By November, Trump will have taken credit for every Biden accomplishment and millions of voters will believe it because they have the memories of goldfish.
You’re commenting under an article that says Trump is taking credit for it.
You made a comment saying trump was going to take credit for all of Biden’s accomplishments…
And I showed you a link that says Trump did this first by executive order, Biden stopped it for years, and now people are bigving him credit for not obstructing it and saying it was his idea
How do you not understand how the headline, your comment, and that article aren’t connected?
Great, have fun with that. It might be close enough to the line mods won’t delete your comments. But I sure as shit don’t want to read them anymore.
Enjoy the slow process of becoming exactly like a trump supporter. At least you got a headstart, like the first zombie in an apocalypse. You don’t have to watch others turn, you’re already there.
The explanation is in the article you refuse to read.
Enjoy the slow process of becoming exactly like a trump supporter. At least you got a headstart, like the first zombie in an apocalypse. You don’t have to watch others turn, you’re already there.
Who was it who recently criticized me about making accusations? Can anyone help me with that?
Unrelated to the incident, but I’m getting really fucking tired of articles using some unknown set of people posting online as justification for the conclusions of their articles. I don’t give half a shit what someone posted on the departments facebook page. I give a shit about the incident at hand. Don’t tell me how other people reacted online and expect me to do the same. Tell me what happened and let me come to my own conclusion.
Amen to that. It’s the same as articles saying there is widespread outrage about something, but its actually just a few angry tweets that they could scrape together.
“The news used to tell me what happened, and I decided how that made me feel. Now the news tells me how to feel, and I have to decide if I believe what happened.” -Someone in a meme
Fuck yes. I mean, obviously we all agree the most egregious thing is the pissant fuckin pig shooting a goddamn dog after only attempting to catch it for three fuckin minutes.
But Huffington Post, this terrible outlet the independent, they’re not real journalistic outlets. They’re literally made by and for social media. Their only real value is in sharing outlandish headlines. That’s the entire model they were built around. And when those of us that actually read the articles do so, we realize there’s almost nothing of value to be found in the body. But these places survive and even thrive by sites like this one, with large segments of the user BASE jumping right in to comment without reading it anyway. It’s clickbait with the facade of an article.
It’s because journalistic integrity is dead. Whoever wrote this had a word quota, and just started reporting on Facebook comments until they reached it.
“We allege that Live Nation relies on unlawful, anticompetitive conduct to exercise its monopolistic control over the live events industry in the United States at the cost of fans, artists, smaller promoters, and venue operators,” said Attorney General Merrick Garland in a statement. “The result is that fans pay more in fees, artists have fewer opportunities to play concerts, smaller promoters get squeezed out, and venues have fewer real choices for ticketing services. It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster.”
Oh look, they finally discovered the thing anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together knew 20 years ago.
Stop fucking approving corporate mergers and acquisitions you utter fucking dumbasses.
This is not the result of a prolonged investigation. It’s the result of shifting precedent from a neoliberal, Chicago School, interpretation to a more “new deal” era interpretation of monopoly laws. For the last 30 years, monopolies could only be broken up if the corporation bought other companies "with the intention of of forming a “monopoly.” We literally had to get rid of all the followers of the Chicago School from the government and replace them with people that aren’t as friendly to corporations.
Basically, think of companies forming monopolies as drunk driving. If a court of law were to determine drunk driving manslaughter cases like they’ve been determining monopoly cases, you’d have to prove that the drunk driver left his house with the intention of killing someone inna drunk driving accident. So they’d always be able to say, “well I didn’t leave the house thinking I’d kill someone!” And get away of it. That’s how companies and the judicial system have been treating monopoly laws.
Jesus fucking christ, how the fuck does he not go to jail for that? Civil lawsuit isn’t nearly enough for that. Hell, aside from the clear assault that’s getting close to illegal confinement when he dragged her back to his hotel room.
EDIT: I just read the back-story to this. A) The crime is now past the statute of limitations, so the state can’t prosecute for it. B) The reason why the tape didn’t coming out before now is Sean Combs bought the tape from the hotel to prevent it from getting out. That just feels like obstruction of justice or something. It probably isn’t, though.
It was built on racism. People who voted and acted for segregation still hold positions of power, there was no need to take anything over because they’ve always been there.
Honestly, I wonder how much more damaging Booth’s assassination of Lincoln was than we had realized. Would Lincoln have treated the South more appropriately than Johnson did?
Likelier if traitors had been disqualified from holding offices of power. There was a movement behind him for the presidency. He had a chance. Instead, we got a line of some of the worst, yet most forgettable presidents, for decades.
Lincoln wanted to send the freed slaves back to Africa. He wasn’t as good of a guy as history class made him out to be.
You cannot simply apply modern ethics to the views and actions of people in the past like that. Nuance is required. Our thinking as a society changes over time, and our views as individuals are inherently constrained by what we experience and learn, and by the views of those around us.
For his time, Lincoln was progressive. He was an abolitionist who brought about the end of US chattel slavery.
Lincoln was a centrist. John Brown was a progressive. The radical wing of the Republican party wanted to give the freed slaves their own land so they could earn a living and let them vote, and there were enough of them in Congress that it nearly happened. Even in the context of the times Lincoln was kind of backwards. He was more concerned with placating the southern states than giving black people rights.
John Brown was an extremist. This isn’t to demonize him, he was obviously in the right to fight against slavery, but unfortunately systemic progress happens within the system. Extremists can help create the environment for that systemic change to happen, but they can also stymie it depending on their methods and the prevailing ideas of the time. John Brown’s contribution was important, but he was never going to be a reasonable candidate for national office.
Calling Lincoln a centrist because there existed a more radical wing of his party is nonsensical. That’s like saying 1 is not a positive number because 2 is further from 0. Not a single southern state supported him, to the point that his election triggered a war over slavery. He was very firmly an abolitionist, which was certainly a more popular position than it had been previously in American politics, but was far from centrist.
Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist. He said so himself. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”.
His priority was preventing (and, later, winning) the war to maintain the union. He didn’t seem to care about slaves at all.
He was right smack dab in the middle of the slavers and the abolitionists. He just wanted everyone to get along. He was a centrist.
Although local chapters can be ass, fraternities take this sort of thing very seriously. There’s a bad reputation of them because of former partying and hazing that they are trying desperately to overcome.
If for no other reason than liability. They need to compartmentalize the blowback when a chapter fucks up, and being able to cite rules that they’ve enforced in the past is very helpful. While there is a certain level of cynicism involved, it does have a mild moderating effect when the chapters know there are limits to how far national will back them up.
Not sure how it is now but the chapters in the South of the one I was in 20 years ago were still pretty damn racist. They were surprised we let in black people. While they did not officially exclude them, they probably did not make it too welcoming.
They were chanting “hit the showers” (to prove how pro-Israel they are?? I guess???). So exterminating jews is fine, but getting in trouble for racist slurs is not.
I have a pretty close to untrainable dog (she basically flunked out of obedience training) because she’s incredibly stubborn and I still love her with all of my heart.
My dog once brought in half a rabbit through the dog door in the middle of the night and there was blood everywhere. We never found the other half of the rabbit.
Strangely enough, I didn’t lead her into a gravel pit and shoot her, I just told her she was a bad dog.
the root cause of shortages of low-cost, off-patent generic drugs is well established. These drugs have razor-thin to non-existent profit margins, driven by middle managers who have, in recent years, pushed down wholesale prices to rock-bottom levels. In some cases, generic manufacturers lose money on the drugs, disincentivizing other players in the pharmaceutical industry from stepping in to bolster fragile supply chains. Several generic manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy recently.
Reading between the lines here, someone is fucking with the market on purpose. Drop the prices so low the competition goes out of business trying to keep up, then jack up the prices to make it all back multiple times over. Businesses don’t drop the price of products for no reason.
Well no, but if you’re engaged in some drug-fueled (heh) 4d chess with the competition vying for the lowest price, a global disruption to the supply chain is going to play merry hell with whatever passes for well-laid plans in corporate management these days.
the place I work has tried RTO policies several times now - with very limited success. well over 90% of all white collar jobs can be done from wherever you can get internet so your VPN software will function. the customer facing part of the business has to be there 100% of the time, they dont have a choice, that’s how the business model is designed. I go in a few days a week but honestly dont ever actually need to be there. maybe 2 days a month, tops, is my presence absolutely required.
the really interesting bit, which the article didnt touch on (not much of an article to begin with) is that there is a commercial real-estate bubble. the big buildings in the downtown business district/cores of most cities, that real-estate isnt worth much if there’s no one renting the space. businesses that used to rent the space no longer need to because all of their employees work from home now. the people who invested in those big buildings are not seeing a return on their investments - and they are unhappy. that is, imho, a big driver behind the RTO movement.
Those residential units will be worthless too if all the offices close. Why live in the big city and pay huge rents if you work remote? Just move to a cheap area and buy a nice house.
Sadly a lot of rural areas have little to no Internet connectivity in the US because ISPs have been taking money meant for rural Internet and pocketing the money. Additionally, the internet in smaller towns can be spotty. It’s part of the reason why starlink was so hyped up when it was first announced. It’s also part of the reason why people who are allowed to work from home sometimes find it difficult to find cheaper places to live (another one being rural bigotry, though if you’re cis, straight, white and capable of pretending to be Christian, that shouldn’t be much of an issue). The cheaper the area, the worse the internet usually is.
Those huge rents exist because demand exceeds supply (amongst other reasons). People want to live in walkable neighborhoods and not suburbs where you have to drive everywhere to survive.
Bingo, it’s not that there’s a lack of people that want to live downtown, it’s that there’s not enough space to accommodate everyone so it’s not financially realistic to most people who want to.
The suburbs thing usually becomes something people want while they have kids at home.
it’s that there’s not enough space to accommodate everyone so it’s not financially realistic to most people who want to.
There’s plenty of space, it’s used incredibly poorly due to free parking, zoning regulations, and running highways through cities. The financial component is simply there aren’t enough of these spaces and they aren’t dense enough (and they could stand to include a lot more public and social housing, but people oppose it because they don’t want “those” people in their neighborhoods).
That’s not to say that reforming suburbs to make them more livable wouldn’t be a part of the solution too.
Yeah so exactly what I’m saying, there’s not enough space (in which people can live was implied) available to meet the demand at the moment. There could be, there isn’t.
You can have walkable neighbourhoods without living downtown in a big city. Small villages are the original way to have walkable lifestyles. It’s how everyone lived centuries ago. There’s still plenty of those around, they just get overlooked.
Suburbs exist mainly for the purpose of commuting into the city for work. If people stopped doing that then they could leave the suburbs.
Many people want to live downtown to be close to the action and with people living there 24/7 it would bring actual life to the area and would allow businesses to thrive instead of having restaurants and stores that close mid afternoon.
They’re bringing a few people back for 8h/day two days a week when they could bring a lot of people back for 24h/day seven days a week. What’s more logical from a business perspective?
Unfortunately only like 10% of them are viable for conversion. Office buildings and residential buildings have very different needs and it’s expensive as fuck to add all the extra shit needed for residences.
I would love to see an actual study proving it’s possible for only 10% of them because I’ve lived in a building built like an office one and I’ve done renovations in it and there’s very little that’s different from a residential building with concrete floors once everything’s been stripped down.
It’s even more expensive as fuck to build a residential building of the size of those office buildings as well and once converted is guaranteed income forever, no pandemic stops people from living in it and there’s always people willing to rent, contrary to businesses that can change their policies or simply go bankrupt.
But only around 10%-15% of office buildings nationwide can realistically be transformed to housing, according to economist Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh, a professor of real estate at New York’s Columbia Business School.
That’s what I’m saying, your source is from someone in a field unrelated to the one responsible to make the modifications, that’s like if you just gave me a quote by a geographer as a source for something related to computer science. The responsibility of finding a credible source for your number is still on you.
Buildings cost money. The whole point is that it isn’t economically viable to convert most buildings. My source is perfectly validly for the number I quoted. And if you need further convincing, watch the 60 minutes interview with the same guy. Not going to argue further with someone who clearly is arguing in bad faith.
There, I bothered finding the actual source, not just a number reported in an article
When you look at it you realize that it’s for NYC only, that they consider that current high occupancy means that a building can’t be converted, that they base it on current laws in place (which would change if the government wanted it to happen), they they automatically eliminate tons of buildings based on them being too recent or too small…
Also, they’re studying the financial feasibility and assume a whole lot of things (their own words), they’re not studying the physical feasibility which is what I was talking about. We’re talking about housing people, ROI isn’t the important part to homeless people or those who would love to live closer to their workplace but can’t afford it.
So in NYC there’s 10 to 15% of buildings that are FINANCIALLY viable conversions for a return on investment they consider acceptable. You can now stop saying only 10% of buildings can be converted as that’s not what they were trying to determine.
Not bad for someone arguing in bad faith huh? Or is arguing using unrelated studies is a way of arguing in bad faith on your part? 🤔
No building will be renovated if it isn’t financially viable. I never said you can’t convert any building with infinite money. The 10-15% number is the actual relevant one for getting the conversions done in reality, not the fantasy world you seem to be living in.
They will be if it’s a governmental project, they won’t be if it’s handled by the private sector (as in, none of them will be, zero, niet, nada) and a large scale project like that shouldn’t be handled by the private sector as the goal is to create affordable living spaces.
Those two are not as related as they at first seem.
For one, the plumbing required is different, as in literally offices don’t tend to have bathrooms with toilets and showers inside every office space. Also the lighting would be cut off for all the inside units. Communal bathrooms and no windows works for work but not as good for home.
For another, a lot of the varying housing crises (there are multiple types) relate to affordability bc of being bought up by corporate interests. Another type relates to weird zoning laws of what types of homes are allowed to be built in certain areas - and for these at least, there’s nothing stopping good homes from being made except again profits.
So it’s not impossible, but there are challenges. Mainly, how can already rich people find a way to make even moar monay? Oh yeah and something something the poors get whatever too.
It’s not as hard as it seems because of the way commercial buildings are built, the real ceiling is much higher than it looks and the visible ceiling can easily be removed then it’s just a matter of piercing some concrete, in the end your drains are mostly in your downstairs neighbor’s ceiling instead of being inside the limits of your unit. It’s super easy to run electricity and ventilation, framing is metal instead of wood (no moisture issue with concrete, no risk of splitting when using a ramset on the parts fixed to the floor), sheetrock for the ceiling is screwed to metal joists that hang from the metal frames the current ceiling tracks are hanging from…
I used to live in a building like that and the only time it was “problematic” when renovating the whole thing was when I had to change the bath drain as during the original construction they had repoured concrete around it to seal the floor after installing the bath.
Yeah these buildings are made to have things routed under and over the floors. I keep hearing people saying plumbing is a giant problem, and it rings hollow to me, extra bathrooms are installed in homes all the time, literally just run the pipes, but seems no one wants to.
the people who invested in those big buildings are not seeing a return on their investments - and they are unhappy. that is, imho, a big driver behind the RTO movement.
And those people are largely of the same class as the corporate executives and shareholders pushing RTO policies which ties a nice little bow on top of the whole situation. Rich people are losing money when employees work from home and so WFH has to go.
well over 90% of all white collar jobs can be done from wherever you can get internet
This means over 90% of all white collar jobs can be outsourced/globalized. Just a matter of time unless there really is a meaningful reason to stay in the US and pay US wages.
yeah, my last job was offshored to India. from what my ex-coworkers told me, problems I could fix in a few minutes would take the new group weeks to do - and that was 6+ months after I got let go. maybe they got better but I seriously doubt it. just because a job is capable of being outsourced it doesnt necessarily mean that it’ll happen.
I had the same thing happen. Job got outsourced, quality tanked but they continued to outsource more departments. Like six months later they were trying to rehire everyone. Fuck that noise.
My company outsourced some functions a few years ago and had hired Americans back within 2 years. Outsourcing is real but it’s also a terrible idea for anything with a high degree of accountability and knowledge. Currently there is an office/opco in Mexico (but the previous outsourcing was India) and if they need to hire but don’t have the budget for an American they’ll transfer someone to our team. But I know the Mexican office is held to decently high standards and everyone they’ve transferred to is speaka English well, and are on at approximately the same time as us since we’re all on the same continent. I like the Mexicans I work with but would like to see more Americans hired, but this is so much better than the alternative lol
I thought online gun sales already required a background check, isn’t that why they have to be shipped to an FFL? So that they can run a background check before ownership is transferred to you.
I’ve only ever purchased a single gun at a gun show, but they had a big ass table full of guns (and other junk) and I was not subject to a background check. This is definitely going to force more background checks, which is a good thing.
I can’t speak to everywhere or anyone else’s experience, but I’ve got about the same experience as you. The gun shows here tend to have a lot of “private collectors” selling guns. Some are legit private collectors, some should be gun shops but only sell at shows so no one makes them do shit.
That’s a pretty significant “if”. This was a gun show in Phoenix 5+ years ago. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say it’s unlikely they were openly violating the law at such a large event.
It’s always funny when a common sense comment gets massive down votes just because at the very end I put something about how Dems aren’t doing as much as they need to.
Everyone knows that certain gun shows are massive laundering operations for stolen weapons. The FBI has straight up stated that a large number of guns which are used in crimes in the Northeast can be traced back to gun shows in Virginia specifically. If you “look the part” it is trivial to get basically any common enough gun at a gun show just by doing a deal in a parking lot, since it’s completely legal for an FFL to gift any gun to an associate, and completely legal for that associate to sell it to you in the parking lot. Cops literally watch this happen because it is legal.
This is correct. In addition all sales at gun show from a licensed FFL to a customer currently also require a background check. Currently the main two kinds of transfers that don’t require federal background checks nationwide are private party sales and gifts. Eg. Selling your neighbor a shotgun or gifting your dad a hunting rifle. I believe these were both carved out exceptions as a result of the limitations on the Feds due to the commerce clause. Several states have tighter restrictions.
The private sales were excluded because they didn’t want to give access to NICS to just anyone. States with more restrictions require you to pay a dealer or go to the sheriffs office to get approval.
I would expect too that the inability to effectively enforce those expectations was a motivating factor. The last time I bought a gun off some one I don’t know we went to a FFL to comply with state background law. Really only because neither of us knew for sure if the other was a cop. If you know the other person. It can be very hard to prove a transfer ever happen.
That’s an example of a state raising the floor for a personal sale. A good reason (depending on the state) for a current CCW/CHL permit too, as that paired with ID can in some states be sufficient verification without needing to go to an FFL for NICS.
I believe the framing is something like buying locally on armslist.com, where the buyer and seller agree to meet up face-to-face to make the sale. No mailing it.
Reading the article and a few others, this new regulation seems like election year posturing that doesn’t actually change much for the average person. The regulation is expanding who must register as an FFL from “making their livelihood from gun sales” to selling guns “predominantly to derive a profit”. Whatever that means. But it seems like it is specifically meant to exclude the occasional sale by a private person, which means that a private person happening to sell a gun at/near a gunshow or through armslist seems like they are still in the clear.
Where that line is will surely be hashed out in court, but it seems like the simple sale of a single gun from one person to another is unaffected.
I commented elsewhere about this. I’ve always had a background check run whenever I’ve purchased a firearm. If there’s a way to bypass that I don’t know how.
Neolibs would rather see a descent into fascism than a true progressive agenda because billionaires will still thrive under the former. Sure, there’s the whole die roll about who gets caught up in the purges, but a real progressive administration could lead to less free money for them. The DNC would rather hand the reigns to the GOP while it sorts out the problem of people wanting a candidate like Bernie.
and maybe forget where the key was? “oops, sorry. we forgot the key. Well slip you bits of food while we try and find it… but… guess you’re going on a diet, huh?”
What hellhole do you live in where it’s legal to punish someone for something they did that was legal at the time but later a law was passed banning it?
A 50-year-old earning money on OnlyFans? Big respect.
Hopefully, despite her losing her teaching job, this publicity boost will really help her make up for the lost income.
But my fucking god… she had been teaching for thirty years! Do these assholes forcing her to resign think that kids won’t lust after hot teachers if they aren’t on OnlyFans? Because they won’t. The only difference OnlyFans make is that those kids can illegally see her naked. And if they watch any adult content, it’s not legal.
And most kids will still want to pass her class, so they’re going to do the assignments and try to pay attention even if they’re jerking off to her after they finish their homework.
I think that is complimentary to what I’m saying. Absolutely pay teachers more, but if she was paid really well as a teacher and still decided to do OnlyFans, that should be none of the school corporation’s business.
IMO nobody’s social media of any kind should have any affect on ones employment. Employers everywhere should be banned from looking at people’s social media to make employment decisions.
I can sympathize with that idea, but on the other hand, if someone is posting super racist things on Facebook and Facebook shows that they’re a low-level executive at Amazon, that reflects on Amazon and I think it would be reasonable to get rid of an employee on those grounds. But in that case, Amazon customers have Facebook accounts. Even in schools, I don’t know that I would be against firing a history teacher who posted Holocaust denials on Twitter because students can see it and it reflects on how that teacher might instruct students. In this case, none of her students should be on OnlyFans and if they are, it’s illegal. She is an English teacher, so nothing she does on OnlyFans should have an effect on her teaching either. So it’s a different situation in my opinion.
I think there’s room to have some exceptions for extremist content, I mean if people are approaching Companies to tell them about one of their employees, obviously that isn’t good
But the current situation is rather annoying, you’ve got companies retracting offers or straight up firing just hired people because of a picture they posted of a party they went to 10 years ago or some shit. Or even in extreme cases, companies demanding people’s SM credentials as a condition of hiring. That’s what’s got to change
I agree. There needs to be some sort of way of removing truly dangerous or at least damaging people while still preserving the jobs of women like this one.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.