Lmao my town is in an uproar because there is no bussing for the high school, but my town literally voted to disincorporate (and won!) rather than pay a double-digit yearly increase on their taxes... to pay for bussing.
More and more it seems like people just don't want to help pay for services that are extremely helpful. Yet when those services are removed, they get all uppity about it. It's just like brexit. Stupidity on a massive scale.
NDP and Liberal parties, which are politically very similar to each other. Closest analogue to them is the US Democrat party but the Democrats in the US are more neolib than either Canadian leftist party - although Canadian politics tends to trail US politics by a few years, so they'll get there lol.
Not actually surprised. These people are evil, not stupid. He knows he drove away the low paid immigrant workers, they just want a way to blame them anyway.
Hallmark of fascism - the enemy is so strong that they'll steal your jobs, but also is weak and cowardly and deserves the poor treatment we give them.
As much as I hate DeSantis, I don't think calling for the murder of a U.S. politician (and governor) on social media is a smart move.
NSA agents, if you're reading this, I don't condone any of this!
But for the sake of the discussion: it was a weird comment for several reasons:
Come back with guns: why leave in the first place, then? They could have just legally purchased guns in Florida and use them for whatever OP implied, without leaving at all.
A situation involving migrants with guns would just make Florida republicans say "See? These people are dangerous and shouldn't be here. DeSantis was right!"
That's why I found the comment weird. But come to think of it, it's quite stupid too.
I think what they're trying to say is that immigrants should go there to do the job but instead immigrants are only going there with guns. Typical republican propaganda.
Honestly, I get it. I'm in the US, which means my government does terrible things the world over, and I'd probably have a similar reaction if someone blew out the windows of my home with a drone strike. And I have a lot more ability to influence my government than ordinary Russian citizens do.
I think the Ukrainians are 100% within their rights to fight the war that they didn't start, and that includes blowing up targets in Moscow. But, from the POV of the ordinary people in Moscow just living, I get it.
Nope. Too bad, they knew what they were buying. That they convinced themselves the value they attributed to it would remain or increase is entirely on them. The fact that so many others saw it through a realistic lens means they had the same ability and chose not to.
But that said, the proceeds for them should also get clawed back and 100% put toward scam identification education. Neither side in this one should walk away enriched.
That's the whole point of legitimate auction houses like Sothby's. They pay experts to provide some legitimacy and sanity.
It's one thing for me to say that a kids finger painting is worth 50k, it's a different thing for a trained art appraiser at an auction house to set that price.
Sotheby sets the initial prices and provides estimates of value. They were supposed to be the responsible adult in the room. Now if they values them at say $1000 and they sold for 100,000k that's on the buyer. If the value was set for 80k and it sold for 90k that's a different story.
This is the part about wealthy people that I just love. If muh investment pays off, f-off society, I was smart and made a wise investment. I deserve to keep 100% of the proceeds. But when things go south, "Save meeeeeeeeee, you [society/regulators] shouldn't have let me go through with it". Then we're back to the socialism they say they hate so much and that they lobby their own money to deny to the common folk.
Digging into the numbers a bit more, I've noticed a disturbing trend. Felony charges against presidents has skyrocketed shortly after we had our first black president. I'm just looking at the numbers and asking questions #factsnotfeelings
No, they don't. We had Brexit. It was a smörgåsbord of stupid like that.
"We want freedom of movement cancelled so EU folks can't come in here, "followed by "What do you mean we don't have freedom of movement and can't just live in Spain?"
"All immigrants gone!" followed by "why are there no cheap immigrants anymore for working in the field and drive trucks?"
"Close the borders!" and "Why is there suddenly this long line and why do we need custom checks and passports?"
"After we made it more difficult for foreigners to come here, we have less tourists. Somebody do something!"
"When we said you can't fish here, we meant we can still fish over there."
"Yeah, I know we cancelled all cooperation but we really would like the subsidies to continue."
You can keep going. There were enough predictions that this was exactly what would happen, it was ignored in emotional flurry, ideologies and name calling. Of course there is a lot of "why didn't anyone warn us?" afterwards. I conclude they're not really thinking, just mostly reacting emotionally and going along with the peer group who has a very high "F U I got mine" content.
See, this is how people end up being in favour of eugenics.
It's not that stupid people exist, it's that they keep being stupid, and bafflingly self-destructive, even after their stupidity is demonstrably demonstrated to them.
I'm in favour of education. There was a time when people lacking education strived to close the gap and become a better version of themselves. I'm not sure how we lost that, but I want it back. I'm not only talking about school. People went to classes after work, read about new stuff and invested into themselves.
“I’m very proud of Gov. DeSantis and everything he’s done. I really am,’’ said Gonzmart, a lifelong Republican. “[...] But my concern is the governor putting in a law that says those who have an expired driver’s license cannot renew it because they’re no longer legal. They cannot work. Their papers are no longer legal.”
It's not that "they're no longer legal". They were never legal. You just thought it didn't matter.
Also, what happened to all that wailing about how we need to get rid of all the "illegal immigrants" because "they took our jobs"?
Is it possible that some of these Super PACs are bankrolling black GOP candidates in order to influence and leech away black folks' support for democrats?
The tin foil hattiness of that question is obvious, but somehow it makes more sense than black people joining/supporting the GOP.
I'm kind of torn on this. In a "Leopards ate my face way," the people who voted him in are getting what they voted for. But overall, I'm not sure this is necessarily a bad piece of legislation, from the little of it mentioned here. Obviously it's pretty messy to suddenly change something like this retroactively. But going forward, it seems pretty fair at face value.
This being DeSantis, I assume there's something nasty going on behind the scenes that I haven't figured out yet. Agreeing with him makes me feel all kinds of icky.
I've seen a lot of heated debate on the matter on a lot of sites. To me, it's just an example of people not thinking ahead when they vote for certain candidates. The right wing is very men's rights and very against policies that favor women, like alimony, so something like this new law really shouldn't have been a surprise. That's my hot take anyway
I am not sure i am fully for alimony. Like child support? Definitely. But alimony is the argument that the spouce, almost exclusively women, are due a certain life style they enjoyed when married at the cost of the one who is working for it. The argument being that a spouse would stay in an abusing relationship because of the fear of losing quality of life. And that assuming that the spouse foregoes a career to raise children is left with low job prospects, and the state would rather not shoulder the burden of a social safety net. And so the working spouse has to pay.
Thats how its been argued to me anyway. I find it not very persuasive. No one is due a quality of life at the expense of other’s. If you divorce, you should toil for your own quality of life. And there should be a comprehensive safety net for those who are too old to hold a job, or can not find one.
There's something to say for it if one party gave up work to become a stay at home parent I guess. You're at a pretty severe disadvantage if you need to enter the job market with a significant gap in your resume. So if you consider marriage a contract wherein one person put themselves at a disadvantage to raise the children o the condition that the other would in turn provide for the both of them, you could argue that they're entitled to some form of compensation when that contract is broken. Whether that compensation should be indefinite I leave on the table.
That’s not at all how it was argued to me, and I also find it unconvincing. I think it makes sense when a couple together makes a decision that one person won’t work to take care of the home or kids. Fifteen years later if they divorce, the working person is further in their career than they would have been if they’d had to take off time for sick days and more parenting activities (or if they’d had to think about doing their own dry cleaning and packing their own lunches), while the other person is further behind in their career than they were when they left the workforce, and they won’t ever really be able to get back on track. I think alimony makes sense to balance those effects, and if the effects are permanent, I think it should also be permanent. I don’t think it should be 40% of a paycheck (unless that’s actually substantiated by the couple’s financial situation), but whatever makes sense for the couple’s relative incomes.
My thought is that it’s based on the life style that the provider…provides. And maintaining that expectation of having the same quality of life is absurd, especially concerning that the providers will definitely not be able to maintain that quality of life for themselves. Especially in the case of a childless marriage, the other spouse was never removed from the work force unless they chose to be. And the provider may have been happy to sacrifice their life style at the time, but to force it on them after a divorce is wrong to me. And even if there was a child at one point, but has since become an adult i don’t see how one who was working a career should be on the hook for another forever. This basically prevents the one who pays from moving on to make another family due to financial constraints.
I guess where I disagree is that the working parent presumably benefits from the non working parent’s labor. They decide together how their lives look, agree together that less income is worth it for the other benefits of the person staying home, and then afterwards the partner who stayed home has permanently lowered earning potential. Those are fine decisions to make together, but if you split up, the parent who kept working financially benefits and the other is fucked. I don’t think the goal should be to maintain the same lifestyle, because that is going to be impossible (though if there are kids, their lifestyles should change as little as possible), but trying to equalize their changed earning potentials makes sense to me.
Leopards Ate My Face
Newest