Joe Biden on Twitter: "Social norms are changing. I understand that, and I’ve heard what these women are saying. Politics to me has always been about making connections, but I will be more mindful about respecting personal space in the future. That’s my responsibility and I will meet it."
twitter.com/JoeBid...
Well there's really only one group in Democratic politics right now dedicated to tearing down other Democrats and that's Bernie Sanders supporters.
Also in this same f*ing thread you said, "The problem with Beto and other young candidates is that they are preaching old ideologies." How is this anything other than divisive ? You're calling for unity but only if the nominee is Bernie, which makes you a hypocrite.
the thing is plenty of Sanders supporters aren't democrats at all and don't like democrats at all...kind of like how Sanders himself wasn't a democrat for decades, still isn't really, and is just a democratic candidate out of convenience
many if not most of the more fanatical Sanders supporters are far left and dislike or even hate democrats as evil "centrists" or "neoliberals." there's a reason they voted for Trump en masse or stayed home rather than vote for Hilary Clinton, despite Sanders endorsing and campaigning for Clinton. they are populists and ideological purists who in many ways have more in common with Trump supporters than with any democrats
Is it really that green if it's a byproduct of oil refining? We're a long way from using solar power for hydrolysis to create H2
Electric cars aren’t green either if their power comes from coal power plants, which it unfortunately would in much of the world
Doesn’t mean you don’t develop electric cars, you develop them and people switch from coal to green power generation in the meantime. Same with hydrogen.
What we already have (mostly) built up is electrical grids all over. We don't have any hydrogen infrastructure, which would need to be built from scratch. In a country the size and density of Japan (or South Korea for that matter, looking at you Kia and Hyundai) building out the required hydrogen infrastructure is not nearly as big of a deal as in the US.
They’re not mutually exclusive. The market will determine which technology is best for which countries.
Electrical grids exist but that doesn’t mean that switching the 30-80% of most power grids that come from fossil fuels isn’t a massive undertaking. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done either.
Load more comments
ugh. starcraft II mechanics are far worse than brood war. there's a reason the brood war competitive scene is still stronger than SCII despite it being like 12 years older.
Outside of Korea BW is virtually dead as an esport.
Outside of Korea every Starcraft game is dead as an e sport
Load more comments
Everyone cheering thinking a F2P developer that has a history of stealth nerfs has their interests at heart like lol y’all have some serious Stockholm syndrome.
Eh, when they nerfed Jet RP requirements it was legit. That’s why I have like 10 jets now and not the two jets I had back from when every single jet was like 300k RP plus
I’m a pretty cynical and jaded SOB but this sub is too much even for me. Plenty of people in here need to take a break from the game for a bit, playing the same game for thousands of hours and years on end nonstop will make people hate any game
They seem to have stopped posting growth numbers so it has either stalled out or is decreasing. They also recently mentioned that more than half of their active players play in Creative Mode which seems like a bad thing for the game overall since the pool of players that will play the actual BR mode seems to be shrinking.
yeah...not growing is not the same as dying lol. they've just saturated the market. it's like how iphone sales decrease when apple has already sold one to everyone on the planet.
It will. But Fortnite is drying up kind of fast. The EGS store was a rushed job (That's why a fucking "shopping cart" feature is on their long term 6+ month plan) to try and get revenue from other sources since Fortnite money is shrinking on the daily.
i'd love for fortnite to die as fast as fidget spinners did but I don't know if there is any evidence of that actually happening
Apex might have drained some of the demographic but it seems like Apex will die faster than fortnite if anything
Operation S.U.F.F.E.R 2: Electric Gaijaloo
people bash the IS-7 event but it was great, I made like $100 gaijin bucks from killing noobs with a M22. was hilarious and super fun. also got the pakwagen out of it. one of the easiest and most fun events gaijin has ever run, with great rewards.
now i can buy premium helicopters, ships, tanks, whatever I want and not pay anything for it. I'd kill noobs in a M22 for free GE any day.
You've not seen socialists espouse nationalization, or worker-run enterprises? I would submit that you haven't really paid much attention to them. Granted, anybody can call himself a socialist, but from where I'm standing, historically the core of socialism is, to quote Chomsky, "those who work in the mills should own them." Transferability of that ownership is a more complicated question - I'm articulating a general principle here, and a goal, not a hard policy proposal - as it's kind of like selling your retirement package or EI contributions. Some of it you can sell, some of it you can't.
I put off answering your post because you asked a lot of questions, complicated questions, not all of which are really relevant to this discussion. But I'll do my best here.
Nationalization is a policy instrument available to governments. Governments can buy up a company and compensate the owners, or they can simply create such a company. This is where crown corporations come from. Canada has had a few of those in our history, created by both left- and right-wing governments alike. Since the advent of neoliberalism and the widespread belief that government can't run anything even if it's competing against the private sector, this has become less popular. The real reason it's become less popular is because we are signatory to treaties that make it virtually impossible to nationalize industries anymore. Under NAFTA, if we want to buy up a company and turn it into a crown corporation, we have to compensate the owners for not only what the enterprise is worth, but also all possible future profits that we are depriving them of. This makes nationalization functionally impossible - which was the point, all along. That's why these "free trade agreements" are really corporate/investor rights agreements. They commit us to a particular kind of globalized, laissez-faire capitalism. There are other kinds of capitalism, which have had varying degrees of success.
This is also the reason why Jeremy Corbyn, unlike, it seems, most of his party, wants Britain to leave the EU. Common market means harmonization, means tying the hands of governments, means the banks and corporations are the ones running the show.
Anyway, if we are able to untie our hands and nationalize a company, one thing we could do is turn it over to the employees. There are lots of ways this could be done. We could gift it, sell it, it could be a trust, etc. Or it could just be a crown corporation. Or there are many other options. I'm saying that all of these would be better than either letting this company get away with breaking the law whenever it wants to, or letting it take jobs and assets out of the country.
Your opinions are just...bizarre and contradictory.
You say you're in favour of free trade, ok that's simple enough, most of the world outside of North Korea is.
But then you think companies shouldn't be able to enter or leave countries at will. Uh...what kind of "free" trade did you have in mind, exactly? If IKEA wants to expand into Canada you tell them "oh, by the way, once you're in you have to do exactly what we want, and you can never leave, or we'll just nationalize you and take all your stuff." Yeah, I'm sure that kind of attitude would result in business just flocking to Canada!
Same with shareholders/investors. Shareholders are investors. They invest capital into a business. That's why they own part of the business they invested in. But you think "investors should have no rights." Which is generally a socialist/anarchist kind of idea, they don't like shareholders and think employees should own businesses rather than shareholders. Don't ask me who would invest capital into the companies at that point, that crowd generally doesn't like any questions regarding the evil "capital." Or how the company even comes to employ anyone to begin with without startup capital coming from someone.
Of course states are sovereign and can nationalize whenever they want. But it's a tool, like eminent domain, that should be used sparingly because if you use it excessively you will destroy the economy and nobody will want anything to do with your country economically. So if you nationalize any company that wants to "take jobs and assets out of the country", the inevitable result will be that no company will ever want to put jobs and assets INTO your country. Because you're apparently an unstable, unpredictable banana republic at that point. It's like a company setting up shop in Venezuela for the last few years, good luck with that.
Anyway, as you're probably also aware, Jeremy Corbyn is a pretty textbook socialist. So the fact that he's in favour of socialist policies is...unsurprising lol.
Shows how much you know. I thought the narrative is they'd have to cut jobs, and your talking about how the company would go under.
Here's a thought, if they go under tough shit - don't be criminals. Part of the DPA conditions is that economic factors can't be considered.
Yes, it does show how much I know: significantly more than you. Not that that’s saying much. Oh and it’s “you’re” in that context. If you’re going to be a condescending twat and imply you know more than others it helps to have a grade school command of the language.
Anyway, thanks for wasting our time with your completely uninformed and therefore worthless opinion on this subject.
Load more comments
The addictiveness of all drugs, soft and hard, have been dramatically overstated by the DEA for the same reason every bureaucracy overstates the problem it has been tasked with combating. Heroin exists. It's not going anywhere. So either you have regulated industries selling it (like with nicotine) or you have people who settle disputes by slitting the throats of their competitors and their children. I know which one I'd pick.
the addictiveness of nicotine/ tobacco doesn't seem like a myth created by some DEA conspiracy. I doubt it would still have a good 10-20% of the global population addicted to it and cause so many untimely deaths if it was.
My policy with nicotine is to prohibitively tax and regulate it to slowly squeeze people out of the addiction. doing that increases demand for a black market that isn't taxed or regulated at all, which you have to pay to police stringently, but I don't see an acceptable alternative. people are always going to try to sell untaxed, unregulated and unsafe heroin/nicotine/alcohol/whatever for much cheaper than you could ever sell the legit stuff. so unless you're proposing 100% government subsidized cigarettes, booze and whatever other drugs to all who want them I don't see a perfect solution. and I also don't think the government paying for the habit of every alcoholic is a good thing.
When you compare popular understandings of political ideologies with their “exceedingly pedantic” definitions I think you’ll start to see exactly how flawed your position is here.
See also: neoliberalism, socialism. In the hands of people who aren’t those things, those ideologies are frequently characterized as “rich people running everything” and “government takes my money and does stuff with it” respectively and their names are used as little more than slurs.
You should ask people who they are, not who someone else is.
I'm comparing the popular understanding of both, though. The popular understanding of libertarianism is very different from the technical definition. Which is why in practice neoliberals and 99% of self-described "libertarians" oppose each other on almost every policy point.
Load more comments
