Democrats are overwhelmingly likely to take control of one if not two chambers come January.
That's assuming your GOP doesn't suddenly learn how to cheat with mail-ins and ballot harvesting. There are a lot of dead or dying people, plus the homeless who will do anything and sign anything for a buck. They already seemed to have learned a lot from the grand ole gerrymander game. Gotta save that Democracy, you know...
Trump will get the Biden treatment. Everyone lying all the way up to the end.
The Critical Drinker recommended it. He's my fav film critic.
I'd be more worried if the government actually turned a profit and returned the surplus back to the taxpayers. That would mean the macroeconomics were such that the best way to turn a profit is to get elected. The economic incentives would push innovative people out of the private sector, and political power would become the most lucrative path to wealth and resources. The greatest asset-acquiring skill would be winning elections by any innovative means. In some states, that may already be the case, and when the competition is completely gone, profitability and innovation in actual consumer goods like food become practically meaningless.
If the USA adopted a constitutional amendment restricting the government to provide only 10 public services, what 10 services would you pick and why?
I'm just comparing the ease of leaving New York compared to leaving, say...Cuba. Or North Korea.
Heaven and Hell are archaic allegories to describe the now-known concepts of evolution and entropy long before science existed. Ancient religions have been describing real patterns of human existence before we had the modern, formal explanations. It's no coincidence that the deepest early writers and thinkers were regarded by their ancient tribes as divinely inspired. Magic and Science. Modern religion exists on the last strands of unexplained science.
You'd have to lower taxes and corporate subsidies across the board, so Microsoft's competitors have a chance.
The goal isn't to make Microsoft bigger. The goal is to make it easier for the next Microsoft to exist. Getting rid of the corporate subsidies will be near impossible because only 1% of the voters even know it's an entrenched and established money laundering operation. I don't mind Microsoft spending Microsoft's money bribing politicians. I mind Microsoft spending money that was first transferred from taxpayers through government favoritism and subsidies. That's just straight-up money laundering, where politicians steal from the poor and give to themselves. Taxpayers fund the subsidies. Corporations recycle part of the gains into lobbying and political donations. Politicians then protect the system that benefits both parties. It's a self-licking ice cream cone cycle where wealth is transferred from ordinary taxpayers to politically connected interests.
It really depends. Does your country need more supply of goods, or do you have plenty?
Let them know you have Jose and Raul waiting with wet lips if they leave your employ.
....workers rights....
There should be one and only one enforceable worker's right. The right to walk away at any time without retaliation.
But as you said, and was echoed by César Chávez, importing a near limitless oversupply of labor makes that right near meaningless. So when you have an oversupply of labor, and an undersupply of goods produced. Only the blessed few really profit.
Giving more tax cuts to the wealthy?
This is silly. Either you taxed the rich too much or not enough. If the rich aren't making enough supply for your country to keep the prices low, you know what the answer is.
If you want to tax the rich a lot and still force them to create supply when they would rather produce less, then you would have to create communist gulags to force people to work when they don't want to. Russia did this in the Cold War era. You can have the carrot or the stick, but rarely both.
Alternatively, the USA leftistas could do what Europe does, and tax the poor. That usually gets the population motivated enough to stop electing total retards.
It's also 10 years too late.
lol
I recently got a promotion to a collegiate charter school, so I can't be as active as I used to be, sorry.
I thought they moved to Bluesky, and then ruined that...
That post seems 2 years too early.
This thread seems 10 years too late.
Quite frankly from what I'm reading here, NY sounds like a bit of a shit hole, so don't think that will be visiting any time soon.
Right, the groundwork to implement Communist grocery stores required decades of subverting private businesses since America's constitutional republic prevents quick measures to quickly vote in Communism.
It's not like the USA doesn't have other states and cities. People are still free to leave without coercion.
Wryly wrote:
Shoresy wrote:
I guess that's why the assassin got killed on the White House lawn, he was just following team rules.
I take it this argument descends from the now-popular thinking that if you lean left or lean right, you have to own every single thing in the entire rightosphere or the entire leftosphere -- every event, opinion, every person no matter how disconnected from governance, suddenly becomes your burden to justify. Criticize Trump and you must suddenly defend the actions of a rogue gunman; criticize Biden and you must be accountable for Trump's every action or word.
I can only repeat that that's a silly, sophomoric way of thinking that is actively making us all dumber, angrier, and more polarized. Worse, it often successfully infects my own thoughts, and that's icky. Get thee away from me, plague carrier.
Lol, I didn't make the rules that if you don't declare Trump is Hitler, then you don't deserve to live. Tribes are highly intolerant atm.
Flippantly talking about rules ignores the reality that tyrants and authoritarians use rules, too. Teams of nonsense is what you should have said instead of implying excuses with the platitude of "rules."
It seems physically impossible for such things to exist. If supermarkets are unable to stay profitable because people aren’t buying their food, how are these people not starving to death?
Many of these privately owned stores are closing down because the government wants them to close down by not providing crime prevention, and forcing private businesses to pay ridiculous taxes and fines for ridiculous regulations.
It's part of the plan to artificially create a supply problem that only the government will be able to solve because it was the government who created all the problems in the first place.
Next will be the grand plan to create landlord deserts with price controls and code fines so that the only options for tenants will be government-owned housing. Again, solving a problem that they created in order to profit like kings.
Nonetheless, as long as such stores are profitable and NYC benefits, then if it solves a social problem then it's a good idea.
Hmm, if a government-owned store is profitable, who profits? Oh yeah. So much for "no Kings"
SergeantLynch wrote:
Because Linate, it's anti-capitalism and the home of the "communist" devil that haunts Shoresy.
Nonetheless, as long as such stores are profitable and NYC benefits, then if it solves a social problem then it's a good idea.
Nah, Communism is the best. Do it.
Do it.
Subsidizing food is how America became the fattest country on the planet.
because I've been saying the same thing each time.
and if it is a measurement of duration, T=0 represents no time.
Sorry, but this is very misleading. I'm not even saying you're wrong; it's just very imprecise.
You said t = 0 as a measurement of duration. That's mathematically incorrect, or at best, imprecise. You were probably thinking delta t, not t.
Plain old t = 0 usually means in almost all standard physics equations:
and almost never as "duration"
Δt = t − t = duration
That's not entirely accurate.
t = 0 does not mean no time. The change of t = 0 means no time.
almost no physics equation references duration of time without delta in the equation. it's easy to be confused if you haven't studied delta equations.
It's not just the eyes, your brain has a synapse time, your nerves have a reaction time, your muscles have a reaction time. It all adds up.
Correct. We know, on a galactic scale, that we can be observing a star that is actually going supernova now, and we won't know it happened for many years.
On a micro scale, it just means our consciousness can never exist in, or register, the present state of the actual world.
Heisenberg noted the act of observation changes the nature of observed particles, but there's 2 things going on at the same time that make this true. You can think of the act of observation analogous to active sonar pinging, but if the pinging were instant, there would be no change observed in the particle, even though the particle is definitely altered. But... Because there's a time delay, it absolutely makes a difference between the observed state and the actual state of a particle, which makes true observation of the present state of a particle impossible.
If you are measuring change, you need two reference points, wouldn't T=0 just represent "no time".
absolutely not, the number line extends infinitely in both directions; it does not end at zero.
zero is a common mathematical point indicating present time. You took physics in high school, right?
nearly all the textbook primers use this standard for the introduction into motion equations.
