Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On August 19 2023 22:22 JimmiC wrote: That just blows my mind. Our volunteer fire department has a pump truck, but it’s just used for farms. We’re small enough that our fire department is volunteers, our town coffers are full, I can’t wrap my head around this. 😂
My local volunteer department build a massive new firehouse out of a combo of full coffers and a lot of local charity.
They also built it there so they're connected to the local lake, they do have water trucks but they'll create a pool on site for any fire that needs it. Its like a kitty pool but 20ft across and inflates fast. Modern fire fighting is like half water half foam though.
On a previous convo, A well and septic tank is a huge advertising point out in the sticks. I pay 5 bucks maybe a year to put barn lime in my septic tank and $240 on getting the well pump replaced for the only money spent on it past electricity for 30 years. The US has been stun-locked into just building suburbs, and then second teir suburbs, and third teir suburbs from people who keep wanting to have their own home in the countryside but also close enough to do stuff in the city. You have to understand that its not cheaper to build up suburbs its just cheaper right now when you can get a really cheap loan for the infrastructure in the hope that your tax base catches up in the meanwhile. Suburbs will never pay for the debt but that's a 30-50 year away problem. You bank on the idea that the business's that come along with the housing will increase the tax base more than the loan you're paying. I'm sure Kwark could explain it better but in a bizarre way it does make sense.
On August 19 2023 22:22 JimmiC wrote: That just blows my mind. Our volunteer fire department has a pump truck, but it’s just used for farms. We’re small enough that our fire department is volunteers, our town coffers are full, I can’t wrap my head around this. 😂
My local volunteer department build a massive new firehouse out of a combo of full coffers and a lot of local charity.
They also built it there so they're connected to the local lake, they do have water trucks but they'll create a pool on site for any fire that needs it. Its like a kitty pool but 20ft across and inflates fast. Modern fire fighting is like half water half foam though.
On a previous convo, A well and septic tank is a huge advertising point out in the sticks. I pay 5 bucks maybe a year to put barn lime in my septic tank and $240 on getting the well pump replaced for the only money spent on it past electricity for 30 years. The US has been stun-locked into just building suburbs, and then second teir suburbs, and third teir suburbs from people who keep wanting to have their own home in the countryside but also close enough to do stuff in the city. You have to understand that its not cheaper to build up suburbs its just cheaper right now when you can get a really cheap loan for the infrastructure in the hope that your tax base catches up in the meanwhile. Suburbs will never pay for the debt but that's a 30-50 year away problem. You bank on the idea that the business's that come along with the housing will increase the tax base more than the loan you're paying. I'm sure Kwark could explain it better but in a bizarre way it does make sense.
This loan/bankruptcy idea is really memey, but its just STRONGTOWNS propaganda. Suburbs are pretty financially viable long term so long as you never let the infrastructure dorks in charge. The two suburbs I grew up in are both over 100 years old and both just finished revamping their sewer infrastructure without even issuing a special bond, and both being relatively low tax (for this state). The towns that go bankrupt are the ones that stupidly build new libraries and schools when there is a perfectly good old one, and who think they need to replace 1000 septic tanks with fancy new piping, or propose a 500 house new subdivision when demand says you need 50.
These people's biggest tell is if they start talking about monorails in a favorable way. If you meet such a person: Plan A) Make sure they never win political office; Plan B) Shoot them to save your city.
On August 19 2023 22:22 JimmiC wrote: That just blows my mind. Our volunteer fire department has a pump truck, but it’s just used for farms. We’re small enough that our fire department is volunteers, our town coffers are full, I can’t wrap my head around this. 😂
My local volunteer department build a massive new firehouse out of a combo of full coffers and a lot of local charity.
They also built it there so they're connected to the local lake, they do have water trucks but they'll create a pool on site for any fire that needs it. Its like a kitty pool but 20ft across and inflates fast. Modern fire fighting is like half water half foam though.
On a previous convo, A well and septic tank is a huge advertising point out in the sticks. I pay 5 bucks maybe a year to put barn lime in my septic tank and $240 on getting the well pump replaced for the only money spent on it past electricity for 30 years. The US has been stun-locked into just building suburbs, and then second teir suburbs, and third teir suburbs from people who keep wanting to have their own home in the countryside but also close enough to do stuff in the city. You have to understand that its not cheaper to build up suburbs its just cheaper right now when you can get a really cheap loan for the infrastructure in the hope that your tax base catches up in the meanwhile. Suburbs will never pay for the debt but that's a 30-50 year away problem. You bank on the idea that the business's that come along with the housing will increase the tax base more than the loan you're paying. I'm sure Kwark could explain it better but in a bizarre way it does make sense.
This loan/bankruptcy idea is really memey, but its just STRONGTOWNS propaganda. Suburbs are pretty financially viable long term so long as you never let the infrastructure dorks in charge. The two suburbs I grew up in are both over 100 years old and both just finished revamping their sewer infrastructure without even issuing a special bond, and both being relatively low tax (for this state). The towns that go bankrupt are the ones that stupidly build new libraries and schools when there is a perfectly good old one, and who think they need to replace 1000 septic tanks with fancy new piping, or propose a 500 house new subdivision when demand says you need 50.
These people's biggest tell is if they start talking about monorails in a favorable way. If you meet such a person: Plan A) Make sure they never win political office; Plan B) Shoot them to save your city.
The Infrastructure dorks are useually the ones that last the longest and end up hanging out together for decades. The problem with strong towns is that they don't take in the intangible parts like the extra tax base you get from having people in orbit of the housing. the problem comes with the insane developments that go on and on and suddenly a recession hits and half the homes aren't finished and a quarter of the rest are never bought.
My town doesn't have to bond any money because it has a municipal bar and liquor store
I gotta say, this wasn't the discussion I expected to find wandering back here. It's interesting.
To add some data, here's a nice interactive map showing sewer and water infrastructure for a very rural sub-region of Australia. Stats for this area are 56k pop, 41.9k km2, average density 1.3 pop/km2. The largest town is about 20k pop. I've never actually been there but their council makes nice graphs so, good on them.
The map seems pretty technical and I'm no water engineer but... blue lines are town water, orange lines are town sewer, beyond that you're on your own.
You can see that anything even remotely resembling a town has both water+sewer. See eg. Ouyen in the centre-North of the highlighted region. Population 1k and in the middle of bloody nowhere but full coverage of both.
People on the fringes of these towns will be on septic+well as there are good reserves of groundwater throughout most of eastern Aus, but the towns are communal nonetheless.
I'm pretty surprised that stuff like this is controversial in the US. I probably shouldn't be.
On August 24 2023 04:44 JimmiC wrote: What is property taxes like from a % standpoint in spots like these? I hope almost nothing.
Also, is Trump even a conservative? Wouldn't a QAnon populist be a more accurate description? Outside of the culture war stuff he is not that conservative.
Past year I had 4% property tax but my township is being annexed so we are talking maybe 5% if they don't lower it with an increased base. The big savers is the lack of water or sewage fees. I'm paying $250 a month now for solar panels but the credits give me free electricity otherwise to pump the water and a few dollars a year on a bag of barn lime for sewage.
First Republican primary debate was last night, featuring everyone but Trump. (Trump is refusing to take part in all primary debates, not sure about the general debates yet.) Debate starts at 1:13:47 timestamp, lasts around two hours.
On August 25 2023 05:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: First Republican primary debate was last night, featuring everyone but Trump. (Trump is refusing to take part in all primary debates, not sure about the general debates yet.) Debate starts at 1:13:47 timestamp, lasts around two hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccPDCzJuLgI
Was there anything worth watching it for, though? Outside of spectacle, anyway. Did any of the candidates elaborate on a position they hold, policy goals, or ideas for the direction of the country in any meaningful way?
On August 25 2023 05:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: First Republican primary debate was last night, featuring everyone but Trump. (Trump is refusing to take part in all primary debates, not sure about the general debates yet.) Debate starts at 1:13:47 timestamp, lasts around two hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccPDCzJuLgI
Was there anything worth watching it for, though? Outside of spectacle, anyway. Did any of the candidates elaborate on a position they hold, policy goals, or ideas for the direction of the country in any meaningful way?
I found nothing substantive or policy-related, but it was decently entertaining.
A few minor points of interest:
-DeSantis's solution to his lack of charisma seemed to be yelling, with mostly positive results; -Pence and Christie attacked Ramaswamy right out of the gates, which gave Ramaswamy more limelight; -Ramaswamy was crazy, charismatic, and came out swinging for everyone except for being a huge Trump simp; -Christie was firm on the anti-Trump stance, and got booed so hard that he couldn't finish his own response; -Pence invoked Jesus and Ronald Reagan, but no one cared; -Ramaswamy and DeSantis got the biggest cheers by far; -Haley had a surprisingly tempered stance on abortion for a Republican, focusing on compromise; -Moderators started off doing an average job, and then things just spiraled out of their control; -Haley got cheers for her pro-Ukraine stance, although DeSantis got cheers for his pro-Russia stance; -Haley owned Ramaswamy on foreign policy, which knocked Ramaswamy down a peg; -DeSantis wants to invade Mexico, because of drugs; -The usual school choice, God, and anti-trans rhetoric.
I think the clear winners are Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis, and everyone else can just give up their campaigns. Haley probably did third best in the debate, but honestly she's too moderate and too female to win this Republican primary. Ramaswamy will probably rise in the polls, but he'll ultimately be too non-white to beat Trump.
On August 25 2023 05:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: First Republican primary debate was last night, featuring everyone but Trump. (Trump is refusing to take part in all primary debates, not sure about the general debates yet.) Debate starts at 1:13:47 timestamp, lasts around two hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccPDCzJuLgI
I didn't watch the debate, or Trump's interview, but I did see various tweets claiming it was "the most watched interview ever."
Given that Tucker's previous interviews with the Tates are, or were the most watched interviews, it doesn't seem at all far fetched to me:
On August 25 2023 05:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: First Republican primary debate was last night, featuring everyone but Trump. (Trump is refusing to take part in all primary debates, not sure about the general debates yet.) Debate starts at 1:13:47 timestamp, lasts around two hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccPDCzJuLgI
I didn't watch the debate, or Trump's interview, but I did see various tweets claiming it was "the most watched interview ever."
Given that Tucker's previous interviews with the Tates are, or were the most watched interviews, it doesn't seem at all far fetched to me:
I was 98% sure that Trump was going to be the Republican nominee, but after this first debate and given that interview's popularity, now I'm 99% sure. Unless Trump somehow dies, he's going to win the primary. Actually, I wouldn't be totally surprised if he wins the primary even if he does die, as a write-in candidate.
On August 25 2023 09:11 micronesia wrote: Don't forget how popular and supported Nixon was until the last minute. The house of cards could come tumbling down before the primary is settled.
Nixon was still popular with the rank and file but the mainstream media refused to paint anything but a balanced picture of him and on balance he was obviously a crook. After that betrayal by the media the conservatives deliberately cultivated their own alternative truth media so they could avoid a repeat of Nixon.
On August 25 2023 05:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: First Republican primary debate was last night, featuring everyone but Trump. (Trump is refusing to take part in all primary debates, not sure about the general debates yet.) Debate starts at 1:13:47 timestamp, lasts around two hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccPDCzJuLgI
Was there anything worth watching it for, though? Outside of spectacle, anyway. Did any of the candidates elaborate on a position they hold, policy goals, or ideas for the direction of the country in any meaningful way?
I found nothing substantive or policy-related, but it was decently entertaining.
A few minor points of interest:
-DeSantis's solution to his lack of charisma seemed to be yelling, with mostly positive results; -Pence and Christie attacked Ramaswamy right out of the gates, which gave Ramaswamy more limelight; -Ramaswamy was crazy, charismatic, and came out swinging for everyone except for being a huge Trump simp; -Christie was firm on the anti-Trump stance, and got booed so hard that he couldn't finish his own response; -Pence invoked Jesus and Ronald Reagan, but no one cared; -Ramaswamy and DeSantis got the biggest cheers by far; -Haley had a surprisingly tempered stance on abortion for a Republican, focusing on compromise; -Moderators started off doing an average job, and then things just spiraled out of their control; -Haley got cheers for her pro-Ukraine stance, although DeSantis got cheers for his pro-Russia stance; -Haley owned Ramaswamy on foreign policy, which knocked Ramaswamy down a peg; -DeSantis wants to invade Mexico, because of drugs; -The usual school choice, God, and anti-trans rhetoric.
I think the clear winners are Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis, and everyone else can just give up their campaigns. Haley probably did third best in the debate, but honestly she's too moderate and too female to win this Republican primary. Ramaswamy will probably rise in the polls, but he'll ultimately be too non-white to beat Trump.
Did DeSantis actually express a genuine policy platform of invading Mexico or was it just a hyperbolic statement?
The fact I have to ask these questions should be indictment alone of the current GOP crop
On August 25 2023 09:11 micronesia wrote: Don't forget how popular and supported Nixon was until the last minute. The house of cards could come tumbling down before the primary is settled.
I mean Nixon existed at a time where propriety and norms somewhat mattered. Not that across the board those norms were necessarily better than in current year, but certain transgressions were immediately disqualifying regardless of where you sat in terms of party affiliation.
Trump is Nixon on cocaine, borderline half the country don’t particularly care about that.
On August 25 2023 05:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: First Republican primary debate was last night, featuring everyone but Trump. (Trump is refusing to take part in all primary debates, not sure about the general debates yet.) Debate starts at 1:13:47 timestamp, lasts around two hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccPDCzJuLgI
Was there anything worth watching it for, though? Outside of spectacle, anyway. Did any of the candidates elaborate on a position they hold, policy goals, or ideas for the direction of the country in any meaningful way?
I found nothing substantive or policy-related, but it was decently entertaining.
A few minor points of interest:
-DeSantis's solution to his lack of charisma seemed to be yelling, with mostly positive results; -Pence and Christie attacked Ramaswamy right out of the gates, which gave Ramaswamy more limelight; -Ramaswamy was crazy, charismatic, and came out swinging for everyone except for being a huge Trump simp; -Christie was firm on the anti-Trump stance, and got booed so hard that he couldn't finish his own response; -Pence invoked Jesus and Ronald Reagan, but no one cared; -Ramaswamy and DeSantis got the biggest cheers by far; -Haley had a surprisingly tempered stance on abortion for a Republican, focusing on compromise; -Moderators started off doing an average job, and then things just spiraled out of their control; -Haley got cheers for her pro-Ukraine stance, although DeSantis got cheers for his pro-Russia stance; -Haley owned Ramaswamy on foreign policy, which knocked Ramaswamy down a peg; -DeSantis wants to invade Mexico, because of drugs; -The usual school choice, God, and anti-trans rhetoric.
I think the clear winners are Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis, and everyone else can just give up their campaigns. Haley probably did third best in the debate, but honestly she's too moderate and too female to win this Republican primary. Ramaswamy will probably rise in the polls, but he'll ultimately be too non-white to beat Trump.
Did DeSantis actually express a genuine policy platform of invading Mexico or was it just a hyperbolic statement?
The fact I have to ask these questions should be indictment alone of the current GOP crop
He said unequivocally "Yes, and I will do it on Day 1" to a point-blank, clear question. Here's the entire 90-second clip:
On August 25 2023 05:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: First Republican primary debate was last night, featuring everyone but Trump. (Trump is refusing to take part in all primary debates, not sure about the general debates yet.) Debate starts at 1:13:47 timestamp, lasts around two hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccPDCzJuLgI
Was there anything worth watching it for, though? Outside of spectacle, anyway. Did any of the candidates elaborate on a position they hold, policy goals, or ideas for the direction of the country in any meaningful way?
I found nothing substantive or policy-related, but it was decently entertaining.
A few minor points of interest:
-DeSantis's solution to his lack of charisma seemed to be yelling, with mostly positive results; -Pence and Christie attacked Ramaswamy right out of the gates, which gave Ramaswamy more limelight; -Ramaswamy was crazy, charismatic, and came out swinging for everyone except for being a huge Trump simp; -Christie was firm on the anti-Trump stance, and got booed so hard that he couldn't finish his own response; -Pence invoked Jesus and Ronald Reagan, but no one cared; -Ramaswamy and DeSantis got the biggest cheers by far; -Haley had a surprisingly tempered stance on abortion for a Republican, focusing on compromise; -Moderators started off doing an average job, and then things just spiraled out of their control; -Haley got cheers for her pro-Ukraine stance, although DeSantis got cheers for his pro-Russia stance; -Haley owned Ramaswamy on foreign policy, which knocked Ramaswamy down a peg; -DeSantis wants to invade Mexico, because of drugs; -The usual school choice, God, and anti-trans rhetoric.
I think the clear winners are Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis, and everyone else can just give up their campaigns. Haley probably did third best in the debate, but honestly she's too moderate and too female to win this Republican primary. Ramaswamy will probably rise in the polls, but he'll ultimately be too non-white to beat Trump.
Did DeSantis actually express a genuine policy platform of invading Mexico or was it just a hyperbolic statement?
The fact I have to ask these questions should be indictment alone of the current GOP crop
EPT
