Randomness thread, part two.

[Poopadoop]

It's hard to see the shutdown as the fault of anyone other than Trump.

Back in Dec., the Rs and Ds agreed to a deal to keep the gov't open, with no money for the Wall. Trump was reportedly on board with that. Then he got a bucket of KFC and sat down in bed to watch Fox News, where he got an earful from FN that goaded him into rejecting the deal. Later, another deal was agreed that would have compromised somewhat on his $5b request, offering $1.7b or something like that. He initially agreed to that too, then guess what show he turned on that changed his mind.

I don't think you can reasonably argue that politicians should cave to the President, who is himself caving to a news organisation. Otherwise you'll just be letting Fox News run the country.

[boost]

All the politicians agreed to a compromise, but the only one who could sink the agreement single handed, backed out at the last minute.

MMM: Politicians refuse to compromise!

What are you doing here?

I respect your opinion that what the government employees were put through was unacceptable-- but I just don't think your opinion as it extends to the spread of blame is well supported.

But maybe this will help close the gap, or at least better explain my side of the disagreement: I think you dramatically undervalue the non-monetary consequences of capitulation. It's not just $5 billion. You're right, in the grand scheme of things, that's a drop in the bucket. However, setting the precedent that the initiator of a shutdown will get their way is unacceptable. Further, depending on what you think of Trump's impact on the country and the world, and what another four years could mean, granting him a political victory of this size could be reasoned to be unacceptable given the cost.

A bit of an aside: When you start making decisions at scale, as these politicians do, it's easy to look like a monster. But that's just because we are never forced to internalize the fact that each time you text while driving you have killed some fraction of a pedestrian. Not only that, but simply driving your car safely is killing fractions of people. When politicians "drive down the road", "texting" or not, they're killing whole people.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What are you doing here?

They're all a bunch of jerks. frowneyface

I respect your opinion that what the government employees were put through was unacceptable-- but I just don't think your opinion as it extends to the spread of blame is well supported.

It's hard to stay upset with things not shutdown.
I'm still really liking the notion that shutting down the gov't should be considered a direct and imminent threat to American security - legally treason.

But maybe this will help close the gap, or at least better explain my side of the disagreement: I think you dramatically undervalue the non-monetary consequences of capitulation. It's not just $5 billion. You're right, in the grand scheme of things, that's a drop in the bucket. However, setting the precedent that the initiator of a shutdown will get their way is unacceptable. Further, depending on what you think of Trump's impact on the country and the world, and what another four years could mean, granting him a political victory of this size could be reasoned to be unacceptable given the cost.

I can't claim to understand any deeper politics. I'm pissed about the pettiness of it all.
Setting the precedent... sounds like Hollywood talk. Sounds like an excuse to not compromise or even seek resolution. I'm not a fan.

I don't put much weight in the pageantry of Washington. I put weight in good people wanting to lead generally productive lives.
IDGAF about some apparent political victory. Compromise is politics.
Give the wall and get something for it. (Though, to be clear, not giving the wall is best, here. Again... hard to stay mad)

I doubt anything about this wall is a victory, long term. Trump thinks wiping his own ass is a victory, and frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't bragged about how clean is ass is after he wipes it. The cleanest. He'll say the same about whatever. A certain % of people will always buy what he's selling.

A bit of an aside: When you start making decisions at scale, as these politicians do [...]

Everyone looks like a monster. I get it. It's always easy to point your finger at the top of the pyramid. That's not what I'm doing.

Maybe I popped a week early. At some point, not having a Coast Guard becomes an issue that costs lives. Same for the FDA.
At some point, we all agree that not having a gubmint isn't at all what we elected those charlatans to do.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Frankly, the fact that the power to shut down the government landed on 1 person making a decision in 1 moment seems completely against the notion of checks and balances that our constitution tried to establish.

[Jack Sawyer]

Step off that high horse, kimosabe.

Families were out of work and out of money over this puffed-up nonsense. Food Stamps and Unemployment claims were going unprocessed because those people were unemployed, too.

So, everytime you want something done you just take these people metaphorically hostage? Think about the precedence this sets

You can't just give this bafoon everything he wants just because he has the power to shut the government down. What do you think will happen next time? I would say he should actually be tried for treason, and this time for real, as he shut the government down (Ironically, TSA and border agents working at much less than 100% capacity) over a true nonsensical reason which again is demonstrated to be ineffective in practice (and yet his base desperately clamors for)

Your president is an actual child. Like, holy shit

[Jack Sawyer]

In a nutshell, you create a totally unnecessary situation, and force people to get your demands done in order to get out of said situation you created in the first fucking place.

WTF

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm pretty sure we're in agreement, Jack.

No, I'm not saying that if you shut down the government, hold patriots as de-facto hostages, then you automatically get what you want. I'm saying that IF the government shuts down, THEN all parties and branches are to blame to some degree. When the actual conflict is between the legislative and executive branch in a 2 party system, then it seems the majority of the blame gets pointed that way. It's not like the Dems are some ineffectual 3rd party that I'm blaming. It's not like I'm blaming Dems in state legislatures. I'm blaming all federal legislators and the executive branch, specifically the President, for this failure in leadership and failure to govern. Both sides failed to compromise. Whether or not the President changed his mind at the last minute isn't as important to me as it seems to be to others. That's within the confines of his position. Whether or not it should be is another question entirely. If the Dems didn't have a better contingency plan than, "Oh shit, we got nothing!" then that's a failure to plan ahead, on top of the failure to lead up to that point.

If the Dems can't convince the wall supporters why it's a bad idea in every aspect, and they've had years to do so, then yes, I absolutely think them stonewalling to the point of shutting down the gov't is a failure on their part. It's not governing to stonewall the opposition. It's governing to lead and pursuade, and to concede the point when you can't sway opinion. It's governing to give a little to get a little. Give the wall, get DACA secured. (just a thought, not too informed on the whole tit-for-tat around this).

I don't like DT, either, but he's my elected leader. A huge swath of Americans support him. I'm of the opinion that if 5% of the people is being bullied by 95% of the people, that's a problem. So I certainly think that 40% of the people being bullied by 60% of the people is also a problem. Especially when those 40% are backed by the President. Especially, especially when the alternative means not doing what you were elected to do, which is govern.

[boost]

They're all a bunch of jerks. frowneyface

Ha, true, I'm just saying you've got to see the nuance in the degrees of jerktitude.

It's hard to stay upset with things not shutdown.
I'm still really liking the notion that shutting down the gov't should be considered a direct and imminent threat to American security - legally treason.

I can get behind-- but treason is a crime, and we luckily live in a country where law and order rule, which means those charged deserve a trial. In this instance, you'd have to imagine that the legislators are acquitted or at the very least given a much more lenient punishment at trial as compared to the president. If treason is treason and it's all punishable by death, then fine, but if there is to be any nuance, you must see that the president is much more culpable here. If the legislators are guilty of anything, it is of their asymmetric role in the shutdown's continuation.

I can't claim to understand any deeper politics. I'm pissed about the pettiness of it all.
Setting the precedent... sounds like Hollywood talk. Sounds like an excuse to not compromise or even seek resolution. I'm not a fan.

This is some MMM style wuf handwaving. The wall is trivial, dumb, and clearly would be impotent in achieving it's stated purpose, yet Trump was fine holding these workers and their families hostage to try to get his way. If he got his way, you seriously don't think he'd pull the same move next time a budget needs to be passed? He didn't get his way and he's feigning like he'd do it again. Precedent is not a complex concept, you're very bright, don't pretend to be otherwise so that you can puff up the efficacy of your hand waving.

I don't put much weight in the pageantry of Washington. I put weight in good people wanting to lead generally productive lives.
IDGAF about some apparent political victory. Compromise is politics.
Give the wall and get something for it. (Though, to be clear, not giving the wall is best, here. Again... hard to stay mad)

I don't resent you for your apathy regarding the gamesmanship that goes into politicking, but I'm not a fan of your own disinterest being mistaken for the actual triviality of political maneuvering.

Think about WWII, the personal stories of soldiers, holocaust victims, and civilians hit by carpet bombing campaigns, may be the lens you find most engaging-- tactical breakdowns of the battles may bore you, war gaming the decision trees faced by the generals may sicken you, but pretending they don't matter is downright absurd.

I doubt anything about this wall is a victory, long term. Trump thinks wiping his own ass is a victory, and frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't bragged about how clean is ass is after he wipes it. The cleanest. He'll say the same about whatever. A certain % of people will always buy what he's selling.

Haha, he is quite good at spinning stuff to his base, and his base is quite good at gobbling it up. That being said, I think you're way off here. This would be a major campaign promise delivered-- well, no, it wouldn't be, it's part of the wall and Mexico wouldn't have paid for it-- but nonetheless this is what he'd run on in 2020. You wouldn't hear the end of it. And you know what? It'd sell.

Everyone looks like a monster. I get it. It's always easy to point your finger at the top of the pyramid. That's not what I'm doing.

Fair enough.

Maybe I popped a week early. At some point, not having a Coast Guard becomes an issue that costs lives. Same for the FDA.
At some point, we all agree that not having a gubmint isn't at all what we elected those charlatans to do.

Yeah, no, I'm totally with you. It was really disheartening, and there was no obvious end in sight. Gladly it's over for now, and let's hope that we aren't back in the same boat a few weeks from now.

[boost]

hey, we get your concern, but you haven't made a convincing argument for how a wall can solve for the problem-- short of that, as the majority, we're unwilling to support it. However, like we said, we get your concern, so how about we do this, that and the other, which will all actually improve border security?

That's bullying! Don't bully them!

[boost]

MMM, I wonder, what do you think of the EU's bargaining with the UK over Brexit?

There seems to be increasingly a very real chance of a no-deal Brexit, which would be far more devastating than a partial government shutdown. The situations actually seem quite congruous as I compare them.

[Jack Sawyer]

I'm pretty sure we're in agreement, Jack.

Yeah, we're mostly in agreement, I'd never in a million years attack you personally Mojo, I'm just pissed the fuck off at Trump for doing what he did for the most banal of reasons, affecting so many people in a simple pissign contest.

And also fuck Pelosi and her smug mug like "I'm winning" while all this is going on. Sure, any person with 2c of a brain would simply stand pat and let trump crush himself, as he has the most banal of reasons for doing so and everything to lose, she does exactly that and she's now the savior of the world.

She was geniunely happy for the situation, as it helped her smokescreen of being good at politics. She's an expired old snake.

Fuck all of them.

I don't like DT, either, but he's my elected leader. A huge swath of Americans support him. I'm of the opinion that if 5% of the people is being bullied by 95% of the people, that's a problem. So I certainly think that 40% of the people being bullied by 60% of the people is also a problem. Especially when those 40% are backed by the President. Especially, especially when the alternative means not doing what you were elected to do, which is govern.

Dude, when the 40% is batshit, you got to call them out.

I'm in the ex-Dutch Antilles. I'm situated about 40 miles from Venezuela. When there's good weather, I can see some of their mountains from here.

Manchild-in-Chief decides Venezuela is the next great place to do an intervention in VIA A FUCKING TWEET. Do you know what that means for us? We have been dealing with a bitch flood already (literally).

When crazy is being crazy, you got to call them out

[MadMojoMonkey]

I love military history, and military games, and battle tactics and strategy. It's a fascinating abstraction. I'm not squeamish about the realities of war.
This is no war. This is a pissing match about an ineffectual wall.
There are people elected to govern deciding that not governing is an OK thing to do. That's not just Dems, it's all of Congress and the Pres. FFS, if the Reps can't get their wall without a shutdown, that's just as bad for them.
Just because you've focused on the Dems doesn't mean my ire is disproportionately pointed at the Dems.

I'm still trying to find a way to include SCOTUS in the blame for all this, too.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Brexit? Did I spell that right?
Another political pissing match results in a popular vote which no one expected to pass, that passed, and despite the mandate, nothing has happened for like 18 months since then? 'Cause the windbag politicians that proposed it were totally full of shit and had no plan, no ideas, the vote was the biggest called bluff in like forever?

That summarizes the entirety of my knowledge about Brexit. Aside from the fact that Ongie is in favor.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fuck all of them.

^ This guy knows what I'm talking about.

Dude, when the 40% is batshit, you got to call them out.

Batshit is relative. They think we're batshit, too.

I'm in the ex-Dutch Antilles. I'm situated about 40 miles from Venezuela. When there's good weather, I can see some of their mountains from here.

Manchild-in-Chief decides Venezuela is the next great place to do an intervention in VIA A FUCKING TWEET. Do you know what that means for us? We have been dealing with a bitch flood already (literally).

When crazy is being crazy, you got to call them out

That's what I'm doing, right?

-.-
What is a (literal) bitch flood?
Some avalanche of specifically female dogs?
Angry women congregating on beaches? How dare you

[boost]

I love military history, and military games, and battle tactics and strategy. It's a fascinating abstraction. I'm not squeamish about the realities of war.
This is no war. This is a pissing match about an ineffectual wall.
There are people elected to govern deciding that not governing is an OK thing to do. That's not just Dems, it's all of Congress and the Pres. FFS, if the Reps can't get their wall without a shutdown, that's just as bad for them.
Just because you've focused on the Dems doesn't mean my ire is disproportionately pointed at the Dems.

The analogy was meant to compare a hypothetical person's reaction to one aspect of something that they don't care for, but is nevertheless important. The you in the paragraph was a hypothetical you who is not interested in these things, to the same extent that actual you is not interested in political gamesmanship.

I'm still trying to find a way to include SCOTUS in the blame for all this, too.

haha

[boost]

Brexit? Did I spell that right?
Another political pissing match results in a popular vote which no one expected to pass, that passed, and despite the mandate, nothing has happened for like 18 months since then? 'Cause the windbag politicians that proposed it were totally full of shit and had no plan, no ideas, the vote was the biggest called bluff in like forever?

That summarizes the entirety of my knowledge about Brexit. Aside from the fact that Ongie is in favor.

So the comparison I was drawing here was not the internal happenings of Brexit-- but the dynamic between the UK's parliament/PM and the EU.

Essentially parliament and Theresa May are Trump, having needlessly walked themselves into this mess with no obvious way to alter their trajectory and save face; the British people, along with a non-insignificant number of Europeans are the government workers, being held hostage by this absurd political stunt gone wrong; and the EU, while not a hero, is a rational actor who refuses to treat the British lack of leverage as leverage in their bargains over who gets what in the divorce.

If there is a no-deal Brexit, livelihoods will be ruined, children will go hungry, people will die. Yet it's absurd to blame the EU. The EU cannot set the precedent that it's OK to shirk your promises to the union and still get the benefits. That would cause far worse problems down the line. The British politicians made this mess, and the blame is on their necks. Or at least that's my read-- I'd be interested to hear if you disagree.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is some MMM style wuf handwaving. The wall is trivial, dumb, and clearly would be impotent in achieving it's stated purpose, yet Trump was fine holding these workers and their families hostage to try to get his way. If he got his way, you seriously don't think he'd pull the same move next time a budget needs to be passed? He didn't get his way and he's feigning like he'd do it again. Precedent is not a complex concept, you're very bright, don't pretend to be otherwise so that you can puff up the efficacy of your hand waving.

I'm not in agreement that it's hand-waving. The Hollywood line, "We don't negotiate with terrorists." is just false. The FBI negotiates with terrorists. Police negotiate with criminals. It makes a good story for the hero to have immutable lock down on the moral high ground, with plot armor that extends to the hostages, but that doesn't exist outside of stories.

I hope it's clear that I'm speaking from a position of near outrage. The fullness of my position is not something I'm really at terms with. I'm trying to figure it out.
It's harder when I'm so pissed off, though.

"Trump was fine holding these workers and their families hostage to try to get his way"
It's not just Trump. It's the entirety of Congress, too.
The Congressional Reps were willing to do this to get what they want.
The Congressional Dems are willing to do the same to get what they want.
Being willing to hold citizens hostage to build the wall is no different than being willing to hold citizens hostage to not build it.
There's no moral high ground, here. Just failure after failure.

I hear you about precedent, but I'm not swayed by the argument. Just because I don't like the precedent, doesn't make it a bad one. DT pulling the same stunt is his prerogative, but it's not his doing that that's an option. He's not breaking any laws to do so. That's the system's fault. The system gives him the option to do so. People are taking advantage of the system, and that's what needs to be fixed. People are people, politicians are politicians. We need to demand a system that closes this loophole.

This is the stem of my, "This should be treason" position. It should be a clearly defined legal threat to American national security to shut down the gov't. It's not even a hard argument to make.

I don't resent you for your apathy regarding the gamesmanship that goes into politicking, but I'm not a fan of your own disinterest being mistaken for the actual triviality of political maneuvering.

I'm really trying to hear this. I'm really trying to not be a half-baked tool. It's tough to see this as reasonable, adult behavior through any lens, though.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So the comparison I was drawing here was not the internal happenings of Brexit-- but the dynamic between the UK's parliament/PM and the EU.

Essentially parliament and Theresa May are Trump, having needlessly walked themselves into this mess with no obvious way to alter their trajectory and save face; the British people, along with a non-insignificant number of Europeans are the government workers, being held hostage by this absurd political stunt gone wrong; and the EU, while not a hero, is a rational actor who refuses to treat the British lack of leverage as leverage in their bargains over who gets what in the divorce.

If there is a no-deal Brexit, livelihoods will be ruined, children will go hungry, people will die. Yet it's absurd to blame the EU. The EU cannot set the precedent that it's OK to shirk your promises to the union and still get the benefits. That would cause far worse problems down the line. The British politicians made this mess, and the blame is on their necks. Or at least that's my read-- I'd be interested to hear if you disagree.

You're trying to secede from a greater power. You're declaring independence. It feels like this reminds me of something... what was it... on the tip of my tongue...
oh yeah. got it.
WWKGD?
(What Would King George Do?)


Kinda shot ourselves in the foot and all with the taxation and central government things. The "no taxation without representation" thing hadn't started yet. It was still wuf wugy hollering "no taxation!" and "Down with teh gubmints!" but everyone was drinking that kool-aid. The revolutionary war happens, and you're all, "this is too expensive and you're a bunch of losers with no king. good luck with that." Then you don't leave. You just keep occupying your forts 'cause there's no American national army - no American anything, yet - just a bunch of squabbling states with ineffectual militias that are more and more turning against each other. Your policy was looking pretty good.

It almost worked, but then Hamilton et al made a real good constitution and told Virginia to stop being such a dick to Maryland, and some others. Oh yeah... and everyone is going to be paying taxes, and the federal gubmint is going to be your daddy.
In the end, the American Revolution was against taxes and big government, and after that failed, they were right back where they started. Paying taxes to a big government. FFS, we kinda stole parts of our representative government from the British government, which already had a representative parliament. The whole "no taxation without representation" thing got tacked on 'bout this time. Had to re-write some history so it didn't look like we threw a temper tantrum that landed us right where we started.


Gah. People are scary. Politicians are idiots with too much power to screw things up. The whole point of the constitution is to thwart that.
And yet, here we are... doing the same stupid shit 200 years later.

[Poopadoop]

I thought their main issue was being taxed unfairly, not being taxed period. They paid an extra import tax or something that the people in Britain didn't have to pay?

Wasn't that what the Boston Tea Party was about? Gtfo taxing us up the ass on this fucking tea?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I thought their main issue was being taxed unfairly, not being taxed period. They paid an extra import tax or something that the people in Britain didn't have to pay?

Wasn't that what the Boston Tea Party was about? Gtfo taxing us up the ass on this fucking tea?

The nuance about what kind of taxes and from where they came was tacked on long after the provisional gov't under the Articles of Confederation had failed. Under the Articles, the states didn't have to do anything for the fed. They voluntarily paid taxes, and the federal political positions were simply there to listen, they had no votes. There was no real confederacy of states. Spoiler: none of them ever really paid any voluntary taxes. None of them gave a shit if there was still fighting in other states. None of them wanted any national government, really, they all wanted absolute sovereignty over their territories. They weren't even sending representatives to the federal meetings.

The Boston Tea Party was a stunt by a small group of revolutionaries to piss off King George enough to do something rash, and it worked. The point was that there were too many colonial governors still loyal to KG for a revolution to work, and the revolutionaries needed to do something to make KG angry enough to piss off those still loyal to the crown. It worked, but not right away.

The loyalists were largely so because of the British policy of democratic rule and tolerance of different (white) people. it probably didn't hurt that the monarchy put them in positions of power in those colonies.

After the Tea Party happened, KG flipped the script, and blamed all 13 colonies and ... I forget, embargoed them? blocked trade in port cities? I forget. But it flew in the face of those hold-out governors' arguments. KG was clearly saying that the colonies were not getting any say in politics and that their shenanigans have made them intolerable. Shortly thereafter, after some other stuff, KG disbanded the colonies - or whatever - disowned? Gave them the finger. That was when the colonial governors finally had enough and decided to fight the British forces in America.

I think the order of events goes Declaration of Independence. KG says, you can't quit, you're fired. Articles of Confederacy and Revolutionary war. George Washington comes out the most popular dude in the colonies and retires to life in the woods. Brits don't leave, just hang out in fortified positions. Provisional gov't is in debt out the ass, has been printing so much money that no one will take it for anything, and the colonies are back on using British money. The colonies are warring over their borders, which were never well-defined, 'cause new lands, uncharted, and governors were sent over there and told to send back money and goods. Basically, it's all going to shit and the Brits are just watching and waiting for the opportunity to sweep it all back into shape.

Then Alexander Hamilton steps up and is like some kind of political genius. Him and a handful of people basically use the star power of Washington to lure in the representative from each colony to hold the first real Continental Congress... but it wasn't, yet... but it would be once Hamilton got to talking.

[Poopadoop]

So what was the impetus for seceeding then? They were all just anarchists? I thought they were getting stiffed by the Crown somehow.

Edit: Oh ok it was being taxed while not being represented that pissed them off.

Prior to 1764, the British government had pretty much left the colonists alone to govern themselves. In 1764, they began to impose new laws and taxes. They implemented a number of laws including the Sugar Act, Currency Act, Quartering Act, and the Stamp Act.

The colonists were not happy with the new taxes. They said they should not have to pay British taxes because they had no representatives in the British Parliament. Their motto became "No Taxation Without Representation."

https://www.ducksters.com/history/am...ionary_war.php

[MadMojoMonkey]

So what was the impetus for seceeding then? They were all just anarchists? I thought they were getting stiffed by the Crown somehow.

A fair portion of the middle class was wuf wugin it up. Anti taxation, anti big gov't. By "big" they meant, any gov't outside their colony. Maybe any gov't they weren't an active member in.

Another fair portion were loyal to their governors, who were loyal to the crown. The colony governors said they were loyal 'cause democracy (representation) and tolerance.

It's hard to find good statistics on who and how many were thinking what. We know the colonial governors were largely loyalists, and they were mostly popular in their colony.

The revolutionaries weren't anarchists. They were playing off anarchistic sentiments to rally support, but they were idealists who wanted to install a new and better government. The Boston Tea Party was done by this small group to piss of the King, in the hopes that the King would do something that would show a lack of democracy and tolerance to sway the loyalists to their side. They were also writing a few letters to British government peeps that were progressively escalating the situation.

Edit: Oh ok it was being taxed while not being represented that pissed them off.

https://www.ducksters.com/history/am...ionary_war.php

Wow. It has ducks, so it must be true.
Seriously, though. That's what I was taught in grade school in the 80's.
It's not a reflection of current historical sources and analyses.

"The colonists were not happy," c'mon. I've offered a more nuanced analysis that doesn't try to lump "the colonists" into one single entity.

[Poopadoop]

Wow. It has ducks, so it must be true.

Yeah I know. If it only had a monkey it'd be more reliable source of historical information.

Seriously, though. That's what I was taught in grade school in the 80's.
It's not a reflection of current historical sources and analyses.

Do you know a good book on the subject?

"The colonists were not happy," c'mon. I've offered a more nuanced analysis that doesn't try to lump "the colonists" into one single entity.

Pretty sure by 'colonists' they weren't implying every single last one of them...but whatever.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's fair criticism that this is not my area of expertise.
My source is a college level American History text book that I no longer own... or even remember the exact title of.



I'll try to find something more readily available.

[MadMojoMonkey]

As a first resource, wikipedia is just like, "Hey, monkey. You're wrong"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_tax...representation

The phrase "No taxation without representation" is a bit older than its use by the colonies, but it was definitely being used prior to 1776 in some form or another.

I'm just confused because it was part of the course I took that the "without representation" part didn't really kick in until after the Articles of Confederacy failed. Maybe it's a matter of degrees, or that the states under the articles just changed their minds and said, "You know what... the whole 'representation' thing is nice, but not paying taxes is way nicer." Which fits the evidence that under the A of C, none of the states paid any voluntary tax (or if they did, it was a pittance and nowhere near enough to support a federal army), and barely any of the states even sent representatives to the fed.

[boost]

MMM, you wrote a lot, and it has helped me better understand where you're coming from, but without going point for point...

I think you may be failing to understand politics on a fundamental level. Saying things along the lines of "well Trump can make that move, it's not illegal." misses the point. It's not illegal, but given a sophisticated opposition, it will lead to him being punished. Pelosi and Schumer do not want a shut down, but they would be short changing the political process if they blinked when they shouldn't.

Before precision guided munitions hit the scene and total war was the name of the game, you had to carpet bomb population centers. Preferably industrial ones, but entire cities nonetheless. With the advent of armaments that can be guided with tremendous accuracy, you have to understand that sometimes your intelligence is going to lead you to precisely guiding a payload into the middle of a wedding party.

The government employees were collateral damage, and that sucks. But that doesn't make the fight unjust.

You're probably right, this is probably a suboptimal feature of the system. But nonetheless this was the appropriate way to maneuver given the way the system is.

Brexit: interesting take on the revolution, but I'm not sure how you're relating this to Brexit. Maybe a few points of distinction: the EU is not threatening force, Britain is attempting to retain many advantages that came with membership (the colonies were just like, "fuck off, ey?"), and it is a hard to argue that the situation with the colonies was in any way advantageous to them (whereas EU membership, while not without its drawbacks, clearly does have some fine perks.)

[oskar]

So apparently it takes longer than a work week to send me a new bank card, which prompts the question: Does anyone here have a recipe for a dinner for two, the ingredients being: about a dozen olives, a jar of bovril and frozen blueberries.
I am also out of salt.

[Poopadoop]

You only have one bank card? No credit cards?

[oskar]

Oh look at Mr fat cat over there with all his fancy credit cards and his "wallet" prancing around in his "shoes."

It's not super common to have credit cards over here. For some reason we never learned that building credit is important. Debit cards have quick pay chips and are accepted everywhere.

[Poopadoop]

Haha, I do have shoes. It's like you looked into my soul.

I have one debit and two credit cards. I pay the cc's off every month so it's basically like borrowing money for free. I only have two cc's in case one doesn't work for whatever reason. And yeah, on the thin chance that two of my cards don't work then at least i have a third and I'm not having to eat olive-blueberry soup or whatever for a week.

[oskar]

You shut your mouth, I have Bovril!

I barely remember to pay my bills... and I've always had the mindset of: if I can't pay cash, I can't afford it. I understand it makes sense to have a good credit score, but that ship has sailed.

[boost]

Yeah, if you can avoid the temptation of floating something you can't afford on a credit card, they're just free money. I'm guessing it would be the same over there, you can just set up your account to auto-pay the balance in total and never really have to worry about it.

Speaking of auto-pay-- how do you forget to pay your bills? Just set everything to auto pay.. is that not a thing over there?

[oskar]

All my bills are auto-pay, except for water... I'm confused about it since it's the same provider I pay for heat and electricity, but somehow they knocked me off auto-pay for water. So now I get 4 bills a year which I regularly forget to pay. I'd have to request a new auto-pay form but they don't charge for the first reminder, so it's basically like borrowing money for free.

[Poopadoop]

it's basically like borrowing water for free.

fyp.

So really, people where you live don't use credit much? What kind of shithole responsible finance culture are you living in?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Pull a couple bills and fold them up into your wallet - er, sock - er, you'll think of something.
That way when you get mugged, you always have enough to make it worth their while. Gotta think of the struggling people on the bottom, ya know?
On the off chance that you don't get mugged, you have a safety net so you can take your date out to a meal at Steak-n-Shake, or whatever passes for fine dining in your area.
Gotta show that bling if you want get that thing, amirit?


Seriously, though... when you find the right person, they'll love your blueberry, olive, broville soup just the way it is.

[boost]

This is maybe probably against some rules, but the forum is kinda dead, so, like, just lemme know, or delete this, or whatever--

Anyone have a torrentday or similar private torrent invite? Everyone shares their streaming passwords and I let my torrent account get deleted for inactivity

[oskar]

Found the narc!

[boost]

lolgotme

[Jack Sawyer]

[oskar]

I get it, but I also think that complaining about Pelosi while Trump is president is as close as you can get to the proverbial rearranging of those deck chairs on the Titanic.

I mean wtf is this even: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47182567

[Jack Sawyer]

[Jack Sawyer]

I get it, but I also think that complaining about Pelosi while Trump is president is as close as you can get to the proverbial rearranging of those deck chairs on the Titanic.

I mean wtf is this even: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47182567

That's the game the democrats are playing. A game of distraction, while still being beholden to corporations.

Which is why Americans have to be real careful with who they are electing, as both parties are actually out to screw you. Only a few politicians actually have they people in mind, and as voters, you have to actually figure out who they are and ardently vote for them, party notwithstanding.

Turns out that those justice democrats were actually onto something.

[oskar]

I think whoever wins the Democratic ticket, wins the Presidency. It would be a shame to miss this opportunity, but all things considered... both parties are not the same. Warren would be great, but she's about as bad as Hilary on stage. Bernie would be ideal, but americans have a long history of voting against their best interest. But if it's Harris, who cares. Medicare's still going to suck, she'll work for corporate interests, but she won't destroy the economy and she won't deliberately create policies to torture and kill minorities. So... baby steps.

This is one of the most popular right wing figures on social media:
I would take what I can get.

[Jack Sawyer]

[Poopadoop]

Ok well I had no idea where chocolate came from. I would have thought it just came out of the plant more or less the way it was.




Mmmmm, chocolate.

[OngBonga]

Tell me where I can find a dairy milk tree.

[CoccoBill]

Tell me where I can find a dairy milk tree.

In your pants.

[OngBonga]

That's a bit immature, even for me.

[Poopadoop]

What do you do when someone stiffs you? Here's what.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What do you do when someone stiffs you? Here's what.

Wow. Because of 600 pounds.

His coworkers were yelling, "That's what you get when you don't pay." and the like while he was doing it.
He left the scene on foot.

According to the Sun, there's a GoFundMe that's already raised over 1,700 pounds for this guy.


This doesn't sound like a one-off. What's going on over there with contractors not paying employees?

[Poopadoop]

Wow. Because of 600 pounds.

Yeah, seems a bit ott.

What's going on over there with contractors not paying employees?

Pretty sure that happens everywhere.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Pretty sure that happens everywhere.

Sure, people are savages the world over.

Still... that damage hurts the profitability of that job. Probably insurance covers it, but insurance isn't free and those rates are bound to go up when the contractor has to claim this. So that hurts the profitability of future jobs. All those coworkers egging him on are going to be paid less in the future because of this.

and they let him walk away.

That's indicative to me that this isn't the usual level of savagery seen the world over, but something is getting out of hand in it.

[oskar]

I recently talked to a builder who casually said something along the lines of "...and those fags tell on the company because they have to work a little longer... they should just suck it up"
There are people who think they're somehow tough for getting fucked by their employer and not reporting it. That's exactly what regulations are for. If your employer is not able stay within the guidelines, then the employer should take the damage and not the employee.

Good on that guy. I hope it ends well for him.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I've been in some shit jobs. There's a certain camaraderie in getting equally fucked as the guy next to you. Dealing with the same nonsense bonds people.

Truth be told, that sentiment was strong in my mind when the straw broke the camels back to get me back in school to earn a degree. It was so obvious to me that I was going to be stuck in situations where I felt powerless and just slowly become bitter if I stayed in those jobs.

[Jack Sawyer]

Constant Vigilance my friends. CONSTANT VIGILANCE!

[Jack Sawyer]

Upgrading older, unsupported phones to newer software is the most gratifying feeling ever. It's the literal gift of new life.

Also, fuck tech reviewers. No one asked for phone batteries to be built in, only asshole tech reviewers.

Fuck smug assholes like this.

[Poopadoop]

http://www.brain-sharper.com/enterta...&utm_medium=WC

The title of this website is 'brain-sharper', one of the greatest misnomers of all time.

Like, who'da thunk a basketball player could be tall?

[Jack Sawyer]

[Jack Sawyer]

Another random vid I found but






So many coinkidinks

[Poopadoop]

Set your google machine to 'nasa jupiter pictures'.

I recommend putting a pillow under your chin so you don't hurt it when it hits the floor.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Damn. I watch this show every week, and I knew they had a strong following, but I didn't suspect it was this vast.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ina-animated-s

[Jack Sawyer]

[Jack Sawyer]

"We don't pay our staff enough for them to survive"

[MadMojoMonkey]

We all know tipping is a logistical nightmare.
I'm not actually drinking the kool-aid that any restaurant can't move to a "no tipping" policy, increase their prices to suit, and be just fine. The bottom line "should" be about the same price per customer at the end of it all.
I personally don't judge the price of the meal based on the individual prices on the menu. I judge on the price of the total meal, which includes the tip. I'm vaguely aware of the prices on the menu, but personally, if I notice them too much, it just destroys the experience for me. It's not about the fact that a steak costs $18... it's about the evening out with my gal in different surroundings and creating experiences that we can look back fondly on.
After the fact, on the ride home or whatever, we'll talk about how much the meal was and how much was the tip and whether or not we'd like to go back to that place.

So I don't think the notion that people will look at menu prices and think, "wow, that's $1 more than XXX restaurant." holds much weight. Restaurants already charge vastly different prices for essentially the same foods. It's just that the dining room is nicer, or the cooking staff is paid more, etc.


We also all know that if we, the patrons, decide to take matters into our own hands and not tip, then we're just being ideological jerks who didn't pay a fair price for our meal + service.

[OngBonga]

"We don't pay our staff enough for them to survive"

This one is always a fun topic. Refuse to tip and you're a cunt, while the business gets away with underpaying their staff.

Oklahoma's minimum wage is $7.25, for companies with annual gross sales of $100k, or with ten or more staff at one location. Otherwise it's $2 per hour.

I would point blank refuse to hand my money over to any company that pays their staff less than $7.25 an hour, which is already meagre.

Here in the UK, from April 1st, the minimum wage for people 25+ will be £8.21,just over $10. For 18-20 year olds, it's £6.15 ($8). This is just about reasonable, it would be near impossible to survive on this in London, but otherwise it's doable. A 40 hour week for a 19 y/o on minimum wage will earn around £250 a week, or just over £11k a year. This is untaxed as it falls below the minimum threshold.

That means waiters (outside London) earn enough to survive.

Still we have tipping culture, even though there's no reason why a waiter should earn more than, say, a shelf stacker at Tesco who receives no tips.

[Jack Sawyer]

"We don't pay our staff enough for them to survive"

LOL

A very sad LOL

[Jack Sawyer]

This one is always a fun topic. Refuse to tip and you're a cunt, while the business gets away with underpaying their staff.

Oklahoma's minimum wage is $7.25, for companies with annual gross sales of $100k, or with ten or more staff at one location. Otherwise it's $2 per hour.

I would point blank refuse to hand my money over to any company that pays their staff less than $7.25 an hour, which is already meagre.

Here in the UK, from April 1st, the minimum wage for people 25+ will be £8.21,just over $10. For 18-20 year olds, it's £6.15 ($8). This is just about reasonable, it would be near impossible to survive on this in London, but otherwise it's doable. A 40 hour week for a 19 y/o on minimum wage will earn around £250 a week, or just over £11k a year. This is untaxed as it falls below the minimum threshold.

That means waiters (outside London) earn enough to survive.

Still we have tipping culture, even though there's no reason why a waiter should earn more than, say, a shelf stacker at Tesco who receives no tips.

How about $4 an hour w/ tips?

[OngBonga]

How about $4 an hour w/ tips?

Nope. How about $10 an hour without tips?

The consumer pays the wages of the staff by consuming, not by being guilted into tipping because their employer is greedy.

[Jack Sawyer]

Nope. How about $10 an hour without tips?

The consumer pays the wages of the staff by consuming, not by being guilted into tipping because their employer is greedy.

Check the vid I posted above, you'll see where I got the $4 figure from

[OngBonga]

Check the vid I posted above, you'll see where I got the $4 figure from

I have no idea how this is legal, nor how they are still in business. Fair play to the staff, and if I were a consumer in that region, I wouldn't be eating there again. If they are still open and they have staff on such wages, I'd be tempted to go in, tip the staff, and leave without buying anything.

[Jack Sawyer]

I have no idea how this is legal, nor how they are still in business. Fair play to the staff, and if I were a consumer in that region, I wouldn't be eating there again. If they are still open and they have staff on such wages, I'd be tempted to go in, tip the staff, and leave without buying anything.

Which means they'd literally have to survive on your charity, exactly as the picture I posted above too

Raising the mandatory minimum wage to a liveable amount would banish these shenanigans to the dark pages of history, and therefore these employees would not have to survive on your literal tipping kindness.

[OngBonga]

There's talk of $15 an hour. Seems a bit high, there's a balance between a living wage and not crippling small business or driving up the cost for the consumer. $10 seems reasonable, aligned with British standards.

[CoccoBill]

A big problem with a static minimum wage is that it's probably outdated before it gets through congress/whatever. It should be adjusted annually based on some kind of living expense index. Far better would be to have UBI and no minimum wage.

[OngBonga]

I agree, our does increase yearly. The figure I quote is relevant from April 1st this year. The living wage has to increase with inflation. It perhaps could be argued that in times of negative inflation that it could decrease, though that obviously wouldn't be popular. But yes, of course it shouldn't be static.

[OngBonga]

Part of me feels that a minimum wage should be unnecessary, but cases like the Sonic one show that sadly regulation needs to be in place, since the consumer won't boycott companies that pay too little. I'm in favour of as little regulation as possible, regulating only where it concerns public health, security, economy and wellbeing. This is a matter of public wellbeing, but too high of a minimum wage will hurt the economy, since prices will go up and the increase in wages simply becomes negated by higher living costs.

People having more disposable income obviously helps the economy, people either spend more (business boom) or save more (meaning banks can lend more, good for new business). So there's a clear capitalist incentive for a living wage. This isn't a left vs right thing, so I don't really understand why it's not already a legally enforcable thing in USA.

If you pay someone £2 an hour here you might even face criminal slavery charges.