Strictly speaking that’s not true. For example, business elites almost certainly favored Romney over Obama’s second term. But when it’s someone as wooden as Romney, it doesn’t matter how much money they pour into the race.
This time around Republicans are probably going to run some Trump stooge who’s planning on the third term end-around to put Trump back in office, assuming Trump lasts that long. I think they’re going to have a similar problem this time.
Colorado’s Division of Motor Vehicles also tried to explicitly ban them last year, though it later pulled its proposed rule. Some kei vehicle owners, however, say the state is still trying to keep them off the road by refusing to allow them into the emissions testing process.
As usual it’s confusion from news when reporting on public policy. So are they proposing that there be exceptions to emissions rules for these vehicles or not? Because that will make a huge amount of difference in how much I or pretty much anyone else should support this.
Bill Gates deserves a lot of shit for creating the original big tech monopoly. But I’ll say this about him: At least he’s not hoarding his money to build a secretive compound to hold hundreds of kids he spawned with right wing crazy women for the purpose of creating a future master race.
Not to derail the topic into the lab leak thing. It just annoys me that this is so commonly taken as gospel when the vast majority of disease scientists disagree. I’ll just refer you to: https://youtu.be/EuwpDY5uFNQ
What annoys me is that “doing your own research” actually makes sense in a lot of contexts. Our modern politics driven news is 90% bullshit and you’re better off fact checking everything they say by looking at reliable sources and tracing the origin of dubious claims. But these people have ruined that by acting like “do your own research” means “blindly trust some guy with a podcast who tells you what you want to hear.”
There’s definitely giant inadequacies in American democracy, but still I fail to see how voting isn’t good enough. If people voted for Gore instead of Nader, American history would be very different. We’d have avoided a giant tax cut for the rich l, withdrawing from Kyoto, and a trillion dollar unnecessary war. Wealth inequality wouldn’t be as bad, there would definitely be earlier progress against global warming, and we could probably afford real universal health care by now.
Ideally after voting in the right people, we’d fix all the democracy problems. But still I’d say voting alone would make a huge difference. Anything else meanwhile - protests (BLM, Gaza), violence (Matthew crooks, Luigi) has at best accomplished zero, and in reality seems to have done serious damage to the causes they were seeking. The one exception I’d give is boycotts - like the Tesla boycotts that have destroyed their sales numbers.
Well yeah, but part of the voter propaganda is telling people both sides are the same. I get that there’s pro capitalist media bias which at its root is caused by extreme financial inequality. But fixing that financial inequality requires government action, and that requires voting. For the people who will do the inadequate version over the people who want to make it worse. Incremental change through pressure + time, just like everything else on earth.
Voting caused the problem, it can solve it too. But here’s the thing: for voting to solve the problem, you have to actually do it and play the game.
Every 20-25 years some rightwing psycho wins and inflicts some horror on us because new voters don’t remember what happened the last time people said “both sides are the same”. You kids know that whole Iraq war and torture thing was avoidable, right? So was Reagan’s annihilation of the middle class.
I mean obviously, they tried in 2020. But they’re also very, very dumb. That being said, with the four years in-between, they may have figured out how to book a hotel room by now.
I’m just wondering what kind of parents name their kid Abraham. Like “We’re gonna name him after that guy. Yes, that one.”
And then he grows up and frees the slaves. Go figure.
deleted by creator
I agree with 0% but disagree there’s any paradox - every choice is just plain old wrong. Each choice cannot be correct because no percentage reflects the chance of picking that number.
Ordinarily we’d assume the chance is 25% because in most tests there’s only one right choice. But this one evidently could have more than one right choice, if the choice stated twice was correct - which it isn’t. So there’s no basis for supposing that 25% is correct here, which causes the whole paradox to unravel.
Now replace 60% with 0%. Maybe that would count as a proper paradox. But I’d still say not really, the answer is 0% - it’s just wrong in the hypothetical situation posed by the question rather than the actual question.
Obligatory straight dope. Essentially if these workers are costing more than $72.10 an hour it’s not worth it.
“Of course I know what due process is. A lot of my friends are due process experts, and they’re always telling me ‘Donald, you do so much process. Nobody does process as brilliantly as you.’”
Many things are impeachable offenses; but nothing is convictable.
It would be hilarious if instead of asking this, the reporter asked him to define “due process”
Fundamentally the problem is that the US is just too rich. That creates incentives, like:
This creates a catch-22. To fix the media and government, we need to spread out wealth to dilute financial power. But to do that would require policy changes that require fixing the media and government.
Notice how this gets so much less attention that it did during the campaign even though its only gotten worse. Just remember: many of the people who claim to care, don’t. And if you actually want to stop this, it needs to start with putting people in power who actually care about stopping it. If there isn’t one in the general, that means this didn’t happen during the primaries.
I’m plenty open to questioning every part of copyright (has the idea ever actually been proven to be worth the enormous costs? It’s like an infinity-percent tariff on anything information related.) but the same copyright should apply to everbody. It sounds like this proposal gives a specific pass to corporations developing AI - anything these corporations can access should be accessible to the general public as well. If you can use a song to train an AI for free, a human artist should also be allowed to use it directly and turn it into a new work.