Minimum wages only 'protect' all low wage citizens from virtual slavery imposed by corporations. This very low number ensures that (if your state isn't an asshole) any employer you would work with, would pay you enough to actually survive in that particular economy.  This ain't just for the citizens, this is also for the government as well. We all get taxed, and mightily, on those wages, and if they don't pay you enough, the state is going to end up subsidizing the gaps in your existence anyway. So, the state/Fed would rather see the business owners stimulate the economy by actually allowing the value to trickle down, rather than accumulate at the top. Despite this, major corporations have lobbied, and money talks.

 Hence corporate welfare, the scenario where tax payers end up footing the bill for the missing part of worker wages. I'm pointing out McDs, WalMart, but it's the lot of them. Corporations are already skirting their tax bills by and large, the insult to injury that is having to pay food stamps for someone with a full time job, because the guys that hired them don't give them enough to survive. Corps want ever-increasing profits for the shareholders, to usher in ever-increasing valuation of their asset.  You can do this a few ways.

Charge more, but that doesn't fly in the age of dying retail.
Pay your workers less, which has been the norm, and
Ask your workers to do more for the same pay, which is the new trick of low wage worker exploitation. Clever ways to not account for overtime, or subtle policies that have workers doing things outside of their job description (which is a federally regulated thing, your job description per industry is actually a listed thing, for legal purposes). Don't do it, get wrote up or fired. It's a slick system. And with most American apparently being one check away from insolvency, who has time or the appetite for risk to switch jobs?

The nerve to deny a man a fair days pay, for a fair days work, is regressive and antisocial.

Depends on where you are in Europe. The UK is right up there with us, they are more intrusive in a 'you are always on camera' sense than the 'we are recording your communications' type of way. The reason China and Russia (not Europe) would ban bitcoin is the nature of government there, citizens already have little power versus the state enforcement arm. These are two cultures in which you can get 'disappeared'. Both countries are also having a problem with capital flight, due to said nature of.these govs.

To be fair, the EU has done alot to protect its citizens from mass surveillance (especially against us).


And for the record, the most intrusive nations are:

China, Malaysia and Russia scored lowest, followed jointly by Singapore and the United Kingdom, then jointly by Taiwan, Thailand and the United States. The best ranking was given to Greece, which was judged to have 'adequate safeguards against abuse'.[8]

Depends on what you mean by a collapse. If we are talking about rampant inflation to the point of complete devaluation, that will never happen. The USD is backed by the coffers and assets, and infrastructure of the US government, as long as said government exist, said dollar will exist. Many rich bastards have fought long and hard over many centuries to prop those little pieces of green paper up. We created a banking system outside of our banking system, not even owned by our government, to ensure the value of the USD remains at a beneficial value to our country. And we made sure to peg other currencies to the dollar, to ensure that other economies would be beholden to our success.


The world will end before the dollar does. In fact, the world will end, because of the dollar.

Oh, I'm definitely aware of the 'fence' we currently have, courtesy of Bush. That's what the 1.5b appropriated by Congress would go to, repairing and expanding the 'wall' already in place. It was a shit idea back then, at the worst time, economically.

And the effects of our new immigration policy arr already evident. Produce has gone up (mangoes are oddly cheap though), and I'm not seeing the crews I'm used to when I drive past the colossal farms in my neighborhood.

And yes, a wall will never stop a terrorist; the whole point of terrorism is to penetrate and disturb. And, a criminal would be pretty fucking dumb to just stroll up to the border.

He may have mispoke. That 1.5b is appropriated to repair and improve the existing fence. Specifically, new fence cannot be constructed; only replaced or renovated. Make no mistake. The Demoncraps ( ) and the Rethuglicans came together on this one, and made a point to deny funding for the wall.

But the text of the spending measure states (on page 739) the $341 million would be used “to replace approximately 40 miles of existing primary pedestrian and vehicle border fencing along the southwest border using previously deployed steel bollard designs, that prioritize [border] agent safety; and to add gates to existing barriers.”

There is absolutely no provision for the wall in the budget.

And the true definition of a "wall of bollards" is a bunch of bollards forming a barrier. With a bollard being a reinforced, free standing post. I wouldn't even insult fences like that. An actual 'bollard wall' would be akin to a tall traffic obstacle.

Long Fence, a commercial and residential fence company, sells bollards and defines them this way: “Bollards are upright steel posts mounted in or alongside roads and parking lots to control, direct or obstruct vehicular traffic or impact.”

The structures are crafted primarily “for maximum vehicle control, and can be used to effectively increase pedestrian safety and building security as well as onsite amenties (sic) from vehicular damage,” according to Long Fence.

Trump has said that, along some parts of the country’s southern border, fencing might be more appropriate than a giant concrete-and-steel wall. But, even this week, the president and his top aides have been promising the administration will build it.

Where is the concrete and rebar we were promised?

Hey peeps, was thinking about the current state of the wall. I'm thinking this wall has less and less chance of hapoening. Let me explain. First off, if you read the forum you know I'm no fan of Trump or this wall.

I assumed the wall would get built because Trump is such a friend of corporate interest. Nothing new in Washington, but interesting to see  it out in the open (if I can sum up my deal with the current administration, it would boil down to 'lack of subtlety'). The wall, like a war, would be a smorgasbord of corporate contract moneygrab. The labor, the material required are massive, and it will take years to complete. So, of course the wall was getting built, it fit right in with my idea of the Trump camp.

Now, the wall rhetoric continued even after 'lock her up' and 'drain the swamp' went silent. Mexico was going to pay, then we were going to Bill them/force them to pay. Bullshit from jump, you can't force a foreign, sovereign nation to build a giant infrastructure on your turf. If so, make China build us theme parks. In every state.

I digress.

In the meanwhile, our suddenly aggressive stance did the very thing that the wall was intended to do: reduce immigration, by a significant percent, roughly 40. So damned well, in fact, the wall became largely unnecessary. But it was still a talking point in Trump world. The onus for the wall shifted from Mexico to the Democrats, now, they were responsible for holding up our vital national security. He threatened to shut down the government, he threatened to defund Ocare. Ultimately,  gov didn't shut down, but yet we still had no wall.


Fast forward to now. A Breitbart reporter and Spicer get into an argument over the wall. Guy asked Spicer about the wall, Spicer pulls out slides of fences. Brief argument ensues. Guy leaves, writes a critical article on Breitbart (which is another thread).

So, do you think the wall is actually going to happen? It's certain not going to be the 'big beautiful wall' Trump promised his voters. Maybe some storm link and a turn style.

I'm all ears.

I.can recommend the KeepKey. Decent construction, extremely frequent updating of firmware, and works beautifully with Mycelium, which is another favorite of mine. And has ShapeShift integrated..

You will, however, get tired of entering that goddamned shifting pin number you'll see

Why does the cost of maintenance dissuade you from thinking that you own a thing? The government will continue to defend your property and assets from unlawful seizure and foreign aggression as long as it exists. You are a member of a club, your respective nation. Unfortunately, clubs have dues. Your property or asset continues to exist within your nations respective borders; at some point is this service of security simply.supposed to become free?

I'm of the opposite mind. The more entrenched we are with modern technology (specifically the convenience that consumer electronics bring) the harder it will be to adapt to a post nuclear society. People will need to farm, hunt and build, when all they have been taught to do is point and click, with an occasional tweet. If we were closer to being able to do the things that keep us alive, rather than trading time for these things, people would be largely unaffected by major catastrophe. But we are encouraged to be reliant, it keeps us complaint.

I'll address the last point first because it's so critical. WE DONT NOT WANT CALIFORNIA TO SECEDE FROM THE UNION. They pretty much are the US GDP, our produce and tech products.

As a moderate/progressive, although the thought of dropping some of the less productive (economically and sociopolitically speaking) makes me salivate. But, in the interest of representing the entire constituency, we have to offer equal representation despite contribution. If we are a community of equals, let all voices ring at the same volume. Representing only one class of citizen, as least as far as political ideology is concern, breeds the path for taxation without representation. And as history has proven, shit gets burned down when we get there.

Why is that extra large white lady raping those three poor colored midgets? She clearly came there topless (I don't see a discarded shirt), and is about to scissor kick the shirtless guy? It's fucked up over there man. Giant white people and sexual violence. If I were an immigrant Id keep on to France. There, you only have to worry about the police sticking a baton up your ass in public. No giantesses with aggressive sexual agenda.

Why is Finland encouraging the rape of immigrants?  

I'm being sarcastic. That is some propoganda bullshit; let motherfuckers start raping additionally and see what happens. It's irresponsible to call for further violence in the same kind if you disagree with the initial violence. This sign very stupidly says to me "let's rape our women, if other people can so should we!"


Rhetoric is an art form, but propoganda is religion. Digest that.

I agree with Bad and Liel wholeheartedly. And I have to add, is inaction by the GOP (the party under the microscope at the moment)  just as bad as acquiescence? Elections are coming up soon. If they just go with the flow as far as some of Trumps more unpopular policies (healthcare, for example), will they get reelected by an angry constituency?

I have the feeling the GOP will be largely underrepresented by 2020. I think people are starting to see that they like free shit from the government, and that if that comes with regulations, meh. I never understood the anti welfare/ social assistance rhetoric, as alot of the low income Republican voting base uses these programs to survive. There would be alot more people affected if SNAP was dissolved in rural american vs urban America, because more people use SNAP in rural areas. Same with healthcare. But the rhetoric is damned good apparently, since Reagan.

I don't, but, Breitbart does, apparently:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/06/wikileaks-sceptical-macron-leaks-fake-russia-falls-spotlight/

Commenting on Twitter, the organisation called the cache a “significant leak” Adding: “It is not economically feasible to fabricate the whole. We are now checking parts.”

Three hours later they added: “We have not yet discovered fakes in #MacronLeaks & we are very skeptical that the Macron campaign is faster than us.”

However, they questioned the timing of the leaks, pointing out that Macron is still comfortably ahead in the polls. The late timing of the release, they suggested, means the information will have little impact on the final result.

You know, just how the DNC leak didn't affect Hillary's chances. Or the Comey announcement that the GOP is STILL talking about (we can be concerned about Hillary and some goddamned emails that we actually have/can read and check, vs obvious collusion with Russia by the current administration that we have to dig for).

Making America Great Again, one  enemy state sponsored leak at a time.

ROFL!

Do y'all look this shit up before y'all speak on it? Or is it just talking points from Breitbart and the Blaze, possible StormFront?

Maybe you missed public school in the last 30 years. I didn't. When I was a kid, the caf food was unhealthy as fuck. Pizza and fries and cake. No veggies sometimes. And  the ability to buy candy and drinks during school. Understanding now as an adult that, for some kids, this would be a main meal, it makes sense to me to make this meal as nutritious as possible. American cultural food is shit. They have the rest of the day to eat that bullshit, since they are thinking and doing while at school, give them food for their brains.

Now, let's examine why this is news. I'll choose Fox. Good ole Fox.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/25/republicans-look-to-scrap-michelle-obama-school-lunch-plan.html

A document released by the office of Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., called for repealing certain aspects of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 – the legislation that helped put Michelle Obama’s hallmark program into law. The initiative is part of a broader plan released by Meadows titled, “First 100 Days: Rules, Regulations, and Executive Orders to Examine, Revoke and Issue.”

Alright, so this is some of that 'deregulation wave' bullshit we are doing ATM, but are there any corporate interests that would benefit from these changes? Of course, we are in TrumpLand.

Different article:

The standards include directives on vastly reducing use of salt, calorie limits, restrictions on meat, prohibitions on the contents of vending machines and increased servings of whole grains, fruits and  vegetables, as the New York Post reported.

So, who would be mad at that? The GOP, of course, and corporate interests.

A key lobbying group, the School Nutrition Association, released recommendations earlier this month to scale back federal nutrition standards she championed and were set under the Obama administration. The group is a national nonprofit professional organization representing over 57,000 members in the school food service industry, per its website.

The organization called for "practical flexibility under federal nutrition standards to prepare healthy, appealing meals," specifically recommending that the US Department of Agriculture allow saltier foods that would have otherwise been allowed and cutting current whole grain requirements in half.
The effects would mean tastier, less healthy school lunches -- more salt, less quinoa.

okies.

The 2010 law, implemented in cafeterias across the country at the beginning of the 2012-13 school year, was aimed at improving nutrition and reducing child obesity and authorizing funding for federal lunch programs. It called for more whole grains, fruits, vegetables, low-fat milk products and less sodium and fat. It also awards additional funding to schools that meet the standards -- to the tune of six cents per healthy lunch.

So healthier kids, and free money. But government subsidy going directly to schools doesn't get to go into a corporations pockets. That's less food schools and state govs are buying from major food distributors, which is a large part of sales for these industries (the kids are numerous, and they eat 5 days a week, twice a day).

But the GOP (im sorry, the corporations and lobbying groups that pay for them), crafted a beautiful lie to make this change palatable. Who would want them to repeal a law that make food healthier for kids at schools? No parent that relies on said system. But if you attach the policy to its signatory, Michelle, and start hollering 'States rights', conservative can get behind it. Because for all the bullshit I just wrote, it comes down to this: all these kids live at home. You don't like school lunch, pack one. I may be wrong, but for the States that actually had meals posted on the #ThanksMichelle hashtag, don't have said policy of not being able to bring in lunches. Should be #ThanksAssholeStateCongress

I've seen the pictures of the lunches they serve. It looks like shit. But can you blame a policy that calls for healthier, more active kids, because of bad cooks? Does Michelle personally dicate every school menu? Of course not. This is the particular interpretation of the policy by the state and the school, limited by finding. Yes, its expensive to feed people quality vegetables. That's why you rarely get them when you purchase fast food/chain restaurant grub.

Personally, fuck the kids. I'll reiterate. Fuck what the kids think about the food. It's one thing if the school isn't following the rules, but if the meal is balanced and nutritious, with a nod for taste (food needs to be palatable), eat it, or shut the fuck up. There are kids that have gone to bed hungry, they would eat the shit ever loving shit out of those plates. Sounds like some privileged bullshit to me. If you are hungry, eat. The real shame is that the American diet is so poor, that when you feed people real food, they think it's nasty. And this is why we all look like fucking ballons.

My manners, Good Morning! I forgot to be civil.

Right?! It seems immediately obvious that moving something as heavy as water. Better to refine said water in place. Besides the petrochemicals required to schlep this giant fucker, they are going to have to encapsulate it, possibly in a temperature regulated environment, or it would just melt. Because I'm assuming towing means dragging through the water; it WILL start to melt once it reaches warmer waters/ air currents.

Maybe I'm not understanding what they are trying to do here. This seems not so bright.

Being gay in America is currently quite political. You have a 50/50 chance of getting your desired cake made (the cake is indeed a lie). They are subject to systemic discrimination as we don't really fuck with gay people like that in the US (at least not during this administration). They have done alot to normalize homosexuality, in media at least, making everyone more aware of their general plight. Gay just didnt happen on tv when I was a kid, and if it did, it was open ended.

If anything, given the fact that they are regarded and treated differently, you think they would be a little more politically aware/informed than the rest of us. Basically, homosexuality pretty much has lobbying at this point. And you think the overwhelming majority of these people are apolitical?

Let me guess, 90% of the blacks don't care about politics, and the last 9% is BLM, with a single percent being Obama?

So, we have a massive leak of emails, specifically from the more left leaning party, possibly with sensitive information, being released on the eve of an election.
And being disseminated by Wikileaks.

Where have I seen this before?

Oh yeah, our shitshow of an election.

Maybe if they figure out who hacked this, they will also find those responsible for compromising the DNC servers.

It's also quite hilarious how sources for wikileaks can't seem to hack any conservative servers or accounts. Just moderate/left leaning parties.

Is wikileaks being duped by a state actor posing as a source?

I haven't forgot about you, I took the time to watch the video you suggested a few times. To concede your point, because I agree, there is a different YouTube clip I want to show you to demonstrate the corporate nature of mainstream.news dissemination. But the clip in question immediately raises an additional question. I can't find the quote attributed in the clip, made by anyone. If you search that qoute, it only yields in the context of the video.

Also, do people doubt that Aleppo occurred? Our government actually admitted to bombing the fuck out of them, I think.

I'm no friend if Trump, but I think I get this. Now, Congress has been holding its nuts on this investigation, it's dragging out a bit according to some of the commitee members, due to partisan conflict. Despite this, despite how long it takes, it would be premature to sanction Russia, not truly understanding the full role of the interference. Better to let the cards play out.

Also, observe that Congress made a very large appropriation in the last shutdown bill to stop Russia from meddling in other globally important electoral processes:

"The measure allocates money to a new fund totaling at least $100 million to counter Russian influence. It will finance measures to promote good governance in areas that are coming under pressure from Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to a summary of the measure from Senate Democrats."

Should be provable, I don't feel like getting it here is the article:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/01/trump-congress-budget-power-237849

They also enacted nija legislation on his War Powers, as well as a few more controversial things. It's an interesting read, for both sides of the aisle, as they came to a quick consensus on this.

I think what he is saying is, the level of overwhelming force would poison the planet this time. At the very least, we would most likely get involved (well, pre Trump at least) if Russia started threatening or engaging any NATO allies with nuclear force. If we get involved, IE if Russia and the United States go to nuclear war in earnest..

It will be the most spectacular war that humans will see, and the last conflict that humans will witness.