|
I know this may not seem like a lot to many of you here as my account is pretty old. Though moving up does mean a lot to me, and shows that people truly like my pretty niche opinion and posts in the section that I stay in the most P&S -- that's literally the only section that I post in, and will most likely continue to post in forever. Every so often I move over to Bitcointalk discussion, or economics, or services or something along those lines but I'd say 97 percent or so of my posts stay in that one section.
But back to the point here, I'm going to use this thread as a countdown type of thing for me to get to 1000 and move onto legendary.
I hope no one takes this thread as a begging for merit, that's not what this is at all. If I wanted to peg I would only post in sections that I know get a good deal of merit, but I wouldn't love to post there. Which is why I continue to stay in my section, and reward people there as a merit source for posting within the section.
If you'd like to root for me or something along those lines, I'd love that. I truly love being apart of this community, and I can't wait to be here for the years to come.
Thank you all!
|
|
|
|
|
We've all seen in the news in the US for the last couple months that all these different vape products and vape flavors are being put under increased scrutiny and being banned because of myths and misunderstandings put out by people.
This is while 480,000 people die annually due to cigarettes and only a handful of people have died from vape products -- which were illegally sourced THC concentrate vape products. Not even products such as JUUL, and other nicotine vape products.
Everyone and their mothers knows that its much safer to just use nicotine and nicotine products such as JUUL instead of smoking cigarettes. Cigarettes are beyond horrible for you. People are peddled this lie that JUUL might be worse for you then Cigs.
And the honest answer is we don't know yet as we don't know the long term effects. BUT -- if we already know that Cigs are horrible for you and we haven't had any issues with E-Cigs in their decade or so on the marketplace then I think I know which one we should go with.
Yes the Government should impose their regulations and their taxes on these products -- but come on guys lets fucking fix the problem of smoking and use E-Cigs to ease people off of Cigs instead of just pushing them back towards the worst legal product known to man.
|
|
|
|
Throughout the 2012 election, Obama had such a polarizing presidency that he had cost Democrats many governorships, many state legislatures, and many seats in the House and the Senate. This election Republicans are starting to feel this same thing. The Trump presidency are pushing many suburban Republicans away from him, and towards Democrats down the ballot. Look at the recent Mississippi governors race -- where in 2015 Republicans had won by 34 percent. This year they won it by about 5 percent. That's too close for comfort in a race which is typically a lock down Republican. Or the fact that the Virginia state legislature has now flipped to Dem. Take this point from the article I'm referencing: This turnout trend has now continued for three Novembers, and Republicans who try to explain it away are fooling themselves. The GOP under Mr. Trump is losing more college-educated suburban voters, especially women, than it is gaining rural voters or working-class former Democrats. Republicans have to start picking up college educated suburban voters again, or this is going to get very interesting come 2020. |
|
|
|
Just an article I saw the other day. Chuck Schumer is on his quest to take back the Senate and went to some of his friends on wall street to look for some money -- and he couldn't get anything. The bankers told him that all of that money is going to be on hold until they see who the party picks for the Presidential nominee. I dont like money in politics as much as the next guy, though I do think that this is WITHOUT A DOUBT going to hurt the chances of Dem senators taking over the Senate. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/wall-street-shuns-chuck-schumer-donation-requests-as-elizabeth-warren-surges.htmlLemme know what yall think. |
|
|
|
I've seen this all over twitter, and now on the Daily Wire. BUT NO OTHER NEWS SOURCE HAS WENT AFTER THIS. No one, not a fucking news source in the world. Not the Conservatives at the WSJ, or the Liberals at CNN/NY Times/etc. While I know that Project Veritas is KNOWN to be a group that edits a large amount of their content, even if this is edited this isn't something you just say. Epstein didn't kill himself, and people in the upper echelon of society were involved in his death. https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-abc-news-killed-epstein-clinton-story-says-anchor-in-hot-mic-videoI'm going to leave this one moderated just cause I hate the CryptoTalk spam here. |
|
|
|
While I do agree on broad terms that if its going to stop a wildfire, we should be shutting down the power in certain areas -- we still must understand the effects that this has on particular groups. This would help us to determine if shutting the power off is worth the risk. On one hand, when wildfires happen the most endangered group are elederly people: The usually are the most isolated, have the hardest time getting out of a fire situation, and so on. Similarly, when you are to shut down the power to an elderly group -- they are at the highest risk for issues due to the fact that they heavily rely on medical devices such as ventilators and dialysis machines to stay healthy (relatively healthy) If you want proof: All you have to do is look to the most common cause of death for 2017 Hurricane Irma, where the most common cause of death was from power outages which causes medical issues that were preexisting to go untreated. If California is to continue to do this, they must be ready for the calls from elderly and be prepared to help RAND CORPORATION - https://www.rand.org/blog/2019/10/turning-off-power-to-combat-wildfires-could-harm-the.html |
|
|
|
I think this is pretty simple for people to understand, but the former Mexican president has fully supported the legalization of drugs across Mexico. This is ahead of a vote from the Mexican senate on if weed should be legalized countrywide. One of the biggest arguments to legalize weed is that it will choke off the cartels of one of their most vital profit making drugs. This makes complete sense in Mexico and in the US. Think about it simply: If the US legalized weed, then instead of drug dealers selling it illegally and buying their weed from who knows where -- people are going to go to the dispensary which is properly (and regularly) regulated by the state. Not only are they regulated and ensure that the weed isn't mixed with anything (very rare, but still) their is also another stream of tax revenue for the government. But this isn't going to happen on the federal level in the US mostly because of business and other interests from the people listed below: Police Unions Correctional Officer Unions For Profit Prisons AND REGULAR PRISONS Big Pharma Defense Lawyers and so on. These groups love the supply of people going to jail for marijuana and other non violent drug related crimes. That's what we have to fix in this country. What do we all think? Article referenced: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/22/vicente-fox-legalizing-drugs-is-the-way-to-combat-cartels.html |
|
|
|
If you live in California, the first thing I'd like to say to you is that I feel bad for you. California's weather is beautiful, yes, but the amount of taxes you're paying and the amount you're paying to live in California, through the absorbent COL is insane. I don't know how anyone does it. But back on the subject here. The cost of 1 gallon of Gas in California is: $3.63 The national average for 1 gallon is: $2.60 Prices have surged in California (and some other Western states) due to issues with certain refineries and limited pipelines/refineries in the area. But this isn't an isolated incident, as gas prices in California are always higher then the rest of the US. So why are there limited pipelines and refineries: Californians higher emission standards. It's a bottleneck. But that's not something you'd hear from California Dems or their Governor, due to the fact that they dont want people to know that enacting their climate change policy is going to cause this. https://www.wsj.com/articles/rising-california-gasoline-prices-highlight-growing-divide-in-u-s-11571832001?mod=hp_lead_pos5 |
|
|
|
Pretty interesting stuff here, seems like we're seeing some backtrack from people in the NBA as an attempt to 'kiss and make up' with China in order to get 'good' relations back with China. I don't see how a US company, the NBA, feels as if this is so much of a threat that they're willing to let look the other way on people getting LITERALLY killed in the streets due to fighting for their freedom. But if you read a little bit more, you find the reason into why he did this. James has a lifetime endorsement deal with Nike, and China is the biggest source of growth for shoe companies. Nike recently announced its plans to release an apparel line based on the motto of James’s media company: “More Than an Athlete.” Check it out: https://www.wsj.com/articles/lebron-james-says-tweet-supporting-hong-kong-protests-was-misinformed-11571107697?mod=hp_lead_pos9 |
|
|
|
New poll just came out from WSJ/NBC stating that there is a majority of Americans who support an impeachment inquiry starting into Trump. Though there is no majority present for removing the President from office. This is a very unique position to be in. Lets go back in history to look at Nixon.By the time that the house had started an impeachment inquiry into Nixon, he had already had horrible approval ratings and about 40 percent of Americans supported removing him from office. Nixon didn't even have the support of his own party. Look at Clinton. Clinton had great approval ratings, 68 percent of Americans supported him at this point and only 28 percent of Americans supported removing him from office at the start of his inquiry. Clinton had about 40-50 percent of Republicans approving of him. Trump is somewhere between these two in terms of impeachment. And an extreme on his approval rating. His approval rating his between these two -- but Trump has most of his support from Republicans (80-90 percent support of Republicans) and 30-40 percent support from Independents and pretty much no support among Democrats. Looking at history may not even help us here, as we're truly in an area we've never seen before. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-is-in-a-unique-position-amid-impeachment-11570626125?mod=hp_lead_pos6 |
|
|
|
|
Ah -- you've heard it right. Hillary is saying that she might run again for the Presidency. After Trump had stated that Clinton should run again, she slapped back with "Don't Temp me. Do your job"
What a great timeline, this lady actually wants to run for president again and she MIGHT! Talk about an easy 2020 if she was to actually do something like this.
What an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
People forget in this entire Trump-Ukraine scandal that there is a person that is being left out of all investigations relating the topic. JOE BIDEN
Joe Biden is the point man for the Obama administration on all things Ukraine. He deals with everything going in and out of the WH regarding Ukraine.
Well at the same time as this, Joe Biden son, Hunter Biden, has received a job from a Ukrainian oil company who is under the scrutiny of Ukrainian prosecutors. Hunter Biden has no history in the oil industry, though I don't think this is something to be looked at weirdly -- as picking people to be apart of your corporate board simply based on their name is something that is pretty common in corporate America. Though that's where the issue lies, picking Hunter Biden is picking someone simply because of the fact that he's a Biden and you're trying to ride off the coattails of the Biden name.
But that's exactly what happens -- a prosecutor is fired under the direct order of Joe Biden (who had also threatened to withhold foreign aid from Ukraine) that had been investigating the company that Biden had been working for.
So yeah -- the real story in my head here is the fact that at worst Biden had abused his position as the point man for foreign relations in Ukraine to directly benefit his family. And at worst, Biden had a clear conflict of interest that he failed to bring to the attention of the WH and the American people. Biden without a doubt shouldn't have been involved in these negotiations with Ukraine if he has this clear conflict of interest involving his SON.
|
|
|
|
|
In every single past impeachment inquiry, the full house has put it to a vote on if the inquiry should even exist. Nixon and Clinton both went through this, and both impeachment inquiry passed through the full house by a majority vote. Pelosi has the majority -- why won't she put this to a vote to see where people are and if they're willing to go through with this, instead of just using this as a PR and media machine to hurt the President.
She's now saying that she supports an official inquiry, but nothing is changing in terms of committees and what exactly is going on.
If she trusts that this process is going to work out -- either with the President being impeached by the House, and then being found guilty later on in the Senate -- or this leading to the President losing in 2020 -- then she would put this to a vote for the full house.
Until she does that though, we know that she's just using this for short term gain.
|
|
|
|
WSJ has finally come out with something that all of us already knew. Amazon has been rigging their search algorithms to benefit their own products. This isn't surprising, and it's something that most (if not all of us) have already noted is happening. Though now we know to the degree that it actually happens. So here we go. If you are to search for something along the lines of 'mens button down shirts' or 'paper towels' a large amount of the products that will be shown to you are products that are owned by Amazon through a private label brand. That's not something that is shown to you, as they are displayed alongside the likes of other brands. All of this is happening while the EU is currently looking into this very issue, and they're seeing if there is anything wrong with a company owning a marketplace and selling products on that very marketplace . I'm assuming they're looking at this under an antitrust lens, as Amazon also controls about 37 percent of all online sales. Here is the WSJ article as well - https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-changed-search-algorithm-in-ways-that-boost-its-own-products-11568645345?mod=hp_lead_pos5 |
|
|
|
|
Breaking news which came out a couple of hours ago.
John Bolton, Trumps National Security Advisor, has been fired by Trump. Bolton is known for being a hawk and supporting regime change in Iran, North Korea, etc. Bolton had feuded with many in the administration on many occassions, including President Trump, Sec of State Mike Pompeo, and so on and so forth.
Would love to hear what people think about this firing, as this really did come out of left field.
|
|
|
|
Across the country parents are asking districts for metrics showing how large investments in tech for education are helping educate. You'd think that the disruptive nature of tech would be able to help kids learn faster. But researchers are showing that's not the case, as researchers from the Rand corp have said this: Researchers at Rand Corp. and elsewhere say there is no clear evidence showing which new tech-related education offerings or approaches work in schools. Obviously there are certain things that help kids. Such as certain pieces of tech (which are old now, and not what the article is talking about) such as powerpoint, presentations, videos, interactive question answering through something like kahoot, and so on and so forth. But the 'new tech' for children is removing a pen and paper from the classroom, opting for everything to be digital and showing no real benefit. The only people who are benefiting is the tech sector, who are sponsoring massive amounts of these initiatives and advocating for more and more districts to join in. I'd (alongside parents of the children in these articles) would rather see a mixed experience. Allowing pen and paper in classes that require it (such as math, science, etc) and a computer where it fits (maybe history, english, etc) But even that is an issue, as I don't think every child learn the same and they should be given the choice in the way that they're going to be learning material. https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-a-school-district-where-technology-rules-grades-fall-parents-ask-why-11567523719?mod=hp_lead_pos4 |
|
|
|
|
Don't know if anyone knows the story of SafeDice and why it went down.
SafeDie was a pretty solid site, low house edge and allowed people to invest in their bankroll. But it seems like the owner either went through an exit scam, or dissapeared fully and there is no way for people with money on the site to withdraw from it.
Anyone here have a real good story on what happened here? As I used to play SafeDice a pretty large amount.
|
|
|
|
People who love the idea of socialism love to tout that Sweden is the best place in the world, and that it is what the USA should be. Bernie in particular echoes these statements, but these people fail to notice one key thing about Sweden -- it has RUTHLESS capitalism embedded in its nation to be able to support their massive entitlement programs. Sweden isn't a nation that has what some call "warm, fuzzy, friendly capitalism" where people aren't fired (or laid off) and old companies are protected. This simply isn't the case in the least. Sweden is a nation with much larger taxes on the poor and the middle class, and they feature non-progressive taxes on consumption, social security, and payroll taxes (which make up a much larger percentage of GDP for Sweden. Sweden literally almost destroyed itself with JUST SOCIALIST policies. But they saved themselves from large scale issues by embracing large scale ruthless capitalism, with low taxes on companies and incentiving companies to come to Sweden. https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-bernie-sanders-is-wrong-about-sweden-11566596536 |
|
|
|
Random information out of left field, but I don't think the White House has commented on it. Trump is thinking about purchasing Greenland. He's been floating the idea with WH legal counsel, and different aides in the WH to see if this is something he can do. Unknown on if he is really seriousness about this, but it's something that has without a doubt been talked about. Unknown on why: Past the fact that Greenland has a large amount of natural resources, but I can't see something like this actually coming to fruition. I'd love to see what people think about this. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-eyes-a-new-real-estate-purchase-greenland-11565904223 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
