hydrospanner @ hydrospanner @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

886

Joined

2 yr. ago

I didn't know there was a Pirates of the Caribbean beyond 3.

Man, the more society progresses in open and honest conversations about sexuality, the more I'm sure that "spectrum" doesn't even begin to do justice to the vast, bizarre complexity of human sexuality.

It's more like...that crazy 3 tier chess they play in Star Trek.

Using the beforemath to avoid the aftermath!

I'll use it to fix the hyperdrive and gtfo.

I don't think it's either of those so much as intolerance to openly price gouging.

Higher prices reduce demand (or at least overall sales). That's basic economics and we have seen a lot of that over the past 3 years.

We've seen scarcity lead to increased prices (see eggs). This also led to reduced sales but not outrage, because most consumers understand how a chicken disease can lead to the loss of huge portions of egg laying chickens and how an event like that can lead to temporary price increases.

Even with Uber surge pricing, while it does indeed piss people off and reduce demand, even those who hate it can at least understand the principle that some of that increase is passed on to the drivers as an incentive to get more drivers to serve areas and times with high demand. You're still seeing the economic function of a price increase, but at least some of it is going toward a measure to mitigate the issue.

But in this case there's no factor that makes a burger at noon cost Wendy's any more than a burger at 3pm. I think that's where the outrage comes from. It's Wendy's basically saying, "We're increasing prices at this time because we like money."

Are they paying employees more at surge times? Is their food more expensive to buy and prepare at those times? Are they increasing staffing for a few hours to ensure that wait times don't increase?

Nah. It's still the same old thing on their end, they've just decided they want more money.

It's intolerance to blatant greed.

My point was that I feel it should be decided at the federal level, not the state level. The ruling of a Colorado court as to what happened in an area completely outside their jurisdiction shouldn't really matter.

The SCOTUS ruling will be that decision, and while I'm not optimistic that they'll rule to disqualify Trump through 14-3, at least there will be an answer.

Unless you're watching the Director's Cut.

Well said.

I have no problem with the State having its secrets. It's a necessity, and one of the many reasons that public trust in their government is so important (which itself is another can of worms).

I just feel that it's equally if not more important that individual citizens are also entitled to their secrets, and in fact the presumption of privacy absent consent or significant circumstances.

Okay, fair point, but now you're changing what they said.

The burger you'll be paying for with Wendy's surge pricing.

A convicted murderer, sure we can.

Someone accused of murder? Even if it's by millions of people? Without a conviction, don't touch them.

there’s a difference between “against their view” and “instigated and participated in an insurrection.”

I agree.

But without any official legal declaration of the latter, it's no more substantial than the former...and I'll give you one guess as to which side of the American political system is more willing to abuse that.

I'm not saying Trump should be guaranteed to appear on ballots no matter what...I'm just saying that before he's removed there needs to be something official. A legal finding that he did indeed participate in insurrection.

Once that's officially and legally established, then and only then, 14-3 should be invoked.

And for what it's worth, IMHO, at that point it should be invoked nationwide. As soon as that ruling comes down, Trump is, as a function of that ruling, prevented from appearing on any ballot for any national office, in all states, effective immediately. Any write-in votes for the ineligible candidate are also discarded.

Ugh...okay...

First I'll say I can't stand trump and I absolutely believe he participated in insurrection and as such should be barred from holding federal office.

*With that being said...*the fact remains that he's not yet been legally convicted/proven of having done so.

I believe it, you believe it, lots of people believe it, and it may well be fact...but there's been no legal decision that says he participated in an insurrection.

Without that legal ruling...and I can't believe I'm saying this...I don't think that states should be able to strike him from national elections based on a federal level law.

It's less a matter of how I feel about the actual subject and much more because of the legal precedent and implications. Basically, without a legal conviction here, these states are saying, "We (a nebulous definition here that could be as collective as the personally held opinions of a single judge) feel that this person did something so against the best interests of the country that it amounts to insurrection, therefore we're removing that person from our ballots."

And while I agree with them in this specific case, it's not difficult to imagine that, with a precedent like this, you get purple states with a GOP judge, state supreme court, governor, etc. that decide that the Dem candidate in a future election has acted so against their view of the best interests of the nation that they decide it amounts to insurrection and therefore that candidate will be removed from their ballot.

At that point, every single election will be about attempts to remove candidates from ballots in the courts, cheapening and perverting the intentions of 14-3.

To prevent that, IMHO, it needs to be up to the federal level of courts to make such a decision, to say for certain whether a person has violated 14-3, at which point that ruling decides their appearance on a ballot automatically.

Yes, it's unfortunate because in this case a ruling like that from a federal court is unlikely (and if it comes down, it's unlikely to withstand SCOTUS and/or get a horribly muddying ruling like "yes he did insurrection but no, we aren't going to enforce 14-3") but taking the long view of rule of law and judicial precedent, I just feel that states deciding this matter without trial or conviction is opening Pandora's box.

Last time I read anything about that race, I believe the Dem was leading polling in a potential 3 way race there.

I would have to imagine that if Synema did not run, that would overall help the Dem candidate.

Fingers crossed.

WV was a safe blue state until 2000. But it was a blue state because of the unions. And Gore was the one who really started pushing hard against the largest union industries in the state, which is why the state flipped so hard and so suddenly.

This is a huge thing that a lot of people, especially young people (millennials included here), tend to miss.

I may not have narrowed it down to Gore specifically, but at some point between, say...1985 and 2000...the Democratic party really seemed to just take unions and blue collar workers for granted...people who'd been a historic pillar of the party.

I'm not sure why this happened, but I suspect deep pockets of donors in big business had a part in it. Regardless, that decision may have had its desired effect in the short term, but in the long term, it basically put the Rust Belt in play. PA, OH, IN, MI, WI, and MN could/should be solid bets to break blue in every national race, but now you have these states full of registered Democrats who have voted Republican in at least half of the last six elections.

I always thought that WV was more about coal, but the union angle makes a ton of sense as well, and through that lens, it makes perfect sense to include them as maybe "Rust Belt adjacent".

Too many weirdos peeing in your favorite car, harassing other passengers, stinking, and listening to their music full blast on their portable speakers for it to be my favorite car.

Typically (in the US at least) the term "socially conservative" is used to specify conservatism on social (usually domestic) issues, as opposed to other areas like foreign policy, economy, or some other broad subject of government.

Within that framework, you'll usually see "social conservatives" holding views that are often considered "family values" positions (for better or for worse), and usually are primarily concerned with subjects surrounding the day to day lives of the individuals within society.

These positions are often closely tied to personally held beliefs on the ways that society overall should look and act, and as such are frequently informed by religious beliefs (which tend to focus on the same topics). Such issues include: abortion (with social conservatives tending to be pro-life to some degree), LGBTQ rights (typically anti-marriage equality, against recognition of trans gendering, and any and all depictions of non-cishet lives in any books, movies, etc. especially those marketed toward children), public school curricula (if anyone is talking about banking books, it's likely social conservatives), the role of religion in schools and other official places (frequently they're very much in favor of prayer in schools...so long as it's Christian prayer... American social conservatives would very likely blow a fuse if their kid's school were to have prayer times for their Muslim students), content and conduct deemed 'offensive' (profanity in songs, violence in video games, etc.), sex and nudity, censorship, etc.

Simply put, they're the "Won't someone think of the children!" people who want to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

After step 1, they're already in there. Just fill it with water.

Really?

I see so much more non-US content here than I ever did on Reddit.

Depressing content, and comments full of political extremism where even if you agree in principle, if you don't take it to quite the extent the rest of them take it, they wanna crucify you.

Like...as much as my political opinions tend toward progressive, my time here has really gotten me to come around on why a lot of people elsewhere on the political spectrum can't stand progressives.

Civ 6 and I'll sell my other slot to the highest bidder.