pixxelkick @ pixxelkick @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

543

Joined

2 yr. ago

The big key is gonna be if we get that sweet 172 seats with Lib+Green+NDP, we are only 1 seat short

If we hit that mark it means, hilariously, the one single green seat is needed to form a majority government without bloc's help needed

Which will force liberal party to play ball with NDP and Green Party's more progressive policies.

That's our ideal scenario, conservatives are told to go kick rocks, and green/ndp get an actual voice on decision making to push the country in a progressive direction.

One. More. Seat!

police are describing as a car-ramming attack

Call it what it is please.

Terrorism.

This feels like the kind of thing that'll get shown to a jury at a trial 10 years from now, and yet family members will be like "no one saw it coming"

Wow, that sure is something else.

Because taking a pill doesn't take 2 hours...?

Next question :)

This genuinely made me do an IRL spit take, holy shit.

Same, but they did set up a self hosted instance for us to use and, tbh, it works pretty good.

I think it's s good tool specifically for helping when you dunno what's going on, to help with brainstorming or exploring different solutions. Getting recommended names of tools, finding out "how do other people solve this", generating documentation, etc

But for very straightforward tasks where you already know what you are doing, it's not helpful, you already know what code you are going to write anyways.

Right tool for the right job.

I hold that liberal goes beyond that, starting to spend extra money and tax extra when the returns are no longer as good and instead it's less about literally saving money and more about quality of life

Fiscal conservative is "once the returns aren't as good, stop there"

Whereas liberal goes "nah even if the returns start to suck, it's better to further tax to even further help people purely for ethical reasons"

Liberal mindset is ethics > money

Fiscal conservative is money > ethics

Current "conservative" policy though is power > inflicting suffering > money > ethics

Which I respect and I'd love to get us towards, but tbh we gotta convince people to get past step 1 first of realizing spending money to actively hurt people, surprisingly, isn't a good fiscal policy (which somehow genuinely confuses so many people, it's crazy)

We are still at the stage where too many people think that spending money inflicting active harm is genuinely a good idea and a good use of taxpayer dollars

They think paying cops to go around kicking indigenous teens in the head is truly a solid Fiscal policy. Truly.

They think paying money to fund bombs being dropped on children is good Fiscal policy.

They think paying money to poison our water, destroy our ecosystems, and pollute the oceans is good Fiscal Policy

Getting past that part is step one

Literally just convincing these people to stop stabbing themselves is step 1.

Maybe later we can talk about convincing them to help others after we get them to stop hurting others...

Cool your jets kid, it was just a formatting issue >_>

Lemmy just annoyingly includes the next line in a quote as if its part of the quote

IE if I do this And then this is the next line

Note how “And then this is the next line” gets included in the quote, even though it looks like this on my screen

I have to do this

Instead

https://i.imgur.com/nGJgFSG.png

fiscal responsibility

Thats the important part

Who would you say is more fiscally conservative, a person who wisely invests their money in the future, or a person who wastes it all on bricks to throw at their neighbours windows.

The latter is what current "Conservative" parties are.

Fiscal Conservativism is about wisely investing your money and avoiding wasting it on stupid shit.

Conservative parties rely on "lalala I cant hear you" tactics. Theyre the sort of person who gets a small weird lump and ignores it and then 15 years later die to cancer they could've gotten treated a decade ago.

Thats not fiscally conservative, thats just being fucking stupid. Sometimes you do need to spend money on basic human needs because it net benefits everyone, even on pure paper number balancing.

Im conservative in the "hey we can save a lot of money if we do x/y/z" sort of way, like a person who clips out a bunch of coupons and ends up getting 90% off on their groceries.

Thats also being conservative, you are conserving your resources wisely by allocating them in ways that pay back well.

And turns out... those ways coincidentally are pro human rights.

No? I replied to you.

These are all arguments to convince someone without empathy to accidentally do the right thing.

Well thats the thing, fiscal conservatism is effectively the trolley problem zoomed out to the size of an entire country.

At its core, we dont have infinite money and it is a zero sum game.

Fiscal Conservativism should be the process of balancing out to figure out "we only have finite money, how do we maximize our yield spending it to save as many people as possible"

So, yes, you have to discard emotion and indeed accept that you just cant save everyone. There's starving kids in africa and etc etc, you don't have infinite money and cant save em all.

So you gotta assess which investments give you the best bang for your buck, and theres tonnes of really really good ones that for very little money produce extremely good yields on people saved per dollar.

If you’re truly conservative then you’d also support a deregulated free market that allows extreme wealth disparity.

Only a short sighted conservative believes that. Once you zoom out you have to accept the market simply cannot be unregulated, it always naturally becomes regulated.

The question is, who gets to regulate it. Do you want to place protections now to prevent bad actors from gaining control, or plug your ears and pretend it'll never happen.

Captured markets are largely inevitable, all you can do is put protections in place to slow it down for as many decades as possible.

In my experience, people with empathy who identify as ‘Fiscally Conservative’ just want the government to be efficient.

Actual left, true left, is when you start spending money at the cost of efficiency to further improve quality of life past the point of getting good returns on it, when the point is no longer saving money, but improving life just for the sake of improving life.

Fiscal Conservative should be "spend money only when it saves money"

It's just that a lot of so called "conservative" people cannot wrap their head around the super crazy concept of an investment where, as wild as it sounds, spending money to improve quality of life genuinely yields paybacks down the line at a really good rate

The problem is a huge amount of current folks have been heavily indoctrinated into the us vs them mentality that being Conservative and Liberal are mutually exclusive.

The reality is... its not, you can simultaneously want the government to invest money wisely while also being pro human choice, and the cool part is the science and numbers even indicate these two are the same thing.

The whole "us vs them" mentality is the entire reason so many conservative folks think you have to be anti-liberal, because they inherently as well think its mutually exclusive, so they fundamentally cannot understand how spending money saves money

Breaking down that assumption is step 1 to fixing things, you have to abandon the concept to fully realize that truly being actually fiscally conservative is synonymous with being pro human rights, pro abortion, pro lgbtq, pro immigration, pro science, pro education, pro healthcare.

you would vote Liberal

I do, because despite its name our liberal party is conservative lol

The NDP are Liberal, the Liberals are Conservative, and the Conservatives are fucking batshit insane fascists.

I classify myself as Fiscally Conservative.

However, I follow that up very quickly with the fact that investing in health, education, science, and affordable housing is net profit and any true fiscal conservative would want to direct as much of our money as needed into these programs, because penny for penny the returns on such investments are huge

A homeless person ending up in a hospital bed or dying costs us substantially more money than housing them, and once they get treated, fed, upskilled, and a roof over their head they very often proceed to turn into another taxpaying citizen which in turn converts red numbers into green numbers.

Anyone who just looks at the numbers can clearly see its basically just free money for taxpayers, you'd have to either be a complete idiot to not invest in it... or purposefully hateful and want people to suffer

I assume most "conservative" people are the latter, they genuinely cant wrap their head around the fact that making marginalized groups suffer costs taxpayers a lot of money

Police cost money, city cleanup costs money, hospitals and doctors cost money, handling corpses costs money, and of course you lose all the opportunity cost of -1 fellow taxpayer.

"Conservatives" tend to just not grok the fact that a large chunk of homeless people could easily be more taxpayers, but they just would rather demonize them and spend more money hurting them, thinking somehow that will magically make the issue go away, and ignore the fact it makes it worse, its so dumb.

Same goes for things like allowing abortion, at its core abortion rights inherently save such enormous magnitudes of money long term, and net profit. Forcing mothers to conceive doesnt fuckin help anyone and instead just costs us huge amounts of money, all just to inflict suffering on others. It's hateful and petty and extremely wasteful.

Same goes for trans rights, the most cost effective and safest way to treat trans folks is just provide them with medical intervention to align their body with their gender. It's by far the most cost effective solution, but for some fuckin reason "conservatives" would rather people suffer than save money

"Conservatives" straight up would rather spend billions of dollars hurting people than actually save money. Very stupid, and I hate how when I talk about actually being truly fiscally conservative, I get associated with such idiots.

I'm sorry they put tarrifs on uninhabited islands lol

Yep. It's unethical but nonetheless makes the coin actually have tangible holdings, because it's actually impacting the real world.

That's probably a better way to put it yeah.

And as fucked as it is, it is a fact that this does hold value and is backed by it.

It's just a pretty shit thing to be backed by ethically.

But nonetheless, there is value in bitcoin, it's just best we don't encourage further investment in such a thing.

Bitcoin is backed by the price of coal.

For all intents and purposes, bitcoin is effectively minted coal.

So who is doing the deporting? Why aren't we constantly naming names of who is doing the deporting here?

Which agency? What group? Who?

If we keep the offenders who are violating orders anonymous, then they can easier get away with shit.

If you just wrote "U.S. immigration authorities" you are a bad journalist. Get very fucking specific please.

Which authorities, of what agency, in what city