|
I don't see this is as big of a problem as it actually is.
The union had negotiated on the workers behalf for a $15 wage per hour -- some of the staffers had been salary workers, but they had still been getting paid above that number if it was calculated. The only problem was that when this was calculated they weren't working as many hours.
Now that the Sanders campaign is in full swing and people are working tons and tons of hours they may be earning less than the $15 minimum that they wanted. This is sometimes the case in other jobs when you take on a salary position, as you're paid for your year and not per hour.
|
|
|
|
Revive? It would be great if its effects can be neutralized or at least mitigated but I'd rather have it replaced by far more renewable or efficient energy sources. Coal is still a pretty horrible industry to have around, the amount of emissions is immense for the energy provided. Though we can't just write coal off though, as a large part of our nation (and the world) still relies on coal as their main fuel source.
There are some people that are obviously going to be angry about losing these jobs though, as this is their life.
There are much better fuel sources (emissions wise) such as natural gas, oil, and then nuclear, solar, hydropower, etc.
I agree. Many countries are still reliant on coal. The industrialization of China would have been impossible without using it. I'm under the impression that second to it is nuclear, low emissions and I think a small amount goes a long way. Only drawback is the waste produced but if that can be dealt with, I think countries where it is safe to build these plants should and sell the electricity to other. I guess when we finally have superconductors every country can just link up into one grid where each shares what they are best at producing. The best option we have at the moment is without a doubt nuclear, people have to stop being so scared about it and stop worrying about some of the issues of the past --> People latch onto events that rarely happen (such as Chernobyl) and only happen due to horrid HORRID management. In our current age, with the right regulations in place -- a good mixture of nuclear, solar, and wind is going to be able to change the world. Though even with this mixture, I don't think it's fair to ban coal or oil or gas -- allow them to compete to bring the best product to the forefront. |
|
|
|
|
Coal is still a pretty horrible industry to have around, the amount of emissions is immense for the energy provided. Though we can't just write coal off though, as a large part of our nation (and the world) still relies on coal as their main fuel source.
There are some people that are obviously going to be angry about losing these jobs though, as this is their life.
There are much better fuel sources (emissions wise) such as natural gas, oil, and then nuclear, solar, hydropower, etc.
|
|
|
|
Iran may have the ability to cause some issues with global trade, but the North Koreans have the ability to literally destroy a certain city in the world just by sending off their nuclear bomb.
The only reaction of North Korea bombing Seoul with a Nuke is war, and China would be unlikely to support NK if they did this. The same is true if chemical weapons were used. Once a North Korean bomb hits South Korea, there is no possibility of deescalating the situation. With the Iran situation, War with Iran is one option, however this is not the only option as countries can decide to remove sanctions against Iran to get Iran to stop disrupting trade. Iran is engaging in behavior that can provoke war, but the reaction to which does not have to be war. Your stupid cunt of a president pulled out of the agreement that was keeping Iran from getting Nukes... The 'Iran Agreement' did nothing to stop Iran from getting Nukes as the agreement had no real "teeth" nor did it allow for inspectors to independently confirm compliance. It also gave the Iran government a lot of money to continue both financing terrorism and their Nuclear weapons program. Yes, and the North Korean government knows this is the case. If they are to use a nuke on anyone in the world -- they're going to be decimated beyond belief. We're not just going to sit around and let them nuke the world just to 'keep the peace' at that point -- as they've now opened pandoras box. The current North Korean government is the best thing that they currently have other their without causing a humanitarian crisis of people fleeing everywhere. If the US knew there was a 'better' government to ensure this wasn't the case Kim Jong Un wouldn't be in power right now. Agree with everything you've said about the Iran agreement. |
|
|
|
Good to see that you're making a few bucks out of this whole thing. I'd include a message here that there are referral links on here and that the owner is making money out of this whole thing. Not saying that is compromising the list or anything, but it nice to leave a note of that in this post to ensure that people know that information before they bet on a site that is 'reviewed' and also paid for (in a way) In fact, we do not demand payment from sportsbooks for placement in our rating. Not saying that you do, just mentioning that you're making some money out of it due to the referral links for the sites. Wouldn't it be nice to mention that to the people? Just for a little transparency. |
|
|
|
Personally I think this is just "creating pressure" on Great Britain to release their tanker at Gibraltar, nothing else. President Trump had already launched an attack on Iran and abandoned the attack so the Iranians are probably feeling secure and self-confident now, without fear that someone will actually attack them. This is just a new kind of game in this long and complicated conflict over Iran and their uranium enrichment. I don't know, I think this might be Iran showing what they're willing to do (in terms of disrupting world trade and affairs) in order to get a deal from the United States in terms of removing their sanctions and getting another nuclear deal. Iran is in dangerous waters though, as the Trump administration doesn't like the current regime (nor do many in the world) due to the current Iranian regime supporting terrorism around the world. We'll see what comes out of this though. A game of brinksmanship with a fundamentally stupid player like Iran certainly can go wrong. Obviously this isn't something that's going to turn out 'well' But we all shouldn't think the only other pathway to 'no nukes' is WAR. Cause that simply isn't the case. The other way shouldn't be bending the knee and letting them take advantage of us as well. We should be stern to the Iranians, we shouldn't allow them to continue to support terrorism and instability around the world. We must strike a balance of keeping them at bay, while still allowing them to thrive as a country. We've found out the hard way that attempting to nation build isn't going to work as well. And economic development is the best way to ensure that a country doesn't hate the US. |
|
|
|
Real diplomatic, referring to the US president (the leader of the free world) as a 'stupid cunt of a President' I don't need to be diplomatic I'm not negotiating with your stupid cunt of a president. Grow a set, Trump calls everyone and their brother names yet I am supposed to be diplomatic, ya typical right winger wants it both fucking ways... Right wing talking point drivel... It was the best fucking deal on the table, you do know Iran had enough enriched Uranium to make approx 8-10 NUCLEAR BOMBS and gave it all up when the deal was signed right? That means we GOT NUKES out of the hands of what you refer to as a terrorist regime for at least 10+ years. Now that the pussy grabber has pulled out of the deal the "terrorist regime" is back on the track to getting their NUKES. What happens if some radicals get a hold of an Iranian NUKE... Do you think they use it or threaten to use it on the "Zionist State" of Israel, or shove it up SA's asshole it was a way for Obama to say he had won an American deal on foreign policy.
Ironically some people think that keeping the "terrorist regime" from acquiring NUKES is an actual win on foreign policy. You do know that it was the US that gave Iran its first Nuclear technology the first time it pulled a regime change in Iran right?  You would still expect that there is a way to debate the policy of a President instead of calling him this name and that name. Disregarding what he does and says there is still a way to talk about him in a fair way. I don't see the reason that a sitting admin / moderator of this forum has to drop names whenever you're arguing. For fucks sake act like an adult. That was the not the best deal on the table in the least, as Iran was still able to enrich uranium (just under a set number), and pratically everything under this agreement was going to sunset in 10 years anyway. This plan was shit, and it was just kicking the can 10 years down the line when Iran was going to be able to do this all over again. We fix the problem now, and we don't have this issue anymore. |
|
|
|
Personally I think this is just "creating pressure" on Great Britain to release their tanker at Gibraltar, nothing else. President Trump had already launched an attack on Iran and abandoned the attack so the Iranians are probably feeling secure and self-confident now, without fear that someone will actually attack them. This is just a new kind of game in this long and complicated conflict over Iran and their uranium enrichment. I don't know, I think this might be Iran showing what they're willing to do (in terms of disrupting world trade and affairs) in order to get a deal from the United States in terms of removing their sanctions and getting another nuclear deal. Iran is in dangerous waters though, as the Trump administration doesn't like the current regime (nor do many in the world) due to the current Iranian regime supporting terrorism around the world. We'll see what comes out of this though. |
|
|
|
|
What?
Do you truly think that Trump actually does care about BItcoin in the least? The answer to this question is NO, I doubt even he truly knows what Bitcoin is. Trump wanted to attach Facebook and Libra, and used Bitcoin as a way to do this.
If anyone is to care about Crypto it's going to be the federal regulators, instead of Trump himself -- and the IRS/SEC doesn't seem to think that BTC must be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
Not trying to rush you or anything buddy, just wanted to know if we'd be getting an update at some point?
Even a ballpark percentage is fine for BTC/BCH or whatever is easiest for you. Just like to see if this would be worth it to get involved in!
|
|
|
|
|
Probably not, I doubt the guy even truly cares about Bitcoin. It doesn't really affect him, so it doesn't really matter to him.
Him attacking Bitcoin was a way to attack Facebooks Libra, who he hates very much. We may get some more people in the blockchain/crypto space due to Trump talking about it though, as he does have a very large audience.
|
|
|
|
|
I think there's this thing that people forget about traditional wars and wars of today, and to truly understand this sort of thing you have to understand the interdependence of nations due to our new global trading / financial world.
If a war is to start in this world right now -- instead of trying to blow up factories, roads and so on and so forth --> The stronger government with more connections and more power is able to sanction the hell out of you, and then they cut off your access to goods, financial instruments, and so on and so forth.
War has changed.
|
|
|
|
Iran is different, Iran has people that can takeover.
And this is why the rest of the world calls you guys the worlds police and surprise surprise some countries get a little touchy when you all want to police their shit.... Regime change has been such a resounding success for the US historically, I mean especially in the middle east...(/s) Your stupid cunt of a president pulled out of the agreement that was keeping Iran from getting Nukes... But don't worry if Bolton, Pompeo and you get your way their will be a regime change at the cost of thousands upon thousands of lives, and then in a decade or 2 they will be the new enemy and you can do it all over again!!!!!! Imagine how many trillions of USD in profit the military industrial complex is making though eh!!!!!!! So what you're doing is attacking me based on something that is true - Iran can (and should) go through regime change. They're a power that has been supporting terrorism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism) for a long time. Real diplomatic, referring to the US president (the leader of the free world) as a 'stupid cunt of a President' -- Even disregarding that for a second, the Iran deal was shit ( https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-nuclear-deal-flawed/559595/) and it was a way for Obama to say he had won an American deal on foreign policy. I do think there should be regime change in Iran, I don't think the US should do nation-building though -- just remove that regime from power and allow for them to pick a new leader. |
|
|
|
This question should be rephrased to: Should the Federal Government overreach on its powers and force the local governments to collect fewer taxes to be able to run properly.
The local governments should have the control to operate with property taxes, like schools and police forces and so on and so forth rely on property taxes in order to operate. You can't just remove a program like this because you hate taxes.
Maybe have people under a certain income level be exempt from property taxes if they have already purchased their house? Also charge more for people that own more than one house. Some portions of this are already in place. 1. Certain states allow for homestead exemptions meaning you’ll have lower taxes on your first and primary residence. 2. Exempting people under a certain income level isn’t fair, as poor and the rich use the public services from localities to the same degree. Why make this a progressive system? |
|
|
|
If Iran had been successful in seizing the ship, we would be much closer to war with Iran.
I suspect this will eventually lead to Iran escalating the situation in one way or another by making it more dangerous. for ships to travel through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran's goal is to make this passage way unsafe to travel through to get the West to remove sanctions against Iran. If they cannot use their Navy to do this, they may resort to surface-to-surface missiles to attack civilian commercial ships traveling through the Straight; this would clearly provoke conflict.
I don't think it is very likely to see the year ending without some kind of military action against Iran.
I fully understand what they’re trying to do. But I think they’re overplaying their hand here. They don't have much of a hand, and are trying to make the most out of what they have. If Iran can survive over the long term, they need to get sanctions lifted. Their actions is getting the attention of the international community, but not in a way such that is provoking enough fear to be willing to lift sanctions. The risk is they will escalate to more hostile actions that results in a war. They’re comparing themselves a little too much to the North Koreans, and they think they can get the same negotiations and deal with their sanctions. The only reason North Korea may get that deal is because theres no other power in North Korea that the US wants to take over and can see bringing peace.
North Korea does not have the ability to disrupt important trade the same way Iran does. I would say Iran actually has a better chance to get sanctions lifted without a complete Nuclear ban + inspections to verify because of their proximity to the Strait of Hormuz. Technically speaking, there are not any real negotiations going on with North Korea; my understanding is the US is unwilling to budge as to what it is asking for in exchange for lifting any sanctions, that is the complete, verifiable denuclearation that cannot be reversed in North Korea. The US may be willing to discuss what else it will do besides lifting sanctions after the above happens. Iran may have the ability to cause some issues with global trade, but the North Koreans have the ability to literally destroy a certain city in the world just by sending off their nuclear bomb. World trade disruptions mean nothing compared to nuclear weapons. You have to understand that. |
|
|
|
|
Everyone here knows that Trump really doesn't care about Bitcoin, he was using Bitcoin as a means to attach Facebooks coin Libra -- he doesn't like Facebook, and wants to see them perish.
But yes, I will (and I think most in the crypto community) will agree that Trump did do us a service by showing millions of people out there BITCOIN (and other cryptos) -- that could be enough to get some people to check us out and maybe they'll like it.
|
|
|
|
Breaking news: Justice Stevens, age 99 has passed at a hospital in Fort Lauderdale, Florida after complications with a stroke. He's without a doubt left a lasting impact on the law and the justice system as a whole, here's a quote from the WSJ showing this But in his impact on American life, few jurists could match Justice Stevens’s legacy, which stretched from the living room—he wrote the decision establishing the consumer’s right to record television programs—to the frontiers of presidential power, including two seminal opinions curbing George W. Bush administration claims that it could imprison and punish detainees at Guantanamo Bay without congressional authorization or judicial oversight. |
|
|
|
Thanks for this, going to be using it now. Anychance anyone has a shortlist on what boards to ignore? Might make creating my list a tad easier. |
|
|
|
|
The Turkish president was almost overthrown, and the West almost had their darling takeover the country who would be more pro western to the world. That didn't happen though, and Turkey was still being cut off from international weapon sales.
Obviously, this vacuum of international power allowed for Russia to butt in and strengthen his relationship with Russia.
I doubt anything will really happen though, in relation to global peace, as if President Trump (and the rest of the EU) says that they're going to sanction Turkey relating to this and kick them out of NATO he's going to cave to their demands as he must.
We'll see I guess.
|
|
|
|
I think this has been suggested before, quite a while ago, but I can't remember if the idea got a warm reception or not. My opinion is that it's a good one, because I have an extensive ignore list and at one point it had gotten so annoying to see those grayed-out threads that I started putting entire sections on ignore. I think being able to not see posts or threads by ignored members ought to be an option. I'm sure some folks don't want something like that to be the standard, but a choice would be nice. But for some of the people on my ignore list, they post so much garbage all the time that even seeing that little portion of the information is annoying as my page is filled with that.
This is why I put Bitcoin Discussion on ignore, because there were so many spam threads being started by members on my ignore list, and I couldn't even keep up with adding new members to the list. There are so many spammers and alt accounts of same that Bitcoin Discussion is like a snakepit. Altcoin Discussion is probably even worse. As a side question now: How do you put an entire area like Bitcoin Discussion on ignore? Would love to see Theymos or one of the mods/admins come here and comment on if this is possible. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
