.
or the Dollar store effect. It makes economic sense to buy LEDs. They save a large amount of money over a year or two. But if you're poor you can't necessarily afford a $10 or even $5 dollar light bulb when a.99 cent one will do. If you've only got $1 dollar in your pocket it doesn't matter how much the $5 bulb saves you. And for the really poor (especially the elderly) we often subsidize their electricity; and regardless you can make payment arrangements when you come up short.
The solution to this used to be subsidizing CFLs. You'd see them for $1 a piece at Goodwill when they sold for $3-$5 in other stores. We never really did that with LEDs, and we probably should. The savings are worthwhile, since it eases the load on the grid and reduces the number of new plants that need building, but folks don't like subsidies even if they save money.
Hell, we just did a massive number of cuts to WIC and food stamps that will eventually result in kids with brain damage from the malnutrition their mothers experience and, in turn, those kids will clog up the legal system with expensive crimes when they can't make sense of the world.
There's pretty broad support for it. I know folks who don't want to legalize the hard stuff (think cocaine, meth and heroine) but there's places that have done it and then treated addiction as a medical condition and it's worked well.
It does mean you can't just abandon addicts though, e.g. you can't just lock them up in a hole in the ground, you need to provide treatment, but even then the treatment is often cheaper than paying somebody to guard the hole, so to speak.
Europe's strong privacy laws usually require servers in an EU country. That might have changed (based on this passing I think it's pretty obvious that American style political corruption has bled over to the EU, sorry guys), but if it hasn't Google et al will just leave.
That said, these are mostly American (i.e. foreign) countries. I don't think they care if they leave. I could see the EU wanting their own, home grown alternative services. The whole point of the EU was to make a large market to stand up to the US economically.
"Biotech" is a buzzwordy way to say healthcare. Most of the jobs were going to be lab jobs. Drawing blood and running tests that aren't ready to be automated. Easy stuff with some training and decent, $15-$20/hr work. Plus all the ancillary jobs. Single Payer Healthcare means more people seeking care, especially preventative care where those tests are done. That means more jobs.
I'd love to see the work week dropped, but good luck getting that past American puritanicalism....
And no, we're not going to drain the rich dry. But we are going to bust the ultra-wealthy them down a peg or two. Right now they're not so much men and women as they are God-Kings.
And the New Deal didn't ramp up the debt, wars did. Lots and lots of wars did. We put $6 trillion on the "National Credit Card" for Iraq alone (after interest, everybody always forgets about the interest).
there was decades of unemployment and social strife following the industrial revolution. Long before it was a generic insult Luddites formed their group for a reason. We're pretty terrible at responding to rapid change. Hell, we went through two meat grinders with the automation of warfare and bombed large swaths of the world to the stone age before we backed off a little. And we mostly backed off because the major industrialized nations have nukes.
You mentioned we'll have to find or make new jobs, but what jobs? How will we pay for them when we're unemployed? When the outsourcing started in the late 90s I was told we'd all pivot to biotech. But the mass number of jobs never materialized. When self-driving cars and automatic, no scan checkouts put 2 million folks out of work what do we do with them?
So far the answers I've heard are:
1. Biotech... never materialized.
2. "Learn 2 Code", aka "Go back to school in your 40s for an advanced degree you couldn't hack in your 20s".
3. A list of service sector jobs nobody will be able to afford to pay for when their jobs go poof.
4. "It'll be so high tech you can't imagine it!", which is just kicking the can down the road.
The only real, substantive answers I've heard so far come from Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez. Both of who want higher minimum wages (so the remaining workers can afford services from the newly unemployed), a large scale federal jobs program ("Green New Deal"), single payer healthcare (which might actually result in some new biotech jobs) and massive infrastructure spending (again, New Deal). Basically, they're gonna tax the robots (or robot owners if you prefer) to pay for public works to employ everyone. Maybe it's a bad solution, but it's the only concrete answer I've heard.
and every time he finds something they start moving to outsource him. The only reason the last job he had lasted as long as it did is they first tried to automate, that didn't work, so they outsourced.
And for the record, while the automation didn't work out the door it would have eventually, but it was cheaper to outsource now than wait. The offshore guys who took his last job are all on borrowed time.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's not information. Multiple studies have shown that if you give a conspiracy theorist facts they just dig in further. The availability of facts on vaccines and a round earth hasn't stopped the anti-vaxxer & flat earth movements from growing.
he found there wasn't enough evidence to conclude one way or the other. And if this same thing happened to Obama that would be the lead. But being as this is Trump the lead is "No Collusion".
I bitch about right wing media bias a lot, and this is why. A center-right president like Obama gets dumped all over every chance the media gets. A far-right president like Trump gets favorable coverage all over.
MSNBC though, they ran with "AG Barr, Trump appointee, says Trump did not obstruct justice. Mueller never did.". They're trying, bless their little hearts, but they really, really suck at it.
because the bastards want cheap programmers, and they don't want it getting around that learning to code isn't a valid career path.
Twitter pushes the same right wing corporate narrative as all media outlets. I'm a lefty. They're not on my side. They're on Mark Zuckerberg's side, and the other billionaires. Anything that gets in the way of pushing money and power gets banned. The alt-right aren't really getting banned. A few of your guys took the violence thing a bit too far and scared them, but twitter's still full of them. They just toned down the violent rhetoric a tad is all.
You're being used. Sooner you realize that the better. I know of only a handful of politicians who aren't trying to use you. Bernie Sanders is the main one. Freedom is economic freedom. Until everyone has that then we're all going to be at each other's throats while the rich and powerful laugh at us all the way to the bank.
Slashdot Mirror
there was rampant voter suppression going on all across the country. Poor districts were understaffed and/or had too few machines. There were several cases of voter intimidation too when the Supreme Court overturned rules that prevented people from "campaigning" near polling offices (it was used by white supremacists in black neighborhoods to intimidate voters by showing up open carrying with racists signs).
Trump won by a few thousand votes. These sorts of things, taken together, are how he won.
changed their rules after they got caught (though the right wingers in the party managed to hang onto some of their power sadly). Check the links above. The GOP keeps getting caught again and again and again. No changes whatsoever. They keep doing it because they keep getting away with it.
how they're all Democrats. Ok, it's not that funny. In fact, it's not funny at all. It's more than a little messed up actually.
Those regulations were passed for a reason. Specifically because people were being abused. If we let AirBnB out of those regulations because it's "on the internet" or the "sharing economy" it's only a matter of time before the big folks like Hamptons make use of those loop holes. At that point you're back to "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".
I'd like to see AirBnB regulated until they're either safe and have little or no negative impact on communities (or at least significantly less than the value they bring) or put out of business. And that goes for all companies. My experience is that if you give somebody an inch, they take a mile. Which is another way to say "Those regulations were passed for a reason".
folks in desperate need of some cash, similar to Uber drivers. I know the last 4 or 5 Ubers I took the person was either recently laid off or a Sales person going through a dry spell. One of them used to make good money selling mattresses and his company got bought out by one of the chains and they screwed him on commissions.
if not there's no point.
I like Bernie more because while Warren gets more done she, like a lot of Democrats, is a bit too defeatist. Democrats give up too easy, even when a position is 70-90% popular. Warren's already backed off Medicare for All into a public option. Now, I know what she's up to (a properly implemented public option would quickly out-compete private, for profit insurance programs) but the trouble is the other side isn't negotiating in good faith, and will use cyclic political changes to undermine the law. They did it with Obamacare, where a popular law is currently on the chopping block because it's been systematically undermined.
I want Warren and the whole of the Dems to stop reaching across the isle. Everytime they do the GOP moves a little further right to escape their grasp. That's how we got Trump, and that's how we got to the point where we're talking about turning Social Security into a Welfare Program.
Back in the 90s Newt Gingrich and the GOP came up with "A Contract for America" which when you stripped away the niceties was a plan to block everything the other side did no matter what while advancing the most radical ideas of their party. It completely revitalized the GOP. The Dems need something like that. They need to draw a line in the sand and say "This is who we are, and this is what's right. This is what we're doing". On the plus side most of their positions (Medicare for All, $15/minimum wage, Tuition Free college, childcare, paid family medical leave, public works and infrastructure programs, etc, etc) are overwhelmingly popular.
on the plus side this puts the Republicans on record as opposing Net Neutrality.
And make no mistake, this is a partisan issue. The last time it came up for a vote it was split completely along party lines (IIRC one or two Repubs broke ranks, but not enough).
What this means is that if you want NN, you have to vote for a Democrat, or at least an Independent. And they have to win both chambers and probably the presidency to.
OTOH, I'm pretty sure it's a minor issue for even a lot of the folks on this forum; and whatever the GOP is selling outweighs the value of NN.
you just end up identifying "need" to almost nothing. It ends up boiling down to a way to pretend you're helping without having to pay for it.
The right wing (including Joe Biden) is trying to do the same with Social Security. They want to means test it so they can avoid paying to maintain it and, long term, shut it down.
If we had a real media (instead of the bought and paid for corporatist crap we get) this crap would be called out. But we don't, so crap like giving folks "what they need" makes it into the public discourse without anyone pointing out that the end game is to eliminate help for low income and disadvantaged folk in order to shift the money up stream. It's a trap, don't fall for it.
but in the States we've long since determined there's no energy savings to be had. The "extra" daylight doesn't really change anything. Folks just turn on the lights anyway.
What's been keeping DST here is retail. Studies show that folks shop more when it's light out. So retail campaigns to keep it. The fact that DST is going away is more a sign of the reduced influence of retail lobbies than anything else.
60-70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck(depending on what you consider paycheck to paycheck, e.g. $1000 in the bank gets you 60%, $100 gets you 70%). Doesn't matter how much that $20 bulb saves you if you've only got $1 in your pocket. Move into an Apartment and you'll still find incandescent bulbs everywhere, especially if it's a cheap apartment.
Note that we're usually not subsidizing energy efficient bulbs out of the goodness of our hearts. It's usually pushed by power companies to reduce load on their plants so they don't have to spend to build another.
or the Dollar store effect. It makes economic sense to buy LEDs. They save a large amount of money over a year or two. But if you're poor you can't necessarily afford a $10 or even $5 dollar light bulb when a .99 cent one will do. If you've only got $1 dollar in your pocket it doesn't matter how much the $5 bulb saves you. And for the really poor (especially the elderly) we often subsidize their electricity; and regardless you can make payment arrangements when you come up short.
The solution to this used to be subsidizing CFLs. You'd see them for $1 a piece at Goodwill when they sold for $3-$5 in other stores. We never really did that with LEDs, and we probably should. The savings are worthwhile, since it eases the load on the grid and reduces the number of new plants that need building, but folks don't like subsidies even if they save money.
Hell, we just did a massive number of cuts to WIC and food stamps that will eventually result in kids with brain damage from the malnutrition their mothers experience and, in turn, those kids will clog up the legal system with expensive crimes when they can't make sense of the world.
But hey, socialisms, amiright?
There's pretty broad support for it. I know folks who don't want to legalize the hard stuff (think cocaine, meth and heroine) but there's places that have done it and then treated addiction as a medical condition and it's worked well.
It does mean you can't just abandon addicts though, e.g. you can't just lock them up in a hole in the ground, you need to provide treatment, but even then the treatment is often cheaper than paying somebody to guard the hole, so to speak.
but the American House is the ultimate power here. Don't underestimate the power of holding the purse strings.
Europe's strong privacy laws usually require servers in an EU country. That might have changed (based on this passing I think it's pretty obvious that American style political corruption has bled over to the EU, sorry guys), but if it hasn't Google et al will just leave.
That said, these are mostly American (i.e. foreign) countries. I don't think they care if they leave. I could see the EU wanting their own, home grown alternative services. The whole point of the EU was to make a large market to stand up to the US economically.
"Biotech" is a buzzwordy way to say healthcare. Most of the jobs were going to be lab jobs. Drawing blood and running tests that aren't ready to be automated. Easy stuff with some training and decent, $15-$20/hr work. Plus all the ancillary jobs. Single Payer Healthcare means more people seeking care, especially preventative care where those tests are done. That means more jobs.
I'd love to see the work week dropped, but good luck getting that past American puritanicalism....
And no, we're not going to drain the rich dry. But we are going to bust the ultra-wealthy them down a peg or two. Right now they're not so much men and women as they are God-Kings.
And the New Deal didn't ramp up the debt, wars did. Lots and lots of wars did. We put $6 trillion on the "National Credit Card" for Iraq alone (after interest, everybody always forgets about the interest).
there was decades of unemployment and social strife following the industrial revolution. Long before it was a generic insult Luddites formed their group for a reason. We're pretty terrible at responding to rapid change. Hell, we went through two meat grinders with the automation of warfare and bombed large swaths of the world to the stone age before we backed off a little. And we mostly backed off because the major industrialized nations have nukes.
You mentioned we'll have to find or make new jobs, but what jobs? How will we pay for them when we're unemployed? When the outsourcing started in the late 90s I was told we'd all pivot to biotech. But the mass number of jobs never materialized. When self-driving cars and automatic, no scan checkouts put 2 million folks out of work what do we do with them?
So far the answers I've heard are:
1. Biotech... never materialized.
2. "Learn 2 Code", aka "Go back to school in your 40s for an advanced degree you couldn't hack in your 20s".
3. A list of service sector jobs nobody will be able to afford to pay for when their jobs go poof.
4. "It'll be so high tech you can't imagine it!", which is just kicking the can down the road.
The only real, substantive answers I've heard so far come from Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez. Both of who want higher minimum wages (so the remaining workers can afford services from the newly unemployed), a large scale federal jobs program ("Green New Deal"), single payer healthcare (which might actually result in some new biotech jobs) and massive infrastructure spending (again, New Deal). Basically, they're gonna tax the robots (or robot owners if you prefer) to pay for public works to employ everyone. Maybe it's a bad solution, but it's the only concrete answer I've heard.
and every time he finds something they start moving to outsource him. The only reason the last job he had lasted as long as it did is they first tried to automate, that didn't work, so they outsourced.
And for the record, while the automation didn't work out the door it would have eventually, but it was cheaper to outsource now than wait. The offshore guys who took his last job are all on borrowed time.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's not information. Multiple studies have shown that if you give a conspiracy theorist facts they just dig in further. The availability of facts on vaccines and a round earth hasn't stopped the anti-vaxxer & flat earth movements from growing.
it's going through them right now. Same thing happened here but it was Mortal Kombat.
he found there wasn't enough evidence to conclude one way or the other. And if this same thing happened to Obama that would be the lead. But being as this is Trump the lead is "No Collusion".
I bitch about right wing media bias a lot, and this is why. A center-right president like Obama gets dumped all over every chance the media gets. A far-right president like Trump gets favorable coverage all over.
MSNBC though, they ran with "AG Barr, Trump appointee, says Trump did not obstruct justice. Mueller never did.". They're trying, bless their little hearts, but they really, really suck at it.
True, Trump does have a lot more to answer for than collusion.
who really, really want that crap to stop, right now. We'd like to get folks like Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard into office to do just that.
but there's nothing so blitheringly obvious as to force Trump's supporters to turn on him.
On the plus side if Pelosi does her job right it'll keep Trump's administration busy and keep him from doing any more harm until 2020.
because the bastards want cheap programmers, and they don't want it getting around that learning to code isn't a valid career path.
Twitter pushes the same right wing corporate narrative as all media outlets. I'm a lefty. They're not on my side. They're on Mark Zuckerberg's side, and the other billionaires. Anything that gets in the way of pushing money and power gets banned. The alt-right aren't really getting banned. A few of your guys took the violence thing a bit too far and scared them, but twitter's still full of them. They just toned down the violent rhetoric a tad is all.
You're being used. Sooner you realize that the better. I know of only a handful of politicians who aren't trying to use you. Bernie Sanders is the main one. Freedom is economic freedom. Until everyone has that then we're all going to be at each other's throats while the rich and powerful laugh at us all the way to the bank.