#politics
1 messages · Page 54 of 1
yeah, I don't think it (what Piers did) constitutes intimidation or harrasment
^ 0_0
doesnt intimidation imply that the intimidator gets something out of the deal?
Alright agree to disagree I guess
like you intimidate as a means to an end?
You can only defame public figures if you act with "actual malice"
yeah, that sounds correct.
"actual malice" was defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not"
Then you get in to fun arguments about who is a public figure
what Piers said was clearly an opinion tho right? he is talking about whether he believes MM or not
Yeah
yeah, so no way thats harrasment or intimidation
If NBC runs a story about you without your approval are you now a public figure?
What he said wasn't just if he believed in what Meghan said or not. More ridiculous stuff was said, afaik
I think the answer is yes, if the news is talking about you and brings you to general public attention after that the rules change for defamation against you
“Who did you go to? What did they say to you? I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she said, Meghan Markle. I wouldn’t believe it if she read me a weather report,” Morgan said on the show.
it sounds like the answer should be yes.
It just sucks that you can be a public figure without asking to be
If you're posting on twitter you're asking for it, that's an indexed public thing where the whole point is for everyone to see what you write
But in general I do think the world would be better off if we unplugged twitter, facebook, instagram, etc
Go back to chats and forums where you have to seek the stuff out
yeah, I'm pretty sure those are indeed a net negative
Putting it all in one place driven by an algorithm that wants to piss you off because that improves engagement is making a world full of raging assholes
before, if you had horrible ideas, you didnt have anyone near you to encourage you. now, you and all the people you agree with can get together and reinforce your ideas.
Aight, well machine maker, legal arguments and issues aside, you do believe what Piers Morgan said was ridiculous, inappropriate, and was disgusting for invalidating someone's mental health? Along with making it difficult for victims to speak up seeing how much of an opposition and hatred against Meghan for doing so? And especially by a notable, big name anchor who has influence over a large proportion of UK citizens?
Either way, great discussing with you two, thanks for staying civil :)
I've learned a lot from this convo
Thanks to you guys
I mean, was it surprising?
Who would have thought that idiots who transfer power based on blood line are also rassist assholes?
cooperative
check out mutual interest
crowdfunding, re novara media/unicorn riot
there's plenty of funding models for media other than state/private, private is absolutely not a viable alternative to state funding
this is bang on the money. state interests are just the interests of the private interests that installed the state.
Crowd funding is not realistic lmfao
You cannot extract consistent amounts of capital out of the same people
Any subscription service is crowdfunding, change my mind
TV news use to always operate at a loss right? It was more a point of pride for the big mega-corps that they owned a news station.
Here we go
they're not started via crowdfunding tho, they need a VC injection at the start
??? Is this in response to something?
yeah there was a conversation in general
Oh lol. Ok. Thought it was outta nowhere
Yeah, sorry for no context, continuing on a discussion about twitter getting slowed down by russian government
Details ^^
wat
they got slowed down by the russian government
oh?
let me point you the article
there's countless of reports over the years where the big social media networks didn't remove CP
most of the riot shit was coordinated on twitter/facebook
but I doubt it'd be because of a willingness to want CP on the platform
It's the refusal to do anything about it when linked to it
now is this just Russia lying?
nope, twitter is known to be a less restrictive social network
as I said, there's countless anecdotal stories of victims trying to get content to removed from sites like twitter, facebook, pornhub, over the past oh god so many years that it was inevitable that somebody would finally put their foot down
it is less censored
😱 Russia policies social media content? My worldview is ruined.
that's just illegal content to host
Twitter allows this shit
I don't think they allow it, I think it's probably just a very mismanaged T&S team
since isn't it all outsourced
so, they allow it through mismanagement
""""""sure""""""
There is a diference between, CP was uploaded and faded into the background
to, CP was uploaded, reported dozens of times by victims, randomers on the internet, GOVERNMENT ENTITIES, and was just left on there
there is an entiiire fucking huge difference between the two
twitter has been found to be doing both
I've read an article stating twitter just refused to remove it
since it wasn't breaking their TOS
the former, it sucks ass, but, I believe that it's hard to manage that stuff, well, if you ignore the arguments for taking down other social networks
the latter
the latter is straight up refusal to remove the content from their platform
and there are a handful of stories out there where twitter has refused to remove such content until they've recieved a notice from law enforcement
what's probably happening is an ineffective outsourced trust and safety team gets everything shoved through it and twitter doesn't care enough to change it
JRoy, these things can be implemented
there is no interest on twitter's end to properly protect against that
that would make sense because those would be processed through legal rather than T&S
that's why nothing is done
yeah i'd agree
It's not expensive to build an automatic system to flag suspicious posts for verification or that helps the support team properly handle reports
parler was nuked from the internet because they didn't want to moderate content
Why is twitter not being held up to the same bar?
Ah, obviously
It's like part of the constant hypocrisy, twitter gets away with this stuff and is basically the norm
I don't often support russia
but, like, right at this moment
I fucking support russia
I don't it's still a stupid fucking idea
Just, they.. erm... not slowing down steam might be nice..
How so?
A site is hosting CP
through their own refusal to remove it
if this was any other smaller media company the world would literally be firing flack at them and protesting for them to be taken offline
slowing them down doesn't solve the problem, it's also convenient that a lot of anti-russia and pro-lgbtq content is on there
What would change is a US based law that removed section 230 safe harbors for CP content reported to them
What is the alternative?
now that is a good solution
and what say does russia have in that?
what can the russian state do to remove CP
best russia can do is bar access to the site
why do you want to give russia any say in this
Because their citizens have as much of a say in their access to a platform as us citizens do
they're a US based company with no presence in russia
they have an office?
russian individuals can access the platform
I mean
i meant legal presence
if this is the thing which makes twitter put their foot down, I fucking support it
GDPR also is enacted in all countries with EU customers
Independent if you have or not have an office there
I'm saying it's not out of the norm
It's normal that Russia is seeking to solve this for their population
and I'm sorry but the GDPR doesn't affect me, a US citizen, if I harvest EU data
And the steps they took are the only steps they can take
that's not how this works
if you have EU customers, you're hounded by the GDPR
they have no ramification against me
sure if you care about EU customers
but that's a lot more different than your statement
Saying they can do nothing against you is the same as saying police can't jail you if they can't catch you
Yes, outside of their jurisdiction there's less steps they can take
but it's still illegal
listening to Russia is only as important to Twitter as their Russian users
I doubt Twitter doesn't care
and, well, we'll see if they care
^
I hope they do so that the victims of this can be helped
the best solution here is a US law that adds a restriction to 230 safe harbors when CP is involved
230 is very...
230 is fine
I mean, the argument against not removing 230 is "it's hard to moderate content"
but, yet, twitter seems to be good at moderating content when they want to
what I mean by restriction is that they can be sued for hosting CP directly if they do not reply to reports from state officials within x days
90-120 days probably a good number
idk talk to your state rep
Russia cannot influence US civil law too much
And Russia doesn't need US to solve issues for them
they are a state in themselves
I'm not talking about Russia
I'm saying if you want a real solution that is it
that gives them a financial intensive
holy shit I can't believe you think Russia is doing this to protect their citizens
We'll see
I'd be curious if they actually reverse
because if I had to guess this is just a good cover story for Russia to do this
well yeah that
but I meant twitter
also do people not have DNS over TLS there
don't gemmie wrong
or is Russia a root CA for all devices in their country
There is likely an ulteria motive here
but, like
you know
who else is gonna stand up to these sites?
like what?
ideally you do it in a way that doesn't affect your citizens
and ideally twitter acts on the thousands of reports they have
at the end of the day, I can see why people would disagree with russias especially overhanded stance on it, but, somebody gotta
they've sent thousands of reports to them so I read?
reports likely all get forwarded to T&S
Like, I'd imagine that this is something russia has talked to twitter over
and, if T&S is not dealing with it...
where they hire labor for the lowest bidder
At the end of the day, twitter is doing bad stuff through their own inaction or incompetience induced from their hiring/servicing policies or whatever
yeah sure
moderation game is pretty bad for this kinda stuff
it's gotten better than it was for sure but still could improve
I assume the grey line on the moderation team comes with the fact that they're like one of the big tech companies that allow porn on their site
like I don't think facebook does, i know youtube doesn't, instagram doesn't, etc
So, what
CP victims have to have people in law enforcement to be able to adress their own abuse?
In some form of way here, there is a serious failing by twitter to address the problems on their platform
is russia being strong handed and likely to have ulteria motives? yea, sure
But, like
no no no I'm just trying to think of why at twitter it's handled so poorly
if nobody else can stand up to them, who will
not justifying it
for sure
Like, yea, sure, porn is porn, and can be sketchy on where you draw the line
but, literally every platform hosting porn has certain legal requirements
every company producing porn in any sane country has to retain legal proof of peoples identity and proof of age, etc
Like, I get it, public content, but, twitter at the very least should verify this stuff, especially if there is doubt casted on it
am not saying that every grown ass adult needs to upload their ID onto twitter if they wanna leak a titty pic when they're in the shower or whatever
but, if somebody comes and says, "there's abuse in this video involving a minor", why is there no requirement, either policy based or legal based on twitter to validate this?
We already have restrictions on 230 when it involves CP
Oh, wait, no, that was child sex trafficking
yeah they got backpage using that didn't they
The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) and Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) are the U.S. Senate and House bills that as the FOSTA-SESTA package became law on April 11, 2018. They clarify the country's sex trafficking law to make it illegal to knowingly assist, facilitate, or support sex trafficking, and...
Writing on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, Assistant-Attorney General Stephen Boyd addressed Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte, expressing concerns that provisions of the bill would make it even harder to prosecute sex traffickers. Additionally they expressed concerns that certain provisions would violate the Constitution's ex post facto clause and thus be unconstitutional.[
This was a bill where the only 2 no votes were Ron Wyden and Rand Paul
If you know anything about those two you'd know that's a really weird combo
😄
well I'm fairly sure that's a little misleading. All Texas did was remove its state mandate for masks
counties/businesses are free to do what they want
I think the move may have been premature, but I'm all for more personal freedom
people wearing masks are still gonna remain wearing masks
exactly
stores which didn't allow people to enter without a mask are still capable and likely will follow that practice
can't fine anyone anymore
and if a business wants people who still want to wear masks to shop there, they will require them in their businesss
Basically, if masks work as well as they say that they do, we wouldn't be being told to wear 2 now, and the rates in other places would I'd expect to be much lower
it was a 2k fine if you got written up about it
now they can't do that, and just because a business requires you to wear a mask doesn't mean people will
seen enough videos online of people getting pissy being told they had to wear a mask lol
no mask, no entry
I mean, a bunch of cities opened up around the same time
its private property, the business is well within their rights to call the police to remove problem customers
texas is just getting snipered in all the smoke
which cities?
I mean, states
I think Mississippi opened up, Iowa, Wyoming I think
xd i don't live in those states
i don't agree with them opening up, but they also have way less population than texas, other than.. florida i guess
lol "opening up"
I mean, it's up to people to be sensible
I know, letting people decide what's good for themselves is scary
right, whatever, same terms you get what i mean
but, like, anybody smart is gonna still be taking reasonable precautions
its NOT the same..
removing restrictions
its a HUGE DIFFERENCE
there
restrictions enforced by the state
it's up to the public to be sane
the VAST majority of businesses (if they want business) will still require masks
I mean, I know it's a crazy ask, but, still
because enough people still want to wear them
if people wanna risk their own lives and oof themselves, go for it
I'm smart enough to take reasonable precautions for myself and would LOVE if my government fucked off with their restrictions
and once enough people dont want to wear them 🤷♂️ that's how it works. and its on them, no one else
this
If it was something that only hurt you maybe that'd be okay
no point in talking about this cause we have fundamentally different views, a libertarian point of view would be your rights stop when they start hurting other people
You wearing a mask is supposed to protect me though
just stay away from them?
I mean
The libertarian viewpoint should be that the government should force you to wear a mask 😛
I can't even have a drink of coffee walking through the park away from others without being at risk of having a fine slapped on me
well yea that too amaranth
idk why you keep going on about businesses requiring masks, they have no means to enforce it
and people have gotten violent being told to wear a mask
if you're found outside without good reason, <bullet in the head starts playing>
they don't want to deal with it
and the mask mandate is totally helping with that
they can call the police? again, its private property. they can kick whoever they want off
people can be refused on property for any reason the business wants
no mask mandate just empowers people like that more
they can kick you off because they don't want people wearing trainers in their store
can != will
well that's on the business then. And they will lose customers if that becomes a big issue
they have a monetary incentive to provide a safe space
i mean they also have an incentive to try and keep PR damage as low as possible
yes? Not sure there's a big group of people who are against removing customers that are just flat out annoying. (yelling, etc)
In addition to businesses, I believe counties can still have their own mandates
i mean whatever, just another instance of the gov not protecting some peoples rights
but us gov is pretty good at not doing that already lel
there isn't a "right" to go onto private property and be protected from everything
a business isn't a public place
(talking about regulating business capacity in this case here)
and if you think you should have to wear a mask in a public place (like a sidewalk), then tell your local gov to mandate it
no mask mandate = less protection from the government from people who don't wear a mask = increased covid potential = increased death potential = deprivation of right to live, the unalienable right the gov is supposed to protect
Is it the governments job to make sure you don't slip in the shower and break your neck?
whose rights am i harming if i fall and break my neck?
who harmed my rights by me slipping?
the answer is nobody
therefore it's not the governments job
ok, better example is probably speed limits. Can be lowered and that would save more lives.
cause that does affect other people
higher speed limits
increased death potential = deprivation of right to live, the unalienable right the gov is supposed to protect
following the rules of the road doesn't violate anyones rights
you can be following the rules and still have an accident that was no ones fault...
if you start driving in a manner that endangers other people, that's when the government needs to step in
most accidents are someones fault
not intentionally tho, I think that's important
right, but if they'd been following the rules the accident wouldn't have happened
the rules are there so the government can protect your life
if you disregard the rules and get into an accident.... i mean the gov can't stop that?
they could reduce the risk of dying tho by lowering the speed limit
why don't they?
i don't know, probably because everything is so spread out lel
I think its probably because people decided that the greater number of deaths was worth the extra productivity you have by going faster spending less time driving
ok, so what gains in productivity are there by getting rid of a mask mandate?
who benefits from not having to wear a mask?
I don't know, and it doesn't matter. Key phrase there is people decided. As in the constituents of whatever jurisdiction decided that.
why should you, way on the western edge of Texas have a say in what someone does in a tiny town in eastern texas which you've never been, and never plan on going?
i mean it was 1 person that decided in texas to remove the mandate
he didn't even consult his health experts
uhh... well it's not like we voted to revoke the mask mandate?
that isn't how the country works. we elect people to make decisions for us. And you can un-elect them, not vote them back in, etc.
they are subject to their own constituents
and if you want to have to wear masks in your local jurisdiction, you are free to lobby your country/city gov to require it
and if you have enough people, it happens
i doubt greg abbott would be removed from office if he kept the mask mandate in longer lol
🤷♂️ idk, but the politics will play out accordingly.
decisions are made all the time that extend or shorten life expectancy. Not in as direct a way as with covid usually
most people support wearing masks anyways, so really he should be voted out for revoking the mandate but because people most people aren't single issue voters probably not
people with more money probably live longer, so tax code affects your life expectancy probably
lel i got distracted, i saw it pop up in my feed before writing my paper
??
now i still have to write my paper
gl w/that
it's actually a paper on U.S federalism too lol
My bank just called me complaining that I have an investment account with nothing in it????
Said that they have to close it
biden's america
idk why you're equating that to biden but ok
was a joke. apparently not a good one
broke bitch
I told them I invest with a different financial institution
She goes
"But you have a chequing account here so why not"
WOW outta nowhere that one came
What shithole do you reside in Sweepy
the one where the bills smell sickly sweet
Well, it’s a shithole regardless of where it is, because sweepy lives there

somewhere where they spell "checking" with a .... Q
Canada or Europe then
You didn't vote to invoke it either
dun dun dunnnnn
yes that's probably the reason why there are speed limits and not all speed limits are at like 5 mph. Does wearing a mask in any way inhibit productivity? No, hence this argument of yours correlating speed limits with wearing masks is invalid. There is clear scientific evidence wearing masks has a statistically significant impact of spreading covid. The libertarian view is to maximize autonomy, and if we were to respect that in regards to wearing masks, I believe the increased autonomy with public safety allowing high-risk individuals and the elderly to be safe from covid is a priority over the "oppression" of wearing a cloth fabric over your face
its not about productivity. that wasn't the point
what I said afterwards is the point. the majority of constituents wanted higher speed limits (or in this case the removal of the state-wide mandate)
i hope that your belief in the full reliance of voters to decide who gets elected to make decisions for us, means that you are fully against many of the bills presented by Republicans that contribute to voter oppression, and side with the Democrats to make voting accessible to all eligibile individuals.
if the politicians in Texas judged that wrong, they will be punished politically as always happens
shortening the early voting days from 29-20 is hardly voter suppression btw
this past election, there was a big expansion of voting windows due to covid. if states go to revert that... its suddenly voter suppression?
idk the details of the bills dems are complaining about
Strict voter photo ID laws
2. Closing of DMV’s in strict voter ID law states
3. Failure to accept government-issued state university and college student ID’s
4. No early voting
5. Early voting cuts
6. No Sunday Souls to the Polls Early Voting
7. Harsh requirements/punishments for voter registration groups
8. Tough Deputy Registrar Requirements
9. Harsh voter registration Compliance Deadlines
10.Failure to timely process voter registrations
11.Cuts to Election Day (Same Day) registration
12.Polling place reductions or consolidations
13.Polling place relocations
14.Inadequate or poorly trained staffing at polls
15.Inadequate number of functioning machines, optical scanners or electronic
polling books
16.Running out of ballots at polling sites
17.No paper ballots
18.Failure to accept Native American tribal IDs.
19.Barring Native American voters through residential address requirements for
Native American lands which have PO Boxes
20.Failure to place polling sites on Native American lands
21.Refusal to place polling sites on college campuses
22.Lack of available public transportation to polling sites
23.Excessive Voter purging
I just know the early voting window is part of it.
24.Disparate racial treatment at polling sites
25.Student voting restrictions
• Residency
26.Ex-felon disenfranchisement laws
27.Requiring Payment of Fines or Fees As Condition of Vote Restoration
28.Failure to Inform Formerly Incarcerated Persons of Their Voting Rights or
Eligibility to Vote
29.Excessive Use of Inactive voter lists
30.No Public Outreach or Notification to Voters Placed on Inactive Lists
31.Language discrimination
• Failure to accommodate
32.Lack of language-accessible materials
33.Failure to accommodate voters with disabilities
34.No disability accessibility
35.No curbside Voting
36.Not enough disability accessible voting equipment
37.Barriers to assistance by family members or others for voters
38.Deceptive practices
• Flyers
• Robocalls
39. Voter intimidation
• Impersonating law enforcement personnel or immigration officers
40.Police at polling places
41.Racial gerrymandering
42.Creating polling place confusion by splitting Black precincts
43.Partisan gerrymandering
44.Barriers for homeless voters to voter registration
45.Voter caging
• Use of One-Time Post cards/Mailers
46.Voter challengers at polls
47.Voter challenges to voter registration lists
48.Use of Suspense lists
49.Absentee Ballot Short Return Deadlines
50.Exact match requirements for signatures or other information
51.Complicated Absentee Ballot Requirements
52.Proof of Citizenship Laws
53.Out-of-precinct = no vote counted requirements
54.Failure to pre-register 17 year olds
55.Restrictions on straight-party voting
56.Interstate voter registration Crosscheck system
57.Jailed persons’ preconviction: denied right to register and/or vote
58.DOJ demanding voter records
59.Employers not providing time off or enough time
60.Failure to assist or accommodate voters displaced by natural disasters
61.Long lines
mmkay, lets go through these as I see them.
Proof of Citizenship... I see no problem with having to prove you are a citizen to vote? that's kinda who gets to vote.
Employers not providing time off. that's on the employer, not government. complain to them
Flyers? Flyers are deceptive? Iirc you currently can't have anything campaign related near polling places already (which probably violates the 1st amendment)
Robocalls (no one likes these and I'll be glad to see them gone for any topic 🙂 )
is this copy/pasta list things states are trying to do?
Long lines have been an issue in places forever
gerrymandering... hard to solve. Federal gov has no say in it... so yeah, idk if that's really solveable
felons voting... complex issue. You did have your rights taken away by a jury of your peers, should that include voting? probably for some crimes, probably not for others
gerrymandering isn't even necessarily bad too, if there was none, due to the way land is spread out and how even districts are, it would be pretty impossible for dems to win a majority ever
like you probably wouldn't have as many texas dems as we do now
if you're gonna nitpick on all the less valid points of voter oppression go ahead. i'm not going to argue against you if that's what you're gonna say. let's focus on the ones that i believe are existent and should be addressed then. 1) Some states don't allow for early voting, 2) Some states do not allow for same day registration 3) Polling place reductions or consolidations - In texas Abbott reduced the number of drop in ballots to 1 PER COUNTY. 4) Failure to inform formerly incarcerated persons of their voting rights 5) Minimal accessibility to voters with disabilities 6) language discrimination 7) Voter Intimidation 8) Racial gerrymandering 9) police at polling places 10) partisan gerrymandering 11) barriers for homeless voters to voter registration 12) complicated absentee ballot requirements 13) employers not providing time off - i argue with this in regards to establishing election day as a national holiday and replace one of the existing national holidays with a day off from work (for example president's day) 14) long lines
Err, no, without gerrymandering you would redistrict things either only with population in mind so districts are equal there or so that they poll as close races
You wouldn't split things up based on land size
does the government need to tell you what your rights are at all times?
ignorance of the law is not an excuse in a court of law
i agree.
why should that be different for voting (re: ex-cons)
for example, "I didn't know I couldn't use my phone in this state while driving" is not an excuse if you get pulled over for it. And it won't be in court either.
(this is one of the problems with having so many laws/regulations)
Voter intimidation. what form does that take?
it's a copy paste from a social justice coalition
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr-voterintimidation-v03.pdf whether this is a form of voting suppression that the federal level is supposed to take responsibility for i don't know, but i hope you do realize that it is indeed a form of voter suppression.
as for national holiday, I'm totally fine w/that, as long as its not in addition to all the other federal holidays where only gov employees dont have to work
yesss 🙌🏽
early voting should be shortened. SO many people had already voted before the FIRST pres debate last time. Is that a good thing?
I don't think its a good thing to ignore the "other" candidate no matter what cause they aren't "on your side"
so I am for forcing people to wait until closer to election day when information is out there.
what if trump had some some bat-shit crazy thing the day before election day and then won because so many people had pre-voted?
is that a good thing?
I understand the need for special circumstances last time because covid certainly qualifies as special circumstances
it looks like you're looking at examples on the other side of the spectrum, where too early of early voting is in turn harming the expectation that one should watch the debates before voting. i can agree with that, that it can let people vote simply on party lines and no other. however this issue on the other side of the spectrum, and the restrictions for in-person early voting is an issue that needs to be addressed.
why does there need to be in-person early voting?
i think some people can decide whether to vote one way or another looking at one candidate's near-four years as a representative.
that isn't smart at all. if they were only representing a tiny portion of america... that doesnt translate to being good for all of it.
it doesnt mean they are bad, but it certainly doesnt mean they are automatically good
i believe the benefits to it outweigh the disadvantages. i'm not saying they're automatically good as you're saying.
"tiny portion of america"? confused
oh I thought you mean "representative" as a political position they held before running for president
Also, I'm not 100% sold on the idea, that more people voting is automatically better
more informed people voting is good. but as Mark Twain said, if you dont read the news you are uninformed, if you do, you are misinformed
but the average joe who has never voted in his life, has no clue of the issues at stake in an election, strolls into a polling place cause its on his way to the bar or smth. is it good for him to vote?
stop using the word "automatic" to try to falsely fill in that my beliefs are fully in support of all the voting expansion views, again i believe the advantages to increased voting far outweigh their drawbacks. are there flaws? probably, but their benefits far outweigh them.
There ofc shouldn't be anything saying he cant
the word "automatic" in that context has nothing to do with your beliefs, but rather with mine
this last election, which if you read twitter, or watched the news, was "life or death" for the US, and still only 62% of eligible voters voted.
if you'd like to see for yourself the 253 voting suppression bills in 43 states that have been presented recently go ahead on this website. again sure some of them can be flawed/not necessarily voting suppression, but i don't see how you can argue me out into believing republicans are systematically suppressing voting.
clearly there is a large portion of the country who couldn't be bothered to vote out "hitler"
and have you wondered why this was the case, besides "laziness" or lack of civic duty?
well I'm glad it isnt a requirement to vote like it is in some countries (a duty)
im fine with the lack of requirement too. i'm just saying the implication of civic duty citizens have in this country. i'm not for such requirements. but let's get back to my original argument, that republicans are presenting a lot of voter suppression bills that makes it harder for people to vote.
what would you like me to say? I'm not a republican. Both parties try to "always win"
Democrats want to add more states to try to never lose the Senate again
fun fact texas can split into 5 states at any time
is that really true?
shouldnt some of these states be added? like puerto rico, guam, DC?
why should DC be a state?
there is some disagreement among legal scholars but yaknow
and DC should 100% not be a state
just put it into Maryland or smth. The whole point of it not being a state was so a state wouldnt have control of the land the federal gov was located
a separate entity (state body) shouldn't have control over the federal government
from your arguments it has provided me the understanding that you more likely vote conservative/republican, correct me if i'm wrong.
that's the whole reason it isn't a state in the first place
most republicans don't give two shits about fiscal conservatism anymore, regardless of what they say
lol, just look at how much the donald spent
that's actually another good alternative, and something that should happen at the bare minimum.
why?
how about puerto rico and guam?
as for the territories, why not just give them their independence on the condition the US still gets to lease the land for our military stuff.
they are tiny....
well puerto rico is sizeable
wyoming has a far fewer population than puerto rico lmao bro
the rest are tiny
ah
that's a good viewpoint that with my current knowledge that i can support :)
I thought the left was all about decolonization (whatever that means). Why dont they want the gov to just drop them?
well for one, I imagine its hugely beneficial from their perspective to be protected/trade by/with the US
basically, if the goal of whatever you are trying to do, is engineer a way (via spamming new states, or gerrymandering) so the other side doesn't have a voice in government, its wrong
the goal should be that your ideas are better
look at california. One party rule hasn't been doing great lately
there isn't a single republican in any statewide office for many years now
https://therealnews.com/guam-independence-movement-grows seems to be an interesting topic that ill read up on later
california also has a ridiculous law where only the top 2 candidates appear on the official ballot, even if those two candidates are of the same party
so you end up with ballots in the general election only have 2 candidates from the same party on it
how is that not designed to make it harder for the other side to have a voice?
- so the other side doesn't have a voice in government, its wrong
Seems to be there's already enough of a voice by republicans considering the republican half in the senate represent 41.5 million less people than the democratic half.
isn't that like a false equivalency?
the Senate is not designed to be a democratic body proportional to population
well there's corporate democrats and democratic socialists, even though they are under the same party under the two-party rules they have different perspectives, if you want to encourage competition (which i think should happen too) well i think an election between these two kinds of democratic reps would be a good election.
it's not designed as such and it's not working in the benefit of the majority of people in this country, right. so you support this design of the senate being disproportional to the population?
the senate is NOT supposed to work for the majority of the people in the country
A jungle primary is more representative of the people in a first past the post system
Other states do it too, iirc Mississippi is one of them
and do you like that being as such?
yes absolutely.
why?
we have a body that is proportional related to population, the House of Representatives
The house isn't proportional either
I'm sure its put nicely in one of the Federalist Papers, but to protect against the tyranny of the majority
why should the few residents of Wyoming have to do what voters in california say?
The house used to be proportional but stopped in like 1920
why should the few residents in wyoming have three times as much influence in federal decisions than voters in california?
they do in one part of government, in the other part California has 52 reps, and Wyoming has 1
its designed to force compromise, something that is rapidly going out the window
but this will never change, like never.
(how the Senate works that is)
"rapidly going out the window" lol
California has more than 52x the population of Wyoming
in fact, its hard-coded in the constitution that you can't change how the senate works, even w/an amendment.
if the house was proportional would the republicans ever win it again lol
You can amend the constitution to remove that clause 😛
probably not actually
the whole convention process would get thrown out before it even started I'm guessing
and even IF you could, you need 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree to essentially weaken their power in the federal government
Maybe after Civil War 2: This Time It's Personal
fair enough, i can see once democrats taking more significant majority power they forget about small town and rural populations and leave them in the dust.
Sorry, going back to an older argument you stated. you still think federal mask mandates shouldn't be a thing?
pretty sure the federal gov cant do a mask mandate if it wanted
I think that was already a discussion under trump. And biden surely would've if he could.
transportation is different
though yes this is for transportation-sector only. and that makes sense. does texas still have mask mandates for that sector?
no clue
Kek belgian police are major savages
22 in 3 million is nothing
To put that in relation, in germany we have 73k (direct, indirect, who knows) deaths for 2.5m cases
I expect that number of undetected cases is significantly higher (not everyone had to be detected), but still the ratio is nowhere close to eachother.
Though there is still moral dylema of giving something potentially deathly (even if with small possibility) to patients.
Will wait and see. Hopefully that's just coincidence.
Not really. A vaccine approval is always focused on this question: is the risk of the vaccine lower than the risk of what it prevents
It's possible that there's some health cases where you shouldn't use specific vaccine (as they might increase the lethality) and so you should use a different one or skip them completely (don't need to vaccinate 100% of population, just majority).
Tbh, I'm not very invested into all the health and covid situation, so it's possible that I'm saying stupid things (in which case would love to be corrected).
I think nobody here is an expert ^^
But yeah that makes sense
At least here in german, you have a talk about preconditions and stuff and a doctor can tell you to recommend not taking it
God knows if that actually happens
whoa, hold on. This is the internet. everyone is an expert.
take it from an expert on the internet
i think they suspended that vaccine so easily because there are so many other viable options at this point
best to be on the safe side when you can get others anyways yaknow
There are so many covid vaccines that hopefully most people can get at least one of them
Main problem there is availability
Eg, I'm not meant to take any viral vector vaccines - so the one in Aus is a no go for me
All else being equal, these changes will tend to pull opinion in a pro-European direction. We estimate they would be sufficient to produce a majority of 52%-48% for ‘Remain’ in 2021, and 54%-46% by 2026.
Has anyone done the old Remain/Leave poll again in 2021?
Who would knew younger ppl are more likely to be sane
I mean, it's too late now, they're fully out and done with the transition period even
I read today that they wanna get rid of gdpr, after kinda sabotaging it while they were in
Their remaining IT companies will hate them, especially hosts
hmm
I doubt you'd see UK rejoining the EU after they just went though all that lmfao
there isn't a real reason for them to rejoin
I mean especially looking at the EU's botched covid response
There wasn't a real reason to leave and they are the Brits so you never know
control over your borders/trade is a reason ¯_(ツ)_/¯
It's a bit unfair to say the EU butchered it, they approach was just different. EU wants to give everybody fair access to the vaccine. US and UK basically stop vaccine exports
EU is the one stopping exports now and isn't the UK exporting it to the EU?
EU is stopping exports? Haven't heard anything about that
when people are dying from a virus, I'm sorry you shouldn't be stopping countries from getting a vaccine
UK is exporting more again now, yes
because at least some people would get it
it would get to everyone eventually but the EU is trying to make an all or nothing deal
Because Italy is not in the EU. 
vaccinating some people now is better than waiting to vaccinate everyone at the same time months down the line
Is that what Europe was trying to do?
No
Unless you know of some stockpile the EU is sitting on because they have distribution problems they're getting shots in arms as fast as they can they just aren't as fast as the US or UK
Sounds like it's mostly a supply issue, the vaccines they bet big on have had problems getting production ramped up
They took 3 months to sign the contract for the vaccine with AZ, and from what I kinda remember didn't pay until around the time they where making a stink, it's like saying to a company "yea, I'm gonna order 20m of your product", not signing the contract for 3 months, and then wondering why you've not recieved X amount 3 months later (i.e. 6 months ahead of the original "wanna trade" convo)
Due to that, the EU production took longer than they'd hoped to deal with the procurement of the materials and such neccesary, meaning that the 3 months we dealt with production shortfalls while EU branch was basically twiddling their thumbs
I know, yea, it's a vaccine, but, they shouldn't have to impact deliveries to other countries because you sat around for 3 months
not to mention, in response to production issues, the EU basically sent a team out to AZs EU factory to investigate if they've been shipping stuff abroad and basically to my understanding started threatening legal action against the company
I dunno, it's common to have purchase agreements where money doesn't change hands until the product does
In this case giving them money might have helped them produce more while waiting for regulatory approval but not really because they're going to sell everything they make for the next year anyway
no nipps in the news
wut
The EU response is a total mess
At least US vaccine rollout is going well, Biden said vaccines for all adults should be available by May 1st :)
it remains to be seen
no reason not to believe it
there have been little to no hiccups with our vaccine rollout
i think we're #5 in world
Israel, UAE, UK, and Chile above us
At least US vaccine rollout is going well, Biden said vaccines for all adults should be available by May 1st 🙂
pretty sure that's not what he said.
I think he said all adults will be eligible to get vaccines by May 1st
which doens't mean they'll be enough vaccines by that date
yeah, that's exactly what he said
i think we already have all the vaccines
it's just a matter of distribution at this point
I don't think so
or... not this point, but by may 1st
why wouldn't it say available or some other wording then?
wasn't the timeline originally there'd be enough shots for every american by the end of may?
are some of those 2-shots JRoy? so you'd need well over the total adult pop then?
no clue i just remember the number
ok Thonk... IF they meant that anyone who wanted it could get it by may 1st... why didnt they say that?
that's a WAY better story
idk im not the white house :p
if i had to guess it'd be because distribution is still a thing
and jroy said they have fulfillment dates for mid may for a lot more
Yea, but they're also over-ordering now
nah, I think its a bit of clever wordsmithing to make it sound like that's what they meant, so it looks better than it is
I think that they had the total # of vaccines really needed locked in a little while ago
considering people who are actually elligable to get the vaccine
Once all Americans are eligible to be vaccinated, the Administration will ensure that every adult is actually able to get the vaccine
that's also in biden's msg
I wanna say, kinda remmebering off what thonk said, but, basially, napkin maths is that 232M would be eilgable to get the vaccine in total, once you consider people who can't get it or don't want it, it knocks the number to around like the 200M markish, maybe like 190M or something from what I recall seeing
oh idk then
ofc, this is all generally napkin maths
yea idk if part of jroys 400 million number has been alreaady fulfilled
if it hasn't then it's def enough to cover all adults in the U.S
and yea, there is that Q of "what does a vaccine cover"
Like, does the order include just a single dose or both
heavy level of "fuck knows" in all of this, really
probably 1 dose if i had to guess
i should just quickly get my EMT license so that i can get a vaccine soon lol
otherwise they'd have no reason to order 400mil
I mean, from my understanding, they where expected to have a gooood few mill in surplus
Frick the GOP as per usual
though id be happy to hear any valid perspectives from yall for repealing an estate tax while barring direct stimulus payments
well the stimulus payments are happening...
and we shall see if any ensuing inflation causes the fed to have to raise interest rates to > 20% which will surely plunge the country into a recession
the amount of money the gov has put into the economy during the pandemic is WAY larger than the different between actual economic ouput and potential economic output
I think after the 2008 recession, the gov put about half the difference between actual and potential economic output in to the economy via stimulus
its multiple times the difference now
I think the main point of the May 1st thing is the logistics to let you find a pharmacy or other vaccine site and get scheduled from a federal service
we are in a bubble for sure, it seems like we will probably have some long term economic consequences, though i am no economist. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CURRCIR but you haven't answered my question on if the repubs are hypocritical for their estate tax repeal
either way it seems like by fall we'll be able to return to fairly normal social activities, so that's good :) i want to go back to in person learning so bad
much faster vaccination process than in Japan
i don't think the majority of healthcare workers there have gotten the vaccine there yet
and they're not prioritizing healthcare workers over the elderly
which is a difficult dilemma to face
no republican voted for stimulus checks but they're happy to provide estate tax cuts in the trillions, which only benefit the billionaire class. this is the hypocrisy i was trying to get to. i also understand and believe you that the funds used for stimulus checks could contribute to an impending and inevitable economic doom, but that wasn't what I was trying to talk about, sorry for the confusion.
jesus christ
'people who don't want it' shouldn't be a thing
it's a thing for all vaccines
According to what the officials were saying just weeks ago it will be mid to late 2022 I thought?
^ actually true I think, I made a quick uneducated assumption
Also yea vaccines for 100% of the adult population were locked in before Biden.
^ that im not aware of
Initial dose and booster, read a breakdown of the numbers back in Jan.
Was around 450M total doses.
Operation warp speed made zero contribution to vaccine development afaik
Varying companies is all.
Yeah it wasn't really about the development it was about preparing for distribution.
If you look at the numbers of people vaccinated in the USA per day the number has been on a steady climb since Jan 10th or so.
As supply improved it's slightly sharpened, but you can see that between Jan 2nd and 10th too.
Oh wait
You probably are right about distribution, but the development process has been falsely claimed by trump that he contributed to it, and furthermore did a chaotic and lackluster job at suppressing covid cases until these vaccines have rolled out
Warp Speed actually did provide billions directly to vaccine companies.
J&J 1B Aug 5, AZ 1.2B May 21, Moderna 1.6B Aug 11, Novavax 1.6B July 7 2020, Merck 38M April 15, Sanofi 2.1B July 31.
So that's combined 6.4B
Those are just only agreements to buy those doses.
Warp speed made no financial contribution afaik with vaccine development
No I do not think you have that part right afaik
As of August 2020, eight companies were chosen for funding of some $11 billion to expedite development and preparation for manufacturing their respective vaccine candidates.[26][27]
The vaccine developers, different vaccine technologies, and treatments receiving government research funding were:
A Pfizer spokesperson told Forbes that while it is proud to be one of various manufacturers participating in Operation Warp Speed and had reached an advanced purchase agreement with the U.S. government “the company did not accept BARDA funding for the research and development process. All the investment for R&D was made by Pfizer at risk.”
^ quote
Pfizer isn't in my list
Dr. Kathrin Jansen, Pfizer’s head of vaccine research and development, told the New York Times that their team “were never part of the Warp Speed” and had “never taken any money from the U.S. government, or from anyone.”
That's irrelevant to Pfizer, they did not get funding
Ah my bad
I do remember reading a reason why on the government website but no clue what it was
Let me double check on the other vaccines
I'd really like to find the associated bills
J&J also got 0.5B in March 2020
Yeah July 22 USA handed 2B to Pfizer for an advanced order.
It's true that Pfizer, unlike some other pharmaceutical companies, did not accept federal money for research into a coronavirus vaccine. Pfizer, unlike these competitors, is not getting payments up front even before proving its effort has been successful.
So Pfizer turned down the funding if I'm understanding that correctly.
While Pfizer did reach an advanced purchase agreement with the U.S. government, the company did not accept (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) funding for the research and development process. All the investment for R&D was made by Pfizer at risk. Dr. Jansen was emphasizing that last point.
Nice, you were right
Yeah, the facts were very warped by the media because the Oompa Loompa's were involved.
I can agree with you that the government under Trump's administration hasn't received enough credit for the financial contributions made to these vaccine development companies by leftist/liberal media
Biden even made out there was nothing done by the previous Administration to secure vaccines and distribute them in the town hall. Even though by then 10+% of adult Americans had been vaccinated by the first dose.
Yup "mostly false"
They really need a "it's a load of malarkey" option for those now.
I think you're misrepresenting his claims, Biden said there weren't enough contracts for all Americans made by trump. Different from what you said
In the town hall he flat out said there was "no plan".
for delivery of vaccines I don't think they had a solid plan yes
but outside of the normal partisanship, biden certainly hasn't done harm
Well Biden hasn't really done much better with a plan if that's the case.
☝🏼 better than the other dude who calls covid the China plague and the China virus. Much better. Biden's administration sucks as expected but it's still holding up well above Trump administration standards :)
how does biden's admin suck?
Sucks under leftist standards, one of them being the $1400 over $2000 schenanigans
Biden didn't specify that in his campaign claims afaik
The fact 50% of the relief bill isn't really related to covid relief though. Seems pretty effective. 😉
so the his admin sucks because of a single congressional issue?
It sucks because it's the career oligarchs still running things.
this isn't biden's or the dems fault
But that's not really going to change anytime soon.
I see.. so who decided to slip in 1 trillion of wish list items to the bill without the Dems signing off on it?
the $15 minimum wage is a horrible policy
Like they're geniuses
I thought I did pass tbh
no
Did Biden reject it?
no
Ahhhhhhh
I gotcha.
it's not just the dems
even if the dems had the votes in the house, they don't in the senate
Yeah, well Kamila didn't want it in there evidently either.
this isn't kamila
Because Joe Manchin
Kamala, spell her name right please.
oh did they?
you need 2/3 to pass anything in the senate
Yeah, it would already be too little by the time it finally hit 15. Need some wage that increases with cost of living or some other shit.
No..
What
filibusterer my duderino
Yeah filibuster needs to go
in the meantime you effectively need a 2/3rd majority vote to pass anything
Oh hey I finally got my George Soros money
ie get more dem seats in the midterms :))
Err, I mean I got the $1400
Stimulus passed 50-50 thi
Though*
the republicans let it
they could have called for a debate and led it into a filibusterer
Yeah
Nope, it was reconciliation, can't filibuster it
or yeah that
That's why they couldn't put the $15 minimum wage in though and why the money they're giving out can be garnished for unpaid taxes, fines, or child support
It counts as a tax credit or something
Yeah my point about Kamila, is the parliamentarian took the minimum out IIRC. The President of the Senate can override that.
not that simple
*Kamala
if she overrode it, it goes back for debate
Are you deliberately misspelling her name? 
It seems like it
Oh I agree.
If she overrides it then it goes to a vote which only needs a simple majority iirc
It's a horrible policy.
that being said dems should just pass it because it will get midterm votes
So they could kept it in there with like 1 extra day of debate
Minimum wage increases adversely affect the most vulnerable.
not a hill im gonna die on
But then they'd lose 2 votes
They should pass a better minimum wage bill, that gets it higher faster and keeps it going up instead of stuck in place again.
This is the longest we've gone without increasing the minimum wage since it was created
And wages being so low that people need multiple jobs to survive doesn't?
then why do so many economists agree that a wage increase would benefit the most vulnerable...
to the tune of 27-32 million
I mean, if they can't get a single job it probably adversely affects them more...
27 mil being a number from congress themselves and 32 being the number EPI gives
So many also think the other way, it's a pretty contentious issue.
If the minimum wage qualifies for a food stamp that we as taxpayers pay for then there's an issue.
iirc the numbers are like 750,000 will lose their job but 4 million will get a raise
i mean we're talking about a federal minimum wage, the states should set their own min wage to something that would make sense for the standards of living in their area
It's a contentious issue with fair arguments on both sides, I can agree with that
but they don't
Yeah I don't agree with the food stamp being related to minimum wages, should be related to cost of living in your area.
and if they aren't going to the feds should do it for them
because they don't want to even though it needs to happen at this point
$9/hr isn't enough anywhere in the country
agree that they don't, but the solution to that isn't setting the FEDERAL floor to something too high, you fix it with tax policy
The federal minimum should be at least be livable somewhere
I agree, I think with these things you have to do them carefully and measure their effects before you devastate the lower class.
In both directions.
i was working with someone in retail who was making like 11 an hour and and he was full time and he said he was still losing money
offer tax credits to states that set their min wage to an appropriate level
or vice versa
much better solution
Is $7.25 a minimum wage a fair min wage related to the cost of any state?? Shouldn't we like at the least increase that to double digits? Also adjusting for inflation minimum wage should be at $22-25
well 18
and expand medicare
It's a careful balancing act, and messing it up by giving everyone a lollipop is not probably the answer.
22-25 is with productivity increases too
They were considering doing the tax credit thing to get it in without having to override the parliamentarian but decided getting the details sorted on that would take too long
that is much better policy than a $15 minimum wage and it makes more economic sense
Instead we got Universal Basic Income but only if you have children
Time to start dating!
lul
And @shut vine please spell Kamala's name right, just like how you would with any other person :)
It's supposed to only be this year but they're already talking about trying to make it permanent
Has CEO productivity gone up 300 times? No lol
I'm very pro free market, so you can have low paying jobs that require low effort or zero experience if people want that choice.
Giving people a chance to get work and develop their skills and advance themselves.
UBI is a bad solution too, feels like a bandaid, expanding social services feels like a much better option
So you're pro-leaving people for starvation and living paycheck to paycheck even though they are essential workers and work full time?
health care, affordable housing, etc
No I'm not, I'm against that. I just think the market is the best place to decide that, government has a history of screwing it up.
The market has a history of exploiting workers.
The market has a history of killing workers.
And the government is the problem here?
Like the number of times the government "tried to fix" this issue and it just gets worse.
lol i love the "grumple grumple look how bad the government runs the post office" argument
government runs things fine when it tries
Whelp, my $1400 is gone already 😛
Nicely done!
that was fast
Spent it on helping the poor or?
I agree that it doesn't sound like a good idea, even though academic paper research shows the majority of these finances go towards food/missed payments/important priorities instead of the held misconception most goes towards drugs and recreational activities
My grandma finally picked out a replacement for the couch I broke on Christmas and I bought another monitor https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27gn950-b-gaming-monitor
Shop LG 27GN950-B on the official LG.com website for the most up to date information. Buy online for delivery or in-store pick-up.
Thank your reps if they voted yes for the relief bill :)
I'm for empowering people as individuals to not rely on the government.
lol
raise the min wage then 
So, a proper living wage! 🙂
if not living at least one that doesn't require you to work 80 hours a week
Yes, that isn't implemented by a government. You agree with me!
I'm so glad you're convinced.
What do you have to say to the increasing wealth inequality between executives and workers that's happened when we let the market do it's crap?
Its*
If the government wasn't needed for a living wage, we wouldn't be having this discussion because businesses would already have implemented it 😉
my duderino you understand that a free market will ultimately sort itself into monopolies and oligopolies, which is why checks are market capitalism are a good thing
So historically in America, specifically in the 1800's. The lower class became significantly better off even thought he wealth gap increased.
even with wages, you could say that market forces will drive the wage to a living one, which would be true in normal cases but if an oligopoly controls the labor market it won't
so you need a body with actual power to keep that in check
hint hint nudge nudge the government
people themselves don't have the institutional power to control the market in a fair way
The issue with a UBI, or minimum wages is, that people who run stores realize people are less careful with their money when those things happen eventually, and start charging more because they can.
Everyone wants to increase their wealth, live better, etc.
Why wouldn't a person selling groceries want to do the same?
What about data on how long people are living?
heh
if an oligopoly controls the local labor market who's gonna compete to drive up wage cost
Life expectancy is not a good stat to look at unless you're looking at adults
The food/produce market is too big for there to be a price hike lol
Would you concur that would be a reasonable indicator that quality of life has improved?
Due to medical developments
Until relatively recently in history it was dragged down hard by infant mortality
Yeah interestingly Morgan Stanley came out with that claim ^
I mostly view life expectancy numbers as a sign of technological improvements
I would be more than willing for America to try it.
I'm not American, doesn't affect me.
Australian minimum wage is $15.39 USD
I personally feel like it would have varying effects depending on your state, and that most people would be surprised (including me) by the consequences of doing so.
So you take back the claim that government should have zero involvement in minimum wage increases?
Yea, the minimum here is 15. Our poverty rate is 8%.
Yeah why are you against having minimum wage in the US $15 then lol
oh wait, "yea" as in you take back your original claim?
to be fair the US economy works very different
I am not taking it back, I'm saying I'm willing for the experiment to take place.
aus is much smaller, doesn't have vast fluctuations in cost of living
I agree. It's one of the points I generally make when someone said it worked / didn't work in x country.
Cool, you're for the minimum wage increase :)
Projection for 2021 US poverty rate was 13.7%, with the stimulus it's projected to be 8.7%
You can't really compare two countries, it's not wise to assume policies that work in one will work in another.
I guess we'll see in like 18 months
But yeah cost of living varies significantly within the us
which is why state level minimum wage is better solution
what would be awesome is a city level wage
Yeah I can agree with that 100%.
As in that it's better than nation wide.
Especially with a country like the USA.
i think a better solution federally is a tax credit for states that follow a wage formula
Btw @shut vine do you have a fair explanation for why minimum wage in the US hasn't increased to $22 if we adjust for inflation
and even setting the federal floor to $10/$11 seems fine too
GitLab used to work that way, they had a salary for someone living in San Fran then adjusted it based on comparing SF cost of living to wherever you live
Yeah San Jose has a different minimum wage than california, it's been $15 here since two years ago
mansion said he would probably vote yey on that ($10/$11) too
I am of the same school of thought as JRoy in this particular case, you can't assume each person is living in an area with the same costs.
So if you lived in rural Montana you'd make like 40% what someone in SF doing the same job would do, even if you were on the same team
iirc they got rid of that in 2019 or 2020
i imagine that looked unpopular
It's also why generally I'm not for sweeping controls like this, you can't account for all the differences.
Damn I'd like in the party center of NYC if that was the case lol
very bad optics wise
Who am I kidding, all of Montana is rural 
lul
Ah Manchin, i was confused for a minute lol
yeah i suck with names lmfao
all people i don't know
i usually only talk about them, not spell
I'm sure there's two houses close enough together that count as suburbia, Amaranth!
At least you didn't misspell a persons name twice 😄
We can move on from that 😛
i did once because i copied his spelling and i didn't know D:
I think we can all agree here we can set the minimum wage to be a wage livable somewhere, as I think amaranth said :)
Federal minimum*
I think a reasonable alternative to minimum wage increases would be giving tax credits to companies who pay employees above the cost of living index.
eh i don't think we should reward companies for doing that
Though I see some issues with that too
reward the states who set their own limits as fair ones
Better raise the corporate tax rate like 1% first so you have a stick to go with the carrot
Limited to Small businesses, for a compromise?
small biz would be good
Yeah but you have areas of states where the cost of living is vastly different to other areas.
that's my primary concern with that
but then large companies have no incentive to make wages fair
ok rural people will make more money then
which is why giving states a tax credit is better
like, the companies there can't just leave...
Aren't there areas in the UK where 15 is more than enough?
if they follow x formula or something
thats untapped profits if they leave
The tax credit should be focused on jobs within a certain percentage of cost of living index.
Say 20%.
Time to hire mathematicians to help companies exploit the formula lool
no no i mean states need to follow it
i don't think the government should be enforcing it at the point of companies
too much can go wrong
Yeah as with anything, my idea is very flawed until you take the time to very carefully plan and implement it.
best to tell states "hey if you set your minimum wage to this number which is derived from this formula, you'll get $x from the federal government"
You can't haphazardly implement legislation to try and fix a complicated issue and expect amazing results.
You should legit run for office someday 😄
I don't know, do people like individuals who can't guarantee they know how to fix x problem? 😛
Another important consideration with any large impact legislation, that is intended or seemingly intended to help people; is if it has bad consequences it's often still very hard to fix/revoke later.
Run on the platform that you at least won't lie with the optimism lol
Used the wrong word, like the idiot that I am.
Although I'm pretty sure your political positions vary with his, I'd recommend reading Obama's new book if you have a chance, it was a good read and for someone who's interested in making a social impact it's especially a must read :)
I am not much for books but I may give it a shot.
Does it mention Saul Alinsky at all?
And what of that Nobel? He is incredulous when he hears he has been awarded the prize.
“For what?” he asks. It makes him wary of the gap between expectation and reality. He considers his public image overinflated; he pushes pins into his own hype balloons.
I think that the US needs like a graded minimum wage, for example, somebody leaving school is expected to earn less than somebody who has been in the work force
bumping the minimum wage will kill jobs and put a good hit on those who the minimum wage is supposed to benefit
many minimum wage jobs are also not really designed to be forever jobs
I think that government should have programs to help those in need, but, there comes to be some responsilibity on you as an individual to progress your own worth
Increasing the minimum wage means that you increase the minimum amount of burden a company has to take on, that $15 minimum wage also turns into like $18 or something that the company ends up paying
I think that if you wanted to increase minimum wage with less of a hit, you'd need to incentivise small businesses to be able to allow them to take on the hit, which last I heard was like a majority of the employee force?
once you've been working a few years, nobody, should be earning minimum wage, and we should aim to fuck off any company which doesn't pay it's living workers a living wage; Now, some guy who graduates school and goes to work in a small mechanics, the mechanics have to train him, they have to provide stuff for him, they have to take the risk that if he fucks something up and breaks it, that's more they've gotta pay for, all you really do by increasing the minimum wage is raise the bar of burden for small businesses which means that those who are more vulnerable are left twiddling their thumbs waiting around for longer; more businesses and potential for companies to start up and make it would make it easier to get people into a job which can progress onto something well paid
E
A fair few of those points about raising the minimum wage are pretty thoroughly debunked in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAfB8j8oYeY
But currently, the US minimum wage has not adjusted for inflation in a long time, and is not at all a living wage
minimum wage is not meant to be a livable wage, and I don't think it needs to be, not unless you consider making it graded to allow those in the not-so well off communites which generally get stifled when minimum wage goes up
Why should a minimum wage not be a living wage?
It should be possible for every full time worker to not be under the poverty line from their wage
Personally, my belief is that a minimum wage job should be able to support you, am not 100% sure on where that needs to be, but, being able to afford a roof over your head and such for me is a good bar
Minimum wage 100% needs to be increaased, but, I guess it's where you define 'livable', i guess
I mean, poverty measures are fucked anyways generally
I mean, I'd consider a living wage as a wage where you can support yourself
I mean, for what I see, many believe that the minimum wage should generally be able to support a family
Like ideally that'd be the case, yes - but I honestly think the US is too far gone to get to that point
Ideally two minimum wages (eg, both parents) could raise a family
But that still completely screws over single parents, etc
I mean, I personally think that there's too much fixation on minimum wage vs tryna actually get people off minimum wage jobs
The video covers that a fair bit

