|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I like how the media keeps a distraction on Trump constantly. He's very vulnerable to it. It's only fitting for the Birther President.
The Russia "cloud" is growing over President Donald Trump and threatening to wreck another week for the embattled White House as one of his closest allies tries to avoid a public spectacle on Capitol Hill.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions' announcement that he would testify before Senate Russia investigators caught everyone -- including the intelligence committee -- by surprise. Now, before he even testifies, the focus is both on Sessions and whether or not he would appear before the TV cameras like former FBI Director James Comey did last week, when 19.5 million Americans watched.
...
The White House is hoping this week to drive a message focused on his agenda. His daughter and top adviser, Ivanka Trump, is leading events focused on workforce development and college affordability.
But Russia -- and Trump's own tweeting -- threaten to swallow that effort whole, much like last week's largely forgotten "Infrastructure Week." In addition to Sessions' possible testimony, the question remains whether or not Trump taped his conversations with Comey.
CNN
|
On June 12 2017 23:06 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
the fact that russian fake news outlets tweet bullshit stories at Trump in hopes he will swallow the bait seems surreal.
You should read about targeted phishing attacks if you want to really scare yourself. They get to the point that they start monitoring the work schedules of employees, especially the IT department. They will send phishing emails to specific people and at specific times when they know the office/employee is busy. Phishing, when combined with traditional espionage, seems terrifying.
|
On June 12 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 20:46 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On June 12 2017 20:07 Gahlo wrote:On June 12 2017 11:06 Plansix wrote:
Can puerto-rico even sustaine an economy that can support a US standard of living on its own? Tourism only goes so far. Tax breaks seems like the only way it could create a non tourism economy. Does the US even support it's own standard of living? Of course not. That's why there are a bunch of angry people. The minimum wage is enough to barely get by on if you work your ass off and take every bit of overtime and get as many part-time jobs as possible, but it's not nearly enough to live on. Those people are stuck in those jobs, and are forced to put their children into situations that lead to the same life that they had; upward mobility is impossible because the children of those workers are funneled into garbage public school systems and are essentially trained to accept what their parents got as an okay standard of living. You mean a minority of minimum wage earners get trapped in those jobs and don't just use them as their first job. It should be clear from the proportion of very young people in those jobs that take them and how few are making minimum wage a year later. Talk about corporate welfare and the minority that feel stuck, but don't be absurd about "those people are stuck" and "upward mobility is impossible" unless you're personally a politician running for office. We know from Trump that liars are tolerated.
This would make more sense if it were not provable that the average minimum wage worker is somewhere between 28 and 31 years old (it fluctuates so its hard to pin down but it is between those numbers). Now there are a large segment of young people who work for minimum wage, but even that amount can not push down the average enough to make your argument make sense. Unless you want to argue that someones first job is at 28 it is clear that there is a sizable segment of the population trapped in minimum wage work and in many cases when this is all you have you end up being trapped by the safety net rather then elevated by it.
|
also worth pointing out - there are plenty of people who technically don't make "minimum wage", but given the cost of living in certain places they might as well be.
|
On June 12 2017 23:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 23:06 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
the fact that russian fake news outlets tweet bullshit stories at Trump in hopes he will swallow the bait seems surreal. You should read about targeted phishing attacks if you want to really scare yourself. They get to the point that they start monitoring the work schedules of employees, especially the IT department. They will send phishing emails to specific people and at specific times when they know the office/employee is busy. Phishing, when combined with traditional espionage, seems terrifying.
I had this discussion with my boss who was hung up on the DNC hack and talking about phishing.
My position on it was that phishing is almost 100% guaranteed. It's happened at our moderately small, ~200 person software company - people who are familiar with tech and are frequently educated on phishing.
Phishers only need 1 to work; and given enough attempts, it's easy to see why it works. And as you said, they can get super targeted with it if they know specific vulnerabilities. Infosec will always lose and lag behind simply because it's impossible to anticipate the next move.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Watts' testimony is hilarious in how freely it mixes actual Russian work (the leaks being by far the most significant), straight up bullshit like the Eichenwald narrative, and domestic fake news like birtherism.
The reason anything "worked" is because the environment was utterly toxic to begin with, such that an actual leak of moderately incriminating emails was able to start a chain reaction in public opinion. But it was less so a thorough and complete influence campaign as much as seeing a growing fire and just quietly pouring a canister of gas on the top, then letting the flames do the work for you.
|
Watt’s point was that if the political rhetoric remains this polarized, it will happen again and again. This isn’t a onetime thing. That Russia doesn’t’ really care who wins the election, so long as the voters are pissed off and think the election was rigged.
|
United States42927 Posts
On June 12 2017 23:35 ticklishmusic wrote:
also worth pointing out - there are plenty of people who technically don't make "minimum wage", but given the cost of living in certain places they might as well be.
Or just get paid slightly above minimum wage. McDonalds doesn't pay minimum wage for example. Crew members get various training certificates and the pay is a calculated through a combination of the number of those and the time served. It's still crazy low though.
If you ask the right crowd you'll very often hear the story of a parent bringing home the free work lunch to be divided up for dinner between siblings while the parent insists they're not hungry. People can't live on that kind of pay, and not for lack of trying.
|
I wish I could get any twitter video to work. Is there a mirror?
|
On June 12 2017 23:35 ticklishmusic wrote:
also worth pointing out - there are plenty of people who technically don't make "minimum wage", but given the cost of living in certain places they might as well be.
This is full of weird cases though, such as Portland/Seattle/SF. In Portland, someone would need to be making about $25/hr to pay for a studio. I do not support Portland having a $25 minimum wage. I support people not necessarily working in the city they live in. I see improved public transport as the solution to this.
|
You should support affordable housing and anti-gentrification efforts as well then.
|
On June 12 2017 23:56 Plansix wrote:
Watt’s point was that if the political rhetoric remains this polarized, it will happen again and again. This isn’t a onetime thing. That Russia doesn’t’ really care who wins the election, so long as the voters are pissed off and think the election was rigged.
While fascinating from a social studies perspective, the perpetual "us vs. them" that partisan voters and politicians create is exhausting. And now seems it's been used against us. People have turned on each other and are no longer united, to the point that people in one party blindly accuse the other party of not even being American.That's even sadder than having Trump in office.
|
On June 12 2017 23:43 LegalLord wrote:
Watts' testimony is hilarious in how freely it mixes actual Russian work (the leaks being by far the most significant), straight up bullshit like the Eichenwald narrative, and domestic fake news like birtherism.
The reason anything "worked" is because the environment was utterly toxic to begin with, such that an actual leak of moderately incriminating emails was able to start a chain reaction in public opinion. But it was less so a thorough and complete influence campaign as much as seeing a growing fire and just quietly pouring a canister of gas on the top, then letting the flames do the work for you.
What we don't know is how much Russia contributed to individually targeted ads, leveraging social media data and AI to do so, similar to Mercer's Cambridge Analytica/SCL Group. That amounts to turning warfare-tested psyops onto the US electorate.
|
On June 13 2017 00:04 farvacola wrote:
You should support affordable housing and anti-gentrification efforts as well then.
Absolutely not. I do not even slightly support anti-gentrification. Trying to force an area to not have increased market value is counter productive and has no long term goal. We don't gain anything by artificially allowing poor people to have some designated population density. They don't need to live in Portland when there are nearby areas they could otherwise live.
|
On June 13 2017 00:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 00:04 farvacola wrote:
You should support affordable housing and anti-gentrification efforts as well then. Absolutely not. I do not even slightly support anti-gentrification. Trying to force an area to not have increased market value is counter productive and has no long term goal. We don't gain anything by artificially allowing poor people to have some designated population density. They don't need to live in Portland when there are nearby areas they could otherwise live.
When the distance between towns is big and public transport outside the inner city is non-existent then there is no other option then to live in the expensive city.
Good luck getting Americans willing to spend on a robust public transport network that would facilitate such a thing. Their not even willing to pay for road maintenance.
|
On June 13 2017 00:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 00:04 farvacola wrote:
You should support affordable housing and anti-gentrification efforts as well then. Absolutely not. I do not even slightly support anti-gentrification. Trying to force an area to not have increased market value is counter productive and has no long term goal. We don't gain anything by artificially allowing poor people to have some designated population density. They don't need to live in Portland when there are nearby areas they could otherwise live.
If you think anti-gentrification efforts are aimed solely at artificially tamping down market values, you need to do some more research into what the affordable housing movement includes. Further, this notion that poor people would be "artificially" allowed to live in places subject to affordable housing initiatives completely ignores the extent to which commercial entities are "artificially" allowed to swallow up urban real estate and the hefty tax subsidies needed to stimulate gentrification in the first place. Most urban real estate markets are already heavily clouded with commerce friendly artificiality, so in many cases, affordable housing is merely trying to level a playing field already heavily skewed towards commercial interests, interests that do very little relative to long term neighborhood/community health. New York, Boston, and San Francisco are great examples of real estate markets on the brink of disaster due to this "let the market roll!" attitude.
|
On June 13 2017 00:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 00:07 Mohdoo wrote:On June 13 2017 00:04 farvacola wrote:
You should support affordable housing and anti-gentrification efforts as well then. Absolutely not. I do not even slightly support anti-gentrification. Trying to force an area to not have increased market value is counter productive and has no long term goal. We don't gain anything by artificially allowing poor people to have some designated population density. They don't need to live in Portland when there are nearby areas they could otherwise live. When the distance between towns is big and public transport outside the inner city is non-existent then there is no other option. Good luck getting Americans willing to spend on a robust public transport network that would facilitate such a thing. Their not even willing to pay for road maintenance.
Here's an example: My mom rents rooms in her house to college students. From her house to Portland State University, roughly centrally located in Portland, it is a 30 min bus ride. She charges $550/month including utilities etc. She often has trouble filling all her rooms because people don't want to commute that far. Can't speak for the other cities, but poor people can commute into Portland.
|
On June 13 2017 00:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 00:07 Mohdoo wrote:On June 13 2017 00:04 farvacola wrote:
You should support affordable housing and anti-gentrification efforts as well then. Absolutely not. I do not even slightly support anti-gentrification. Trying to force an area to not have increased market value is counter productive and has no long term goal. We don't gain anything by artificially allowing poor people to have some designated population density. They don't need to live in Portland when there are nearby areas they could otherwise live. If you think anti-gentrification efforts are aimed solely at artificially tamping down market values, you need to do some more research into what the affordable housing movement includes. Further, this notion that poor people would be "artificially" allowed to live in places subject to affordable housing initiatives completely ignores the extent to which commercial entities are "artificially" allowed to swallow up urban real estate and the hefty tax subsidies needed to stimulate gentrification in the first place. Most urban real estate markets are already heavily clouded with commerce friendly artificiality, so in many cases, affordable housing is merely trying to level a playing field already heavily skewed towards commercial interests, interests that do very little relative to long term neighborhood/community wealth.
So then explain to me what a community gains from anti-gentrification efforts. Portland does not have the issue Vancouver BC had where foreign investors were just buying up land. In Portland, it is just a ton of people with a lot of money who all want to live in Portland. It is purely replacing lower income people with higher income people and I am struggling to see the downside.
|
On June 13 2017 00:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 00:10 Gorsameth wrote:On June 13 2017 00:07 Mohdoo wrote:On June 13 2017 00:04 farvacola wrote:
You should support affordable housing and anti-gentrification efforts as well then. Absolutely not. I do not even slightly support anti-gentrification. Trying to force an area to not have increased market value is counter productive and has no long term goal. We don't gain anything by artificially allowing poor people to have some designated population density. They don't need to live in Portland when there are nearby areas they could otherwise live. When the distance between towns is big and public transport outside the inner city is non-existent then there is no other option. Good luck getting Americans willing to spend on a robust public transport network that would facilitate such a thing. Their not even willing to pay for road maintenance. Here's an example: My mom rents rooms in her house to college students. From her house to Portland State University, roughly centrally located in Portland, it is a 30 min bus ride. She charges $550/month including utilities etc. She often has trouble filling all her rooms because people don't want to commute that far. Can't speak for the other cities, but poor people can commute into Portland.
You don't actually save much money on commuting after you consider how much it costs to own and maintain a car.
|
On June 13 2017 00:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 00:04 farvacola wrote:
You should support affordable housing and anti-gentrification efforts as well then. Absolutely not. I do not even slightly support anti-gentrification. Trying to force an area to not have increased market value is counter productive and has no long term goal. We don't gain anything by artificially allowing poor people to have some designated population density. They don't need to live in Portland when there are nearby areas they could otherwise live.
Without rent control and affordable housing, cities become unaffordable for the people who work in them for mid-range wages. And they slowly become like San Francisco, an open air playground for the wealthy.
Also, it doesn’t need a long term goal. In the 1960s and 1970s the cities went through economic strife as people moved out of them on mass. They slowly recovered through the 80s and 90s. There is no long term perfect plan. The plans will need to change with the ebb and flow of economics. Right now they are just letting endless VC money and tech companies drive the price up with little to no benefit.
On June 13 2017 00:16 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 00:13 Mohdoo wrote:On June 13 2017 00:10 Gorsameth wrote:On June 13 2017 00:07 Mohdoo wrote:On June 13 2017 00:04 farvacola wrote:
You should support affordable housing and anti-gentrification efforts as well then. Absolutely not. I do not even slightly support anti-gentrification. Trying to force an area to not have increased market value is counter productive and has no long term goal. We don't gain anything by artificially allowing poor people to have some designated population density. They don't need to live in Portland when there are nearby areas they could otherwise live. When the distance between towns is big and public transport outside the inner city is non-existent then there is no other option. Good luck getting Americans willing to spend on a robust public transport network that would facilitate such a thing. Their not even willing to pay for road maintenance. Here's an example: My mom rents rooms in her house to college students. From her house to Portland State University, roughly centrally located in Portland, it is a 30 min bus ride. She charges $550/month including utilities etc. She often has trouble filling all her rooms because people don't want to commute that far. Can't speak for the other cities, but poor people can commute into Portland. You don't actually save much money on commuting after you consider how much it costs to own and maintain a car.
There is almost no difference between commuting from the suburbs to Boston with a car and using public transportation. I’ve done the math at least once a year for 10 years due to difference job offers and it is always the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
