How did you get the idea that Amazon is being subsidized because it refuses to pay its employees enough to live?
Do you think the money for food stamps comes out of thin air?
Our social welfare programs are funded through our taxes. If Amazon doesn't pay its workers enough to live on and they can claim welfare benefits, it's our collective money that is paying them welfare. Thus we are subsidizing Amazon's workforce, which allows Amazon to avoid paying them a living wage. If Amazon paid their workers more than poverty wages, we would not be funding their welfare with our taxes. This would cost Amazon more money.
In short, I don't see why people are mod'ing your post as "Insightful".
As the GP said,
It isn't fair to the workers, and it isn't fair to me, and it isn't fair to business that pay their workers enough to live.
Us subsidizing Amazon's workers allows Amazon to undercut businesses who pay enough that we don't, which drives them out of business. Thus not only are we subsidizing Amazon, we're also subsidizing the entire race to the bottom, which includes eliminating jobs which we're not subsidizing.
That's a really big fucking problem for everyone except the owners of Amazon.
How does Amazon offering jobs to people prevent you from offering higher paid jobs to the same people?
You're unfamiliar with de-facto monopolies and market competition, I see. Since this is difficult, I'll try to explain:
If you pay workers more, and Amazon pays workers less, Amazon will be able to price their wares lower than you can. Then you end up losing customers, because customers happily pay the lower rates at Amazon. Then you start shedding workers, because you can't pay them, and their only option is to work for Amazon because everyone else is getting driven out of business.
This is called the race to the bottom. Amazon is doing a very good job winning that, as noted in this article. There are however, two ways to prevent this. I refer you to the GP for those ways.
As much as I'm pessimistic that we can do UBI as a society, this is why I'm super excited about UBI.
When you don't have to work to survive, it changes the power dynamic for employees. Employees may work for nothing if they love it enough, and employees may demand ridiculous salaries for things nobody wants to do. Best of all, people can follow their dreams without the risk of financial ruin.
I envision a world where someone in their 50s loves gardening, the house is paid off, and UBI can pay for the rest of monthly expenses. So they spend their time gardening the neighborhood. Maybe picks up some extra cash doing individual houses to order. The hipster that wants to be a poet can spend a few years working on that in coffee shops. The aspiring musician can make an extra $50 a night playing bars, gaining reputation and experience. All doable but risky now, but relatively risk-free with UBI.
But as you say, what about the garbage men? Roofers? Roadkill removers? Landscapers?
If it's 100 degrees outside, they can say fuck this and quit. And they still have UBI. If any of those folks had rather been a cook, they can open a food cart with effectively zero labor cost. That makes them instantly competitive. And if it fails, they still have UBI.
I really think that UBI empowers small businesses that are labors of love, because it effectively reduces the labor cost to 0, and is a safety net if they don't succeed. For larger businesses and jobs that are not lovable by most, UBI will drive up the cost of employees. That will do one of two things: Make employees wealthier and more valuable (which helps fund UBI) or drive those jobs to be automated which should help reduce overhead and make businesses more efficient/profitable, which should also help fund UBI. Add in the economic benefit that the increased number of small businesses will likely have, and to my mind, UBI could be a significant economic driver.
To get there, however, we need to get over our societal need to have people to look down upon. We have to break the cultural stigma of "free handouts for deadbeats", and instead see UBI as "helps enable everyone chase their dreams, and I'm ok if I don't personally agree with their dream".
I read a postulation some time back that culturally, America is still puritan enough that we need to believe that bad people get punished. The only way to be sure that we see enough of that to be comfortable is to set up systems where people can fail and be miserable.
As a basic starting, point, we need to set up a system where every two dollars you make you lose one dollar of benefits. If we did that, our welfare systems would be a path out of poverty. As it is now, you can make up to like 50% of your benefit with no penalty, but once you go over, you lose your benefit entirely. Someone who wants to work their way out of poverty gets up to about 150% of their welfare benefit, and then it disappears and they're at 51% of their benefit from working. Where's the incentive to escape poverty now?
If we can't even get this right, I can't see us being able to do UBI correctly.
You've never heard of repo men and bank foreclosures then, eh? Granted banks tend to get the local sheriff to kick you out, but the repo men just tend to show up in the middle of the night and steal the car back.
I'm not so sure about that. From there, we've got mobsters, child molesters, drug kingpins, racketeers, arsonists, terrorists, etc.
Sure it's low security, but it's not upper middle class, that's for sure. Dude is going to be getting friendly with people who he never, ever wanted to be within miles of.
Counting. Change. Sure, it doesn't take that much time. But it's an activity that you do over, and over, and over, and over....
Counting out and tallying drawers. Yes, only once or twice a day, maybe twice per shift at most. But that adds up, shift after shift, after shift.
Counting and tallying deposits. Again, not all the time, but at the end of every shift, every day, counting it up all by hand, tallying it all, filling out the slip, etc.
Cash takes up so much staff time, it's really ridiculous. I definitely get how 3% fees for credit cards is a better deal for most businesses.
"Pharma bro" scammer Martin Shkreli has been sent to a federal prison in New Jersey to serve the remainder of his seven-year sentence after being denied his request for a minimum-security federal camp.......The prison is located on the U.S. military base at Fort Dix, about 80 miles from New York City, where Shkreli lived, and 30 miles from Philadelphia. It houses 3,945 inmates.
Ironically, the Protestant work ethic is associated with the "core of Christian belief".
Yes. That's why the section you quoted from me had the word "ironically" in it.
Of course, with UBI in place, you can do that in your older years too. GO! GO!! GO!!!
Indeed. Right now when I can retire will depend on how much social security I'll get, and what I can get for health insurance. Give me single payer and UBI, and it is likely that I'll be able to retire earlier, and chase some dreams for another decade or two.
The problem with retirement at 50 is that it's going to require "UBI for people over 50". We'd need to make sure medicade and social security started then, and the problem is that funding that system isn't much worse than funding UBI itself.
I'm more than ready for the shorter work week, however. I have 30-35 ridiculously productive hours in me. Everything else after that goes steadily downhill.
Except that doesn't work. Not economically, and not logically.
The reason your doom and gloom doesn't make any sense is that the way we pay for UBI is through taxation. If businesses make more because they crank up the cost, they get taxed more, and there's more money for UBI. Unless you somehow think we'd be stupid enough to unchain UBI from inflation (ok, that's totally something that a government would do.) it doesn't matter. Unlike college loans, UBI replaces labor, and labor is the foundation of the economy. UBI would constrain the cost of everything, not the other way around.
Our entire economic system is predicated on people having to work, otherwise they don't have a roof over their head or food to eat. If you get UBI, you don't have to work. At that point employers are going to have to come up with really, really good reasons for people to work.
If I'm making the equivalent of $8/hr on UBI, there's a pretty good chance that McDonald's isn't going to be able to get me to come flip burgers. Sure, maybe I need some extra money in November and December before Christmas, but come January, fuck that, I don't want to slog through the snow to go to work. With UBI, I don't need to. This pushes wages UP, because people no longer have to work. That makes burgers cost more, for sure, but the people making them also get paid more. And taxed more. Which funds more UBI.
Now lets look at Lisa who fucking LOVES to make burgers. She also makes $8/hr on UBI, but is happy to sell burgers at just over cost from her food cart. She now undercuts McDonalds, because her labor cost is effectively $0.
You seem to think that our economic system would work as normal once the value of labor becomes totally skewed, but I don't think that's' the case. You might be able to hire someone for pennies on the dollar to do something they love, or you might need to pay many times what's being paid currently to make someone want to do that job.
This puts businesses at a bit of a disadvantage. And once they raise prices too high, provided that it requires labor, some folks on UBI are going to just do it for free. UBI will be what pays them to do it, because the value of doing it far outweighs the cost of not doing it.
Just eliminating our current social welfare systems (which is what UBI is supposed to replace) covers 1/3 to 1/2 of UBI. And yes, the government does shrink rather a lot by doing that. But probably only about 20%. Still, that frees some federal taxes to support UBI.
Cost savings by going to single payer health insurance should be able to add another 10-20% of what we need for UBI.
A reduction in state and local taxation can go to UBI, as we'll be able to replace most state social welfare programs with UBI, and theoretically we'll need less police, courts, jails, and social workers because we'll have less destitute people. And with single payer health insurance we should get adequate mental health care, the lack of which drives a significant amount of these expenses currently.
We can fill in another few percent of what we need by legalizing and taxing marijuana.
But I feel the lion's share will come from taxes on the massive increase in economic activity that we'll see with UBI. Now instead of commuting 4 hrs a day to a crap job, a mom stays home with her kids. (See also the mental health and policing/jail cost reductions above.) Maybe she likes baking, and takes the time to bake bread. And gives it away. And someone pays her for a few loaves. A few years later, we've got someone making a living as a baker. If you absolutely have to work to support your family, you can't necessarily follow your passion. UBI can let a lot of people do that, and there's a good chance that we'll see a lot of economic benefits due to that.
In all of this, I don't really see unions coming into play. Their days are numbered. Automation, AI and robotics mean that humans aren't required. They're why we need UBI sooner rather than later.
The real issue with UBI is a social one. Are we as a society OK with people suckling the government teat and doing nothing? Are we ok with someone living on the street and using their UBI to buy drugs?
For UBI to work, the answer has to be yes.
Culturally, I don't think we're anywhere near this yet. We're still in the puritanical mindset that bad things happen to bad people, good people are rewarded, and if you try hard enough you'll be successful. That's not true now, and in the future, that's less and less likely to be true.
Right now you can do everything right and be bankrupted because someone causes an accident that involves you. You can find yourself wrongly accused of a crime, staring at bankruptcy, years fighting the charges with the possibility of decades in jail or pleaing out for 6 months of probation. Taking that probation to save everything in your life, however, makes you undesirable to most employers.
If we keep these current systems and squeeze jobs further, we're going to create an increasingly larger group of destitute people. We've already created social and political systems that generationalize poverty. I don't see it getting better in the short-term. At some point, sooner rather than later I hope, we as a society must decide that this is bad for everyone, and decide to fix it.
We're going to have to shake this mindset that people need to work hard to be prosperous and those who aren't prosperous haven't worked hard. Once we can do that, and ironically this is the core of christian belief, we can design social systems which provide for everyone, regardless of their situation or whether or not they want to improve it or help others.
My personal belief on UBI is that it's going to fire up a small business market the likes of which we've never seen. It will give people the ability to chase their dreams, fail, get up, and try something new. I can't see it being bad for humanity that people can do what they love, and know that they'll have food and a place to stay regardless of how much they make doing it.
I've skipped trying to parlay some of my hobbies into careers because the risk was just too high. I had to make it or I would have a mountain of debt. Combine that with no health insurance, and it could well be more debt than I could ever have climbed out from under. Or no critical medical treatment when I needed it most. Fix these issues, and in my younger years I might have well taken a couple of long-shots. Who knows what might have come of that? And now imagine if everyone is enabled to do that.
Yep. And it's silly to even attempt to find an exact measure for that very reason. The best you can do is set a somewhat arbitrary cut-off, and measure to that standard. Anything else is just a waste of time.
How did you determine that the Mueller investigation is a farce? What evidence do you have that the rest of us don't have?
From my point of view, I see a couple of convictions and some guilty pleas, and a bunch of people freaking out that their crimes might be uncovered next. That's rather the opposite of a farce. If anything, it looks like a reasonable and fairly well-run investigation. Given how long they usually take, this one seems to be especially fruitful very quickly.
Again, that seems to be the opposite of a farce. More like shooting fish in a barrel.
Why is it so hard to let the investigation play out, and see what happens in the end? Why do you absolutely have to defend someone you've never met, that you know nothing about, on charges you don't understand based on evidence you haven't seen?
What has this person done for you that you are so loyal to him? It's baffling to me.
I honestly don't think she will. And I don't think this is evidence of anything related to a specific campaign.
The DNC did the same thing after Watergate. That was a pretty successful lawsuit, and they gained a lot from it. My guess is that they're seeing echos of Watergate here, and playing the same hand that was successful the last time this sort of thing happened.
And a civil lawsuit will be very damaging to the RNC win or lose. They will be forced to air some dirty laundry in court, and it will likely demonstrate just how unprepared they were to be hitching a ride on the Trump train. My guess is that there's just as many distasteful things happening in the RNC as in the DNC, and this is one way to bring some of them to light.
I also fully expect a counter-suit from the RNC along the same lines. If that doesn't happen, I think some good money is on them having done some really problematic things that they want to limit exposure on.
So you've ignored the point, produced a failed analogy, and you've been an asshole all at the same time. Probably should head home now, because there's not much else to accomplish today. Cheers!
Most medical pumps that I'm aware of have built-in mechanisms to prevent the situation you're describing. Manufacturers understand that delivering all of a drug once is pretty much the best way to kill a person. Since their goal is the opposite of doing that, they tend to put safeguards in their medical devices to prevent that.
While 0 rate or max rate might adversely affect the patient, in general, it won't kill them instantly. Plenty of time to rectify the issue and seek medical treatment.
Are you unaware that medical devices have to go through very arduous vetting processes before they're certified? This isn't Jim Bob wiring up a syringe to a servo and taping it to his leg that we're talking about here. All that I'm aware of are designed to fail safely and give ample notification.
Slashdot Mirror
How did you get the idea that Amazon is being subsidized because it refuses to pay its employees enough to live?
Do you think the money for food stamps comes out of thin air?
Our social welfare programs are funded through our taxes. If Amazon doesn't pay its workers enough to live on and they can claim welfare benefits, it's our collective money that is paying them welfare. Thus we are subsidizing Amazon's workforce, which allows Amazon to avoid paying them a living wage. If Amazon paid their workers more than poverty wages, we would not be funding their welfare with our taxes. This would cost Amazon more money.
In short, I don't see why people are mod'ing your post as "Insightful".
As the GP said,
It isn't fair to the workers, and it isn't fair to me, and it isn't fair to business that pay their workers enough to live.
Us subsidizing Amazon's workers allows Amazon to undercut businesses who pay enough that we don't, which drives them out of business. Thus not only are we subsidizing Amazon, we're also subsidizing the entire race to the bottom, which includes eliminating jobs which we're not subsidizing.
That's a really big fucking problem for everyone except the owners of Amazon.
How does Amazon offering jobs to people prevent you from offering higher paid jobs to the same people?
You're unfamiliar with de-facto monopolies and market competition, I see. Since this is difficult, I'll try to explain:
If you pay workers more, and Amazon pays workers less, Amazon will be able to price their wares lower than you can. Then you end up losing customers, because customers happily pay the lower rates at Amazon. Then you start shedding workers, because you can't pay them, and their only option is to work for Amazon because everyone else is getting driven out of business.
This is called the race to the bottom. Amazon is doing a very good job winning that, as noted in this article. There are however, two ways to prevent this. I refer you to the GP for those ways.
If you're a RWNJ, you're allowed to create your own reality. Don't you know that?
As much as I'm pessimistic that we can do UBI as a society, this is why I'm super excited about UBI.
When you don't have to work to survive, it changes the power dynamic for employees. Employees may work for nothing if they love it enough, and employees may demand ridiculous salaries for things nobody wants to do. Best of all, people can follow their dreams without the risk of financial ruin.
I envision a world where someone in their 50s loves gardening, the house is paid off, and UBI can pay for the rest of monthly expenses. So they spend their time gardening the neighborhood. Maybe picks up some extra cash doing individual houses to order. The hipster that wants to be a poet can spend a few years working on that in coffee shops. The aspiring musician can make an extra $50 a night playing bars, gaining reputation and experience. All doable but risky now, but relatively risk-free with UBI.
But as you say, what about the garbage men? Roofers? Roadkill removers? Landscapers?
If it's 100 degrees outside, they can say fuck this and quit. And they still have UBI. If any of those folks had rather been a cook, they can open a food cart with effectively zero labor cost. That makes them instantly competitive. And if it fails, they still have UBI.
I really think that UBI empowers small businesses that are labors of love, because it effectively reduces the labor cost to 0, and is a safety net if they don't succeed. For larger businesses and jobs that are not lovable by most, UBI will drive up the cost of employees. That will do one of two things: Make employees wealthier and more valuable (which helps fund UBI) or drive those jobs to be automated which should help reduce overhead and make businesses more efficient/profitable, which should also help fund UBI. Add in the economic benefit that the increased number of small businesses will likely have, and to my mind, UBI could be a significant economic driver.
To get there, however, we need to get over our societal need to have people to look down upon. We have to break the cultural stigma of "free handouts for deadbeats", and instead see UBI as "helps enable everyone chase their dreams, and I'm ok if I don't personally agree with their dream".
I read a postulation some time back that culturally, America is still puritan enough that we need to believe that bad people get punished. The only way to be sure that we see enough of that to be comfortable is to set up systems where people can fail and be miserable.
As a basic starting, point, we need to set up a system where every two dollars you make you lose one dollar of benefits. If we did that, our welfare systems would be a path out of poverty. As it is now, you can make up to like 50% of your benefit with no penalty, but once you go over, you lose your benefit entirely. Someone who wants to work their way out of poverty gets up to about 150% of their welfare benefit, and then it disappears and they're at 51% of their benefit from working. Where's the incentive to escape poverty now?
If we can't even get this right, I can't see us being able to do UBI correctly.
You've never heard of repo men and bank foreclosures then, eh? Granted banks tend to get the local sheriff to kick you out, but the repo men just tend to show up in the middle of the night and steal the car back.
Why do you think you're not going to be one of those people?
I'm not so sure about that. From there, we've got mobsters, child molesters, drug kingpins, racketeers, arsonists, terrorists, etc.
Sure it's low security, but it's not upper middle class, that's for sure. Dude is going to be getting friendly with people who he never, ever wanted to be within miles of.
Or mobsters. It's not personal, it's business....
Counting. Change. Sure, it doesn't take that much time. But it's an activity that you do over, and over, and over, and over....
Counting out and tallying drawers. Yes, only once or twice a day, maybe twice per shift at most. But that adds up, shift after shift, after shift.
Counting and tallying deposits. Again, not all the time, but at the end of every shift, every day, counting it up all by hand, tallying it all, filling out the slip, etc.
Cash takes up so much staff time, it's really ridiculous. I definitely get how 3% fees for credit cards is a better deal for most businesses.
Not really.
"Pharma bro" scammer Martin Shkreli has been sent to a federal prison in New Jersey to serve the remainder of his seven-year sentence after being denied his request for a minimum-security federal camp.......The prison is located on the U.S. military base at Fort Dix, about 80 miles from New York City, where Shkreli lived, and 30 miles from Philadelphia. It houses 3,945 inmates.
Ironically, the Protestant work ethic is associated with the "core of Christian belief".
Yes. That's why the section you quoted from me had the word "ironically" in it.
Of course, with UBI in place, you can do that in your older years too. GO! GO!! GO!!!
Indeed. Right now when I can retire will depend on how much social security I'll get, and what I can get for health insurance. Give me single payer and UBI, and it is likely that I'll be able to retire earlier, and chase some dreams for another decade or two.
Robots do that. That's why we need UBI, because the robots are cheaper and faster.
The problem with retirement at 50 is that it's going to require "UBI for people over 50". We'd need to make sure medicade and social security started then, and the problem is that funding that system isn't much worse than funding UBI itself.
I'm more than ready for the shorter work week, however. I have 30-35 ridiculously productive hours in me. Everything else after that goes steadily downhill.
Except that doesn't work. Not economically, and not logically.
The reason your doom and gloom doesn't make any sense is that the way we pay for UBI is through taxation. If businesses make more because they crank up the cost, they get taxed more, and there's more money for UBI. Unless you somehow think we'd be stupid enough to unchain UBI from inflation (ok, that's totally something that a government would do.) it doesn't matter. Unlike college loans, UBI replaces labor, and labor is the foundation of the economy. UBI would constrain the cost of everything, not the other way around.
Our entire economic system is predicated on people having to work, otherwise they don't have a roof over their head or food to eat. If you get UBI, you don't have to work. At that point employers are going to have to come up with really, really good reasons for people to work.
If I'm making the equivalent of $8/hr on UBI, there's a pretty good chance that McDonald's isn't going to be able to get me to come flip burgers. Sure, maybe I need some extra money in November and December before Christmas, but come January, fuck that, I don't want to slog through the snow to go to work. With UBI, I don't need to. This pushes wages UP, because people no longer have to work. That makes burgers cost more, for sure, but the people making them also get paid more. And taxed more. Which funds more UBI.
Now lets look at Lisa who fucking LOVES to make burgers. She also makes $8/hr on UBI, but is happy to sell burgers at just over cost from her food cart. She now undercuts McDonalds, because her labor cost is effectively $0.
You seem to think that our economic system would work as normal once the value of labor becomes totally skewed, but I don't think that's' the case. You might be able to hire someone for pennies on the dollar to do something they love, or you might need to pay many times what's being paid currently to make someone want to do that job.
This puts businesses at a bit of a disadvantage. And once they raise prices too high, provided that it requires labor, some folks on UBI are going to just do it for free. UBI will be what pays them to do it, because the value of doing it far outweighs the cost of not doing it.
It really doesn't have to be that drastic.
Just eliminating our current social welfare systems (which is what UBI is supposed to replace) covers 1/3 to 1/2 of UBI. And yes, the government does shrink rather a lot by doing that. But probably only about 20%. Still, that frees some federal taxes to support UBI.
Cost savings by going to single payer health insurance should be able to add another 10-20% of what we need for UBI.
A reduction in state and local taxation can go to UBI, as we'll be able to replace most state social welfare programs with UBI, and theoretically we'll need less police, courts, jails, and social workers because we'll have less destitute people. And with single payer health insurance we should get adequate mental health care, the lack of which drives a significant amount of these expenses currently.
We can fill in another few percent of what we need by legalizing and taxing marijuana.
But I feel the lion's share will come from taxes on the massive increase in economic activity that we'll see with UBI. Now instead of commuting 4 hrs a day to a crap job, a mom stays home with her kids. (See also the mental health and policing/jail cost reductions above.) Maybe she likes baking, and takes the time to bake bread. And gives it away. And someone pays her for a few loaves. A few years later, we've got someone making a living as a baker. If you absolutely have to work to support your family, you can't necessarily follow your passion. UBI can let a lot of people do that, and there's a good chance that we'll see a lot of economic benefits due to that.
In all of this, I don't really see unions coming into play. Their days are numbered. Automation, AI and robotics mean that humans aren't required. They're why we need UBI sooner rather than later.
The real issue with UBI is a social one. Are we as a society OK with people suckling the government teat and doing nothing? Are we ok with someone living on the street and using their UBI to buy drugs?
For UBI to work, the answer has to be yes.
Culturally, I don't think we're anywhere near this yet. We're still in the puritanical mindset that bad things happen to bad people, good people are rewarded, and if you try hard enough you'll be successful. That's not true now, and in the future, that's less and less likely to be true.
Right now you can do everything right and be bankrupted because someone causes an accident that involves you. You can find yourself wrongly accused of a crime, staring at bankruptcy, years fighting the charges with the possibility of decades in jail or pleaing out for 6 months of probation. Taking that probation to save everything in your life, however, makes you undesirable to most employers.
If we keep these current systems and squeeze jobs further, we're going to create an increasingly larger group of destitute people. We've already created social and political systems that generationalize poverty. I don't see it getting better in the short-term. At some point, sooner rather than later I hope, we as a society must decide that this is bad for everyone, and decide to fix it.
We're going to have to shake this mindset that people need to work hard to be prosperous and those who aren't prosperous haven't worked hard. Once we can do that, and ironically this is the core of christian belief, we can design social systems which provide for everyone, regardless of their situation or whether or not they want to improve it or help others.
My personal belief on UBI is that it's going to fire up a small business market the likes of which we've never seen. It will give people the ability to chase their dreams, fail, get up, and try something new. I can't see it being bad for humanity that people can do what they love, and know that they'll have food and a place to stay regardless of how much they make doing it.
I've skipped trying to parlay some of my hobbies into careers because the risk was just too high. I had to make it or I would have a mountain of debt. Combine that with no health insurance, and it could well be more debt than I could ever have climbed out from under. Or no critical medical treatment when I needed it most. Fix these issues, and in my younger years I might have well taken a couple of long-shots. Who knows what might have come of that? And now imagine if everyone is enabled to do that.
Yep. And it's silly to even attempt to find an exact measure for that very reason. The best you can do is set a somewhat arbitrary cut-off, and measure to that standard. Anything else is just a waste of time.
How did you determine that the Mueller investigation is a farce? What evidence do you have that the rest of us don't have?
From my point of view, I see a couple of convictions and some guilty pleas, and a bunch of people freaking out that their crimes might be uncovered next. That's rather the opposite of a farce. If anything, it looks like a reasonable and fairly well-run investigation. Given how long they usually take, this one seems to be especially fruitful very quickly.
Again, that seems to be the opposite of a farce. More like shooting fish in a barrel.
If you've got evidence to support your assertion, I'm sure Muller will want to see it. You might want to let him know.
And your evidence for this is what?
That's what I thought.
Why is it so hard to let the investigation play out, and see what happens in the end? Why do you absolutely have to defend someone you've never met, that you know nothing about, on charges you don't understand based on evidence you haven't seen?
What has this person done for you that you are so loyal to him? It's baffling to me.
I honestly don't think she will. And I don't think this is evidence of anything related to a specific campaign.
The DNC did the same thing after Watergate. That was a pretty successful lawsuit, and they gained a lot from it. My guess is that they're seeing echos of Watergate here, and playing the same hand that was successful the last time this sort of thing happened.
And a civil lawsuit will be very damaging to the RNC win or lose. They will be forced to air some dirty laundry in court, and it will likely demonstrate just how unprepared they were to be hitching a ride on the Trump train. My guess is that there's just as many distasteful things happening in the RNC as in the DNC, and this is one way to bring some of them to light.
I also fully expect a counter-suit from the RNC along the same lines. If that doesn't happen, I think some good money is on them having done some really problematic things that they want to limit exposure on.
So you've ignored the point, produced a failed analogy, and you've been an asshole all at the same time. Probably should head home now, because there's not much else to accomplish today. Cheers!
Most medical pumps that I'm aware of have built-in mechanisms to prevent the situation you're describing. Manufacturers understand that delivering all of a drug once is pretty much the best way to kill a person. Since their goal is the opposite of doing that, they tend to put safeguards in their medical devices to prevent that.
While 0 rate or max rate might adversely affect the patient, in general, it won't kill them instantly. Plenty of time to rectify the issue and seek medical treatment.
Are you unaware that medical devices have to go through very arduous vetting processes before they're certified? This isn't Jim Bob wiring up a syringe to a servo and taping it to his leg that we're talking about here. All that I'm aware of are designed to fail safely and give ample notification.
Which is why everyone is making an app for everything these days.....